Walking around local
streets built something over a hundred years ago was an exercise not just of
the legs but the history of property.
The houses were terraced and packed in close to put as many per acre as
was compatible with the times.
But they were then sold as
leasehold with the local estate owner taking ground rents at say five pounds a
year. So a street of a hundred houses
would yield an income of five hundred a year guaranteed, a goodly sum. The freehold was retained by the estate so
when the leases expired they could determine what happened next.
Then Lloyd George and the
Liberals came along upping taxes and introducing inheritance tax. As for the houses many leases were bought by
people who put their savings into property and rented them out. But after the First World War and a housing
shortage the idea of Rent Controls took hold.
This had relatively
limited effect until the 1940's when penal taxes were imposed on "unearned
incomes". At the same time the
gradual and then more rapid inflation of prices was ahead of rent increases
allowed under the controls. Also estates
came under a variety of pressures.
So by the 1950's changes
arose. The estate owners sold off their
freeholds, no long worth much because of taxation and many of the them being
under financial pressure. Those who were
renting out faced demands for major improvement costs to put in electricity,
hot and cold water and bathrooms etc.
The result was that many
of them sold the properties for what they could get and the freeholds often
went with them. By this stage in any
event it was increasingly common for builders to sell new houses freehold both for marketing and
profit.
After the Second World War
there was again a serious housing shortage and the State had to intervene to
allow local authorities to expand the building programmes they had been
providing since the 1920's and housing was a major election issue.
There was relatively
little private investment in new rental housing because of the effect of rent
controls and the demand for better equipped and more spacious housing promoted
again by the state. Ordinary savings
went elsewhere and it was a sector that people with disposable wealth were
advised to shun.
It came to be assumed that
only the state and local authorities could build and manage social housing and
it was central to much of the business of local and central politics with all
the disadvantages of this, notably corruption and malpractice.
To add to this the recent history
of property law is a very complicated area and there has been no shortage of change
or legislation, both in 1993 and 2002.
It is not just the weight of history that hangs heavy it is that of the
recent burdens put upon the market.
Also what is going on does
not match up with what is assumed. Land
Registry figures are quoted as reliable, but for some time there have been
numbers of property transactions not registered. Also, some that are registered may not be
owned by whoever is named, particularly in many leasehold properties.
In the USA it is known
what happened when the security for mortgages was taken and used in various
ways as financial products for a variety of purposes. The situation in the UK
is much less clear due to the bailing out of so many banks etc.
The need to keep the
property market active and the prices rising may be driven by the potentially
catastrophic potential of the consequences of securitisation of mortgage assets
by major banks who may not know who now has title to the securities.
In leasehold developments
the complexities have meant that who is supposed to be the freeholder is not
the person who controls the money or has title.
These too may have been bundled and used as financial products in a
chain of activity. After the recent
crash it is possible that many titles might have been lost.
The property market is not
a simple whole, it is many sided with many margins and pressures and activity
on those margins. But these can
interact. For example in one minor part
we are no longer exporting so many pensioners to foreign markets, in fact we
are re-importing many of those from the past.
Add to that the imports of the elderly joining recently arrived incomers
from extended families and you have a reversal in this sector.
There have been other
significant shifts at other margins in the market with the effect that it has
become tighter and more difficult both to understand and manage. This is not going to work out well. There are too many pressures on the too many
pressure points at the same time.
Inevitably, there are
calls for more state action. This is all
too likely to add to the burdens, costs and problems we already have.
"This is all too likely to add to the burdens, costs and problems we already have."
ReplyDeleteChange "all too likely" to "certain" and I'll agree with you!