Expo 2011: Buy to let should be regulated - Precise

Please leave BTL alone!!! We have had the industry fit residential regulations? Cost for the consumer has gone up, the lending has slowed down, perfectly good clients are denied mortgages, due to straight jacket income assement,etc. How will regulating BTL protect the tenants? Are we regulating lending or getting involved in landlord/tenant relations? We need to simplify regulation and have guidelines,etc. All need to behave responsibly!

The first thing is where there is a market that is showing signs of recovery don’t change it don’t interfere with it leave it alone to continue to make recovery. Regulation has shown to cause cost increases and decreases of choice landlords run a business not a charity they would have no choice but to pass on increased costs. Even if regulation was imposed how would this protect the tenant exactly a lender would still repossess if the landlord failed to pay it has not stopped the lender repossessing residential properties now so how would this be a benefit. BTL should go the totally opposite way and become a totally commercial transaction it would then be easer for loss making companies and administrators to sell off the commercial assets this may even benefit the tenant by not being made homeless. Alan Cleary clearly has his own agenda and trying to position the market to meet it, there is no real concern over the well being of tenants.

Those who speak in favour of regulating Buy Tl Let MOrtgages are perhaps not aware of the ground realities. It is very difficult for even those earning more than £50000 Per Yr to get a second residential mortgage based on current affordability calculation of most lenders. Regulating Buy To Let will wipe out the only route for creating a pension pot for our old age. Buy To Let is currently a very important service and is helping reduce the housing shortage. Wake Up and Please leave Buy To Let alone. This is the only goood thing about the market in today,s dismal world of mortgage market

I fail to see how regulating BTL will safeguard, in any way, a tenant from an unfortunate landlord failing to pay the mortgage or from filing bankruptcy. How does these circumstance currently apply for business tenants of non-residential property? There seems to be a plethora or rules protecting the residential tenant. Are there enough protecting the landlord?

Alan Cleary talking rot yet again but we are used to it by now. As stated before he has his own agenda and is so far up himself that he cannot see the stupidity of his comments. Buy to lets are commercial transactions bought for profit, and regulation would strangle the market of innovation and choice. If you feel tenants need protection, then that is a much more specific point that will not be assisted by regulating the sale of a mortgage contract to the Landlord, particularly an unscrupulous one which is what one should be concernbed with.

Handing over authority to those who already apply an ageist agenda and who show little understanding of how "interest only" is usually the most suitable mortgage (providing it is flexible for capital repayments) would probably finish off the housing market.