You are reading a single comment by @aggi and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • Probably not.

    Less landlords mean potentially more properties for homeowners, of which there is a shortage so that could be positive.
    However, fewer private landlords (or replacement for those landlords leaving the market selling to homeowners) in the absence of social houses and rent mean that the demand for rental properties become even worse than it is now.
    rapid increases in rental prices due to increased demand.
    Any attempt to cap this will mean more landlords sell, reducing rental housing stock which further increases demand.

    I know that a couple of family homes came up for rental near where I am where they had over 30 viewings booked.

    Plenty of shit landlords out there who should be pushed out the market, but this might result in the crap landlords & HMO landlords who don’t spend money to look after the properties and their tenants being the only ones left with enough of a return to stay in the BTL market.

  • Isn't there a finite number of people though. Renters become homeowners in this scenario.

  • I'm not sure that's right. I get the aspiration behind the policy and those that have come before it but some people will always rent, they are either not in a position financially or psychologically in being able to take responsibility for a mortgage or their own property.

    It is they who are gonna end up getting fked over by this in the long run.

    Makes no odds to me I am not a landlord.

  • Only if 100% mortgages come back. Renters need a deposit, which becomes harder when rents become higher. Also stamp duty relief for first time buyers is reducing earlier too.

    There are some lenders doing 100% rental history backed mortgages, and lending up to 6x income in some cases, but outside of criteria for many renters at present.

About

Avatar for aggi @aggi started