Speaking on the lender panel at Expo 2011, Cleary said that all residential property loans should fall under regulation and argued it would not disproportionately hit lending or increase costs.
He said: “I would regulate any loan that includes residential property. I don’t get why one person who owns a property is protected, where the person renting next door is not. There is inequality. Tenants could be funding the rent, but get evicted because the landlord has not paid the mortgage.”
Speaking on the same lender panel, Paragon’s head of sales Andrew Lees agreed that tenants should be protected more from being evicted through no fault of their own.
However, he maintained that buy to let should not fall under regulatory rules intended for residential transactions, arguing it would reduce the number of lenders prepared to lend in the buy-to-let market, restrict choice and increase costs that would ultimately be shouldered by tenants.
Yet, Peter Curran, head of intermediary distribution at Lloyds, said: “I don’t think the impact of buy-to-let regulation will be as significant as feared. Brokers are already aware of how to present a case to lenders and they will adapt.
“Buy to let is one of the few markets to show signs of growth and that will continue.”
