In the Community

Why did Charlie change his name from Charlie Wright to Charlie Lamdin?

Be the first to comment

Be the first to comment

BTL mortgage lender! Not much business out there these days. If they got behind LL’s their nose diving loan book might improve. Instead, they choose to load on conditions in a falling market. They can go and do one!

Be the first to comment

Great information!!

Be the first to comment

Be the first to comment

Be the first to comment

Be the first to comment

roof repairs ipswitch

Be the first to comment

2.8 million new instructions- who wants some? While preparing a submission for the at the time unannounced CLG inquiry in PRS (CLG only told their friends) I did some number crunching in the hope of adding a positive input into a department that is seemingly bereft of any experience of the Private rented sector and almost allergic to anyone who has. I identified that a 100,000 tenancy provision by private landlords into the assisted tenancy market (pensions and benefits) was worth approaching £1 billion to landlords. One hundred thousand tenancies was a deliberately small percentage ; an easy , appropriately sized sample to make the point rather than a scientifically calculated figure. It represented about 1.4% of the middle ground between PRS and social housing that many agencies and landlords steer clear of. Subsequent research (discussion) shows that about 40% of assisted tenants are no worse at paying their rent than anyone else. Essentially what that means is that there is an additional £28 billion rental opportunity for those prepared to engage the sector. Increasing the PRS provision by up to by 70% is surely a good start in solving the housing crisis. It will obviously put a large rental income in the pocket of those who can afford to buy to rent out, it will put a large commission income in the pockets of those servicing the industry but moreover it will add the incentive to have another 2.8 million private rented sector properties available to ease the housing crisis. Obviously that will leave the remaining 60% of the sector to house but it seems reasonable that government doesn’t attempt to privatise their entire housing obligation, such schemes tend to lead to civil unrest. There will be natural envy at the rich seemingly exploiting the poor, I am not getting into the social ethics of a solution, simply suggesting how a set of government departments could set about solving issues in an industry they don’t properly understand.