Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
I’d be careful before crying victory. This most likely means those houses will be bought by PE, not individual buyers. The end result will be higher prices still.
In a lot of European countries, small private landlords are relatively rare and apartments are owned and let out by corporations that own (and in many cases build) entire developments, like Deutsche Wohnung in Berlin. Given that continental Europe typically has a more stringent regulatory environment than the Anglo-American world, this does not end up with the sort of predatory monopolies one sees in the US where private equity have cornered regional markets, and the landlord companies have support desks and maintenance contractors that can be more responsive and professional than your typical small landlord.
what a majority actually wants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Wohnen_&_Co._enteignen
I wish the US had something like Art. 15 of the German Constitution. As for the UK, we are lucky in this regard with the flexibility our lack of rigid constitution offers
not a constitution until the people voted on it
so the US Constitution is not a constitution? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Economic_Interpretation_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States#Historiography
i didn’t say that but the german grundgesetzt specifies it’s valid until the german population votes on a constitution
Thats just the replacement mechanism isn’t it? Or is it de jure a provisional constitution which was just kept?
it was put in place under occupation by the western allies after ww2
They should be forced to give their tenants an offer to form a union and purchase the property before they’re allowed to sell it to someone else.
Yup. This sounds like the perfect opportunity for some kind of housing cooperative. You’d just need to find someone to provide the initial capital to buy the houses
A civil union? I mean, I suppose you wouldn’t want a really rude union… ;-)
How would having lower demand increase prices?
Artificial scarcity got hands
Why would PE buy them if not to rent & be subject to the same renter’s bill of rights? Holding a vacant house isn’t a good 😊 investment, they have upkeep costs, are subject to property taxes, and depreciate faster when unoccupied.
This is in many cases demonstrably false. PE is holding on to vacant properties all over the US, and sometimes don’t mind holding them for years unoccupied, waiting for a redevelopment opportunity
As well as holding onto housing stock to maintain a local monopoly.
It isn’t as big a deal when you know any potential renter will be renting from you regardless of it is this unit or that unit. They are still forced to be your customer and you don’t have to compete with lower prices from another landlord.
Fair enough, it does happen. Relevant background: https://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news/investors-hold-most-empty-houses
I’d argue my sentiment remains, investors for the most part rent out property, they don’t typically hold it vacant. When they do it’s more likely vacancies are transitory (trying to find a renter) than long term and intentionally kept vacant.
For the most part, until it’s more profitable for them not to. It’s never done to the benefit of people who need a place to live.
Why? This will increase supply of housing available to buy and reduce the supply available to rent. So house prices will go down slightly, and rents will go up slightly.
Because there isn’t a free market in housing anymore, they’ve all been caught colluding to keep pricing up even when there’s a huge glut of available units/houses in an area. They have been caught using apps to do it, and when faced with threats to stop that practice were found to use traditional means to collude. The free market is a myth in 2026, stop believing in fairy tales. Ayn Rand was a charlatan and capital isn’t going to ever be allowed to work for the poors.
I think you’re thinking of a case in the USA that colluded on rental prices? I don’t know of any evidence that there is collusion on house prices in the UK. People separately talk about investment companies buying up housing in the US as if that will have much impact on prices, but the proportion of housing under discussion is miniscule and unlikely to have any effect on prices - at least, outside of limited areas.
I’m guessing at what you’re referring to here so feel free to get specific. But cases in the USA are not that relevant to the UK, where the government is far more willing to enforce free market conditions than the “free market” idiotlogues in America who think that you can have a free market without regulation.
Oh, so it only hurts the poorest and benefits those who can already afford to buy? How uplifting.
The Renters Rights Act overall benefits renters by making sure they can do such shocking things as keep a pet and make requests of the landlord without being evicted in revenge. This imposes a restriction on landlords, which amounts to a “cost” (in the sense of cost/benefit, not necessarily monetary) which means it was inevitable some would sell up. That part - landlords selling - does hurt the poorest, at least in the short term.
However, the effect will be small in the long run: because houses for sale will increase a bit in supply, those prices will come down, enabling more people to exit the rental market. That will bring down prices at the top of the rental market, and eventually a portion of the decrease in house prices will feed through to a mitigation (not a reversal) of the increase in rents at the bottom of the rental sector as well. So a small effect to begin with (because it’s not like 50% of landlords will sell up without being replaced) and mitigated because while there’s no perfect exchange between the rental and owner-occupied sectors, there is some exchange.
It’s therefore a small price to pay for basic standards of decency for renters.
The true mitigation will come from building more social and affordable housing. The government has committed to do this but has so far abjectly failed, like many governments before them.