By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Keith pattinson
3390  Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Keith's Recent Activity

Keith pattinson
There are many aspects of concern,especially,mainly well intended Government actions can have adverse results. Selling Council houses reduced stock,at same time local authority building has plummeted from over 100,000 to less than 10,000. Housing Associations buy discounted "affordable" homes to rent,but tenants will be able to buy at discount in future,reducing available stock,the owner occupiers and private landlords having indirectly subsidised them,as the builders base their viability on costs of social housing. The continued landlord bashing,and increasing costs will reduce the properties going to those who now provide for people who choose to rent. A landlord with income coming from a number of properties is more likely to be able to cover the mortgages,when one tenant loses their job,so I cannot see why put restraint on bank lending,against their interests. An owner losing job,or self employed taking ill,suffering bad debts is vulnerable. There was mortgage protection and indemnity insurance,but borrowers lose their homes when unable to pay mortgage. The banks some time ago were told to put pressure on small builders who had land,to speed up supply,again hitting small entrepreneur. There are numerous examples of large companies,serving areas essential to the economy like electricity,gas,water or food like Nestle being taken over by companies that avoid paying tax here,yet have Government support.Costs of electricity etc have soared again also through Government levying on climate change,which is paid by public through increased charges and given to a minority.The Government virtually state their intentions to oust small landlords in favour of corporates. Targetting a group of small suppliers by licencing costs,stamp duty increases,taxation changes on interest treatment,as well as capital gains instantly taxed indicates Government agenda. On letting side ,making it harder to remove bad tenants protects the bad tenants against the good landlords and tenants who will not trash properties.Talk of rent controls is unsettling as removing these made renting viable.Small landlords should be encouraged since they filled the gap.There are no longer the Rachman type bad landlords as good tenants have choices. Reducing supply will increase rents through supply and demand The writing is on the wall,and many wise people have already got out,interestingly often to investors from Far East,who will continue to earn from tax payers who will pay them rent,but the buyers will pay almost no tax.Local authorities start building to rent again or at least improve existing,instead of Pathfinder schemes clearing the 1950's estates and building to same density with smaller houses,indeed I wonder when figures of new houses built are released why not deduct those cleared to give net figure Understand Government agenda, sell now if geared,is my advice,and would seem to be the Governments if they were asked,and were honest..Certainly stop buying to let,as currently can liquidate,but when money supply drops and especially if/when interest rates rise,prices will fall.There is a need to control price escalation,I agree as already we are vulnerable to a collapse. Sadly will anyone take notice! PS.Look at Commercial Property recent history ,no lending available as called toxic loans,so no investment,or capital to refurbish.Towns and City Centres dying through high council taxes closing businesses.

From: Keith pattinson 11 December 2015 11:33 AM

MovePal MovePal MovePal