Government to concentrate on BTL?

coastline

chucknorris wrote: »

I've been looking at annuities recently (single, index linked. not enhanced) and from what I have seen they only pay about £4,250. Do you have a source for that £6,000?

only looked at the level examples..

http://www.hl.co.uk/pensions/annuities/annuity-best-buy-rates

chucknorris

coastline wrote: »

only looked at the level examples..

http://www.hl.co.uk/pensions/annuities/annuity-best-buy-rates

Ahh I see, level is no good (not for me anyway) as inflation eats into it.

Graham_Devon

Well heres the report.

I'm not too sure what to make of the proposals at the moment, as it says this, which kind of says it all to me:

"We're determined to encourage greater investment in the build-to-let market and boost the country's private rented sector, which plays an integral role in meeting the nation's housing needs and aspirations," said housing minister Grant Shapps.

"A major part of this is to attract and encourage new players to the market, while at the same time avoiding the excessive regulation that would force up rents and reduce choice for tenants."

So it seems Shapps is focusing on less regulation for the rental sector, while trying to get more people involved in investing in it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19348351

Yes, I will admit, this goes against everything that many of us have been saying on here for a while and is quite a dissapointment.

I don't think more BTL landlords and less regulation solves anything?! Infact it goes against so many reports out there from various industries. They only seem to have listened to the BTL industry on this one.

So overall, seems to suggest building less affordable housing to buy, and more to be placed in the hands of private landlords. Insanity...

Wouldn't mind it so much if it suggested build to rent, and also long term tenancies with rpi caps or something, but it doesn't seem to.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So it seems Shapps is focusing on less regulation for the rental sector, while trying to get more people involved in investing in it?

i haven't read the report, but the bit that you have quoted doesn't say that they are seeking to reduce regulation, instead it states that they will avoid "excessive regulation" but they don't say such "excessive regulation" actually exists, and given that there is currently almost no regulation at all (is there in fact any regulation other than HMO and deposits?) it seems to me that what they are saying is that they won't introduce more regulation (e.g. landlord registration etc).

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i haven't read the report, but the bit that you have quoted doesn't say that they are seeking to reduce regulation, instead it states that they will avoid "excessive regulation" but they don't say such "excessive regulation" actually exists, and given that there is currently almost no regulation at all (is there in fact any regulation other than HMO and deposits?) it seems to me that what they are saying is that they won't introduce more regulation (e.g. landlord registration etc).

The earlier proposals had proposals from places like Shelter, "something" for commuitees etc that stated they would be very happy to see such a scheme, so long as current regulation is looked at.

It seems the above is a direct response from Shapps saying the regulation will not be looked at....

That's just how I'm reading it.

Shelters response:

And homeless charity Shelter said that while it welcomed the report's recognition of "the need for more and better quality homes for people to rent", it had "missed a trick" in not addressing the current state of the sector.

Shelter said the report "offered nothing for the millions of people already in the sector, paying sky-high rents and living under constant threat of eviction or further rent rises".

I know people hate shelter on here, but I wanted to put what I beleive the context is when Shapps highlights the lack of regulation. He makes a large point of it.

I'm assuming nothing would be done on the regulation side as it would put the investors off investing?

Graham_Devon

It's just been discussed on the local radio station.

Apparently the report suggests that councils and government could donate the land to the institutional investors (pension companies etc) and in return, offer lower risk and a share of the profits when the houses are sold (though they should be rented for at least 10 years).

There is land for approximately 100,000 houses, for which planning permission restrictions could be waived and permission granted.

Seems bizzare that the government has land for 100,000 houses ready to go that they can just waiver usual planning regs on, AND donate this land. Where has this land come from? Why couldn't the same apply to building truly affordable houses for families!?

The overall concensus appears to be that housebuilding is welcome, but not at the cost of tradional building for young families, especially when it seems land is suddenly and can be donated for institutional investors, but not for families wanting to secure their futures.

CLAPTON

Getting rid of the 'affordable' home target will be a sensible move.
There never has been any logic why a struggling first time home buyer of a new build should also subsidise a council/social tenant.

Social housing should be funded by all taxpayers and not people that purchase new build properties.

The current scheme makes new builds more expensive than they need be and so reduces the number build to the detriment of all.