Shelter calls for 90,000 affordable homes to rent to be built EVERY year

Shelter (who don’t provide shelter to anyone) should lead by example.

Come on Shelter, get building.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 02/05/2024 - 08:01
I was thinking that too

90,000 homes .. well that should just about cover the illegal immigration then.

I agree that Shelter should lead by example and actually use their money (much of which comes from government i.e. from the taxpayer) to put a roof over somebody's head. Provided that they achieved a better standard than many social housing providers they would then at least (a) have some credibility (b) know what they were talking about.

it costs £126,000 to £300,000 to build a 3- bed house in the UK. So let's say an average build cost of around £200K (it's higher in London of course). So that's 18 billion pounds every year. No UK government would have the money to fund that along with all the other social spending that they think governments should pay for...especially not a labour or SNP government. Particularly once they've evicted all those non-doms and of course not raised any tax by doing it because the non-doms will up-sticks and move to Monaco, Switzerland or the gulf states.

The only way that you can provide that kind of housing is with the help of private industry, e.g. the PRS (which is financed by the financial services industry, many PRS properties being leveraged). If you attack it you won't have the money or the housing...there's a bit of a lesson for Shelter and governments to learn there to start with starting with the failed social experiment in rent control in Scotland.

But if you want to build on this scale quickly the only place that you can get that money is via the UK pensions industry. Many UK people would invest their pensions in this provided the investment remained secure...it is of course why many small landlords are invested in buy-to-let property...to supplement their pensions. And at the moment you are allowed to invest your SIPP or your SSAS in commercial property but not residential property.

The reason we were given years ago for not being allowed to invest our SIPPS and SSAS funds in residential property is that we didn't want another housing boom followed by a bust. But apparently there does need to be another housing boom because Shelter thinks that UK governments should build 90,000 homes every year.

At the very least somebody should sort out the EPC system so that it's no longer a corrupt, self-serving racket for selling cavity wall insulation and becomes a meaningful system to enable tenants, landlords and owner occupiers to understand something useful about the energy performance of their properties before they buy or rent; and having done that the UK governments should also, at the very least, allow us to invest our SIPPs and SSAS schemes in energy efficient residential property.

At the moment you are prevented from renting a buy-to-let property below band D. All that this policy does is restrict supply and choice and it's not useful. But on the other hand if EPC band A meant something and it indicated that the property was carbon neutral or at least highly energy efficient, then being able to invest your pension in that would be socially and environmentally useful.

But morally-bankrupt hard-left politicians and organisations like Shelter are unlikely to go for that because they are not interested in real world solutions. Courting tenants and tenants' organisations has got nothing to do with housing them....they have a different political agenda because they are dependent upon having an electorate that is not free and is dependent upon their flavour of government.

In the forthcoming election the party that has the wit to understand that attacking landlords does not benefit tenants and that being able to directly invest your SIPP in energy-efficient residential property would benefit both UK citizens and the environment is the party that would do most for the electorate and the planet.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 02/05/2024 - 10:57
I think I'd slightly dispute your build costs...but even if it's 125k on average to build a 2 bed semi ( or similar) then you're looking at £10B plus a year....fanciful stuff

Plus the rents to cover those costs would need to be market rate to pay back the borrowing...'affordable' housing is a myth im afraid

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 02/05/2024 - 10:57Why does it have to be a costly 3 bed house? In other countries a small studio flat counts as adequate shelter.
Let’s not forget even the poorest in this country are wealthy by comparison to those living in the slums of many other countries who cannot afford the luxury of a modern flat.

Come on Shelter, Generation Rent etc., put your money where your mouth is. Talk is cheap. Help to improve the crisis rather than make it worse. I'm soon going to be a Landlord no more. Our really decent last tenants need an extra bedroom to look after very sick relative. Under better circumstances I would have purchased them a suitable property to rent, they don't wish to purchase but sadly I've had enough of being an evil Landlord. Never had a tenant complain about anything as I was very hands on to sort things out. But that's life.

Step 1 say private landlords are bad.
Step 2 force them out of market.
Step 3 say market doesn't work.
Step 4 ask government to buy houses.

Step 5 now that landlords are nationalised move onto nationalising next industry

I assume they are changing tack now they have destroyed small landlords - need someone else to blame now.

Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 02/05/2024 - 10:14
I was about to say that. Question for Shelter... Should illegal migrants and asylum seekers be given housing priority over Britain's homeless?