Jump to content

House Prices


idun
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As I understand it, and it's what I've been told by various people, it's been a licence to print money (and build houses) for some time. Again, what friends and neighbours have said is that many of the lotissements springing  up like weeds have been built on the basis that there is a ready supply of willing renters, many of whom can't afford to pay the full rent, but as the govt will subsidise them up to the level of the market rent, everyone's a winner (except possibly the taxpayer). Funny, isn't it? I think I can see a bit of a parallel with the odd comment earlier in this thread....

And let's not overlook the difficulty that many French landlords might encounter if they should decide to sell up. It's not always so easy to get tenants to leave on demand!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there also a scheme where the landlord gains some sort of advantage ( perhaps in interest rates) if they guarantee to rent to social tenants for a set period ?

It sounds as if I know quite an assortment of people but a french friend who was a landlord in France recently sold up - too much hassle. If rents are capped and current landlords sre unhappy, how many others will do the same at the first opportunity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of rent-controlled property has been built in France under various government schemes, (de Robien, Scellier, to name just two). The basis of all of these was that the private individual investor received a significant tax advantage - eg in the case of de Robien, IIRC you were able to claim back most if not all of the purchase price of the property over 9 (?) years against your tax bill. In return for this, the level of rent was capped and IIRC the property HAD to be let to people with incomes not greater than a certain limit. Now, the most recent iteration of this scheme (Scellier) was (comparatively) less advantageous, and IIRC Hollande has put in place a cap on the amount that can be claimed per year in this way.

However, from what I read a couple of years ago, the result of this has been:

Builders seemed to charge more for these properties than they could get for other developments that were not in the schemes;

Although many (most?) were built in areas of high demand, some were built were the demand was low (I recall coming across some estates that were built and after 3 years had still not been occupied, putting the tax break at risk).

Possibly OT, but although "bad housing" and "bad landlords" exist in both France and the UK, the existing laws in both countries are quite sufficient (in both cases the law is very much in the favour of the tenant - perticularly in France): but where problems occur it seems that the problem is that the laws are not enforced enough. Recent laws in the UK (eg on tenancy deposits) have increased the costs for landlords, yet unscrupulous landlords, operating illegally, still get round the law. Similarly with requirements on repairs etc: the rules are there, decent landlords respect them and a small minority don't - and get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people aren't happy that non-residents will have to pay, along with normal tax, the 15.5% social charges on their French rental income (when they see it that they don't benefit from anything that these social charges cover, not living in France and maybe even never having lived in France) and that these charges are not considered a tax by HMRC and so are not deductable as 'tax paid' when their UK tax bill is worked out.  That's probably what was meant by things getting harder?  This change happened last year so the bills will be rolling in this year.  On the other side, the question of whether you pay tax and social charges on UK rental income which is less than your UK personal tax allowance when you are resident in France remains unclear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Debra"]  On the other side, the question of whether you pay tax and social charges on UK rental income which is less than your UK personal tax allowance when you are resident in France remains unclear.

[/quote]

We could be in that position next year. It seems illogical that when your income drops you have to pay more french tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is exactly the plan in France at the moment, pensioners, who usually have a drop in income when they retire, don't they, will no longer have a 10% abattement on their pensions and means that their tax bill in France will go up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently social charges are not payable on UK rental income under the 'double tax treaty'. However the article hints that this may change for expat landlords who pay no UK tax on this due to the tax allowances available.

I see this as clutching at straws in attempt to screw every last centime out of those seen as wealthy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="DraytonBoy"]Currently social charges are not payable on UK rental income under the 'double tax treaty'. [/quote]Not quite correct.  They are chargeable but a credit for all French tax is supposed to be given if the income was 'subject to tax' in the UK.  It is the definition of this phrase which is under query.  Other double taxation treaties use it to mean 'tax has been paid on' the income rather than that it has been assessed for tax and tax may or may not have been charged because of personal tax allowances and it's this definition of tax having been paid on the income that the French would obviously prefer to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Banks operate in a competetive environment that governments encouraged because the belief is that competition is good for the consumer. However it is Government that should dictate regulation that limits the boundaries of competition. 110% mortgages and self certificated mortgages should be banned by regulation. The problem with that is that in a democracy it would be political suicide to implement. Remember two things about mortgage lending and the ensuing carnage. People should bare some responsibility for wether or not they can afford something. Secondly the explosion of credit to low credit scoring individuals was implement vociferously by the socialist Clinton in 1998 when he told Fannie Mae to accept poor credit score mortgages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woolybanna, you can't take both sides of the supply and demand argument by saying buy to let pushes up house prices AND increases rental costs. The former increases rental supply which doesnt push rental prices up.

Be critical by all means, but be rational too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure that is legal. changing living rooms in to bedrooms etc and using the property has an HMO (House of Multiple Occupancy) requires certain things under law for health and safety plus a certificate to be a HMO. All doors must be fire proofed, centralised fire alarm system with sensors in every room, hall, landing and stairs plus heat sensors in kitchen areas. There must also be a secondary evacuation route. So all in all unless he converts these houses, which requires the permission of the owners, then I think he is doing something illegal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Quillan"]I am not sure that is legal. changing living rooms in to bedrooms etc and using the property has an HMO (House of Multiple Occupancy) requires certain things under law for health and safety plus a certificate to be a HMO. All doors must be fire proofed, centralised fire alarm system with sensors in every room, hall, landing and stairs plus heat sensors in kitchen areas. There must also be a secondary evacuation route. So all in all unless he converts these houses, which requires the permission of the owners, then I think he is doing something illegal.[/quote]

It is not legal if it creates an HMO. And yes, subletting is generally not allowed in the contract. But that's the problem - it is happening and when (if) it is reported, then if action is taken, the tenants lose their home, the landlord faces court action and fines, and the sub-letter (?) gets away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two blocks of flats in Dundee have been demolished and the reason:

The tower blocks were built in 1971 but the 374 flats became increasingly difficult to let over the years and were declared surplus by Dundee City Council.

How desperate are people for accommodation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Dundee having one of the highest rates of unemployment in the whole of Scotland (third worst), I wonder who may be tempted to move there, rather than move away? I can quite see that there might be a fair amount of surplus housing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...