At 12:48 31/10/2010, you wrote:
>I'd agree that the effect of high housing benefits could mean that =
>landlords
>feel safe to raise rents - but isn't there another problem?
>There was a huge boom in buy-to-rent accommodation, based on high rents =
>-
>and last year stories of tenants being thrown out of private rental
>accommodation because the banks had foreclosed.
>
>How many landlords will be able to reduce rents? And is the supply of
>housing sufficient to force a reduction?
>
>Mary Hawking
Non-payment without alternative accommodation is quite an incentive
for landlords to be sensible.
Over inflated prices as well as over inflated rentals are going to be
hit, and this would seem a brave but overall extremely sensible move
by the coalition - which doesn't preclude the need to "tweak" the
policy to avoid the many pitfalls.
Buy to let is a gamble, not a guarantee of endless
prosperity. Investing / gambling borrowed money (not surplus wealth)
was always identified to me as one of the root causes of the great depression.
Those who rent out property deserve a fair return - for the
investment, for the risk, and for the work - but not banker type exorbitance.
Julian
|