Tuesday, Feb 17, 2015

A first for the Telegraph - an old favourite here

Telegraph: Landlords to blame for Britain's rising house prices

Buy-to-let Britain is limiting choice for first time home buyers as 'investors' eat up supply at the lower end of the market.

Posted by enuii @ 08:03 PM (5802 views)
Add Comment
Report Article

13 Comments

1. libertas said...

NOT TRUE. My experience is that landlords collude with Estate Agents to defraud vendors into accepting lower offers. Agents manipulate sales away from owner occupiers. They have plenty of means. They then cut a deal with a BTL investor who agrees to let via their lettings department. The Agent, despite getting a lower sales commission, secures the firm ongoing letting fees.

NEVER allow "your" Agent to sell to a BTL investor, or at least vet them to ensure there is no connection. Indeed, have the Agent sign an agreement that they will not rent out your property within a certain period of selling it for you.

We lost out on a number of properties to BTL investors despite offering more cash. In one case, the Agent was dealing with our mortgage brokerage (big mistake) and they cancelled a valuation survey from Nationwide without our knowledge, meaning that we did not get our survey in first, yet it was agreed that the first person to get a survey bagged got the property.

THERE SHOULD BE A LAW against Estate Agents letting out properties they sell within two years of selling the property with other provisions to further embolden protection for vendors.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015 01:23AM Report Comment
 

2. Thecountofnowhere said...

The devious propaganda continues....

Wednesday, February 18, 2015 09:06AM Report Comment
 

3. Mqsp said...

But....is that not wanton over regulation Libertas?

Or does the theory only apply when YOUR interests are threatened?

Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:30AM Report Comment
 

4. mister ed said...

@1 "THERE SHOULD BE A LAW against Estate Agents letting out properties they sell within two years of selling the property with other provisions to further embolden protection for vendors."

Wouldn't that be contrary to the principles of unfettered free-market capitalist libertarianism?

I think we should be told.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015 12:23PM Report Comment
 

5. hpwatcher said...

Housing should be rationed. No single person should own more than 3 houses. Simple.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015 01:47PM Report Comment
 

6. libertas said...

mister ed. Fraud blocks free markets. Yes, it is somewhat Soviet to restrict all because of a minority, but in this circumstance, this defrauding of vendors and owner / occupiers is so widespread and the temptations so high, that it should be regulated.

This is no different to the separation between retail and investment banking that many Libertarians seek, bemoaning the repeal of the Glast Eagle Act in USA.

It is similar to the regulations that stop me, as an Employee of one Local Council taking on private clients within the Council I work for. It is similar to requiring that politicians declare donations and do not receive donations from foreigners, since the temptation to be a foreign agent would be overwhelming.

This would regulate away a major conflict of interest that is reducing competition in the market. There will still be ample supply of letting and estate agencies, but they will both compete for market share with one another rather than jockeying the sell to live market to prop up their BTL portfolios.

Libertarianism is not absent the rule of law, and what the Agencies are doing here is fraud and is already considered malpractice and illegal, which is why their methodologies are so subtle and hard to spot.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015 01:49PM Report Comment
 

7. libertas said...

It is the reason why Estate Agents are required by law to pass on offers to vendors. But I claim that is not enough.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015 01:50PM Report Comment
 

8. mister ed said...

@4

So you're saying we need the rule of law to stop powerful vested interests from taking advantage of those in a weaker position, and to create equality of opportunity.

That's not libertarianism -- at least not the stuff I often hear spouted from other people who call themselves "libertarians".

A free-market capitalist society which also has laws to curtail the excesses of the free market usually goes under another name. It's called Burkean Conservatism. Or just plain old "Conservatism".

Unfortunately strutting into a party and announcing that you're a "Conservative" doesn't quite sound as sexy as saying "I'm a free-market libertarian", which is why most people opt for the latter label, even though it's plainly untrue.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015 02:14PM Report Comment
 

9. pete green said...

Fraud, many other anti competitive issues and monopoly, land being the 'mother of all monopolies' are the problems with or economy and the politics of much of both libertarianism and conservatism. When both those political forces can put foward practical solutions to these issues then I would support them. In there current guise they are as bad as each other and very dangerous.

Thursday, February 19, 2015 10:33AM Report Comment
 

10. sibley's b'stard child said...

Just one of many reasons for our stupid prices. Move along, nothing to see.

Thursday, February 19, 2015 10:36AM Report Comment
 

11. libertas said...

I would not call your local Estate Agent and BTL investor "powerful vested interests"

I think Vendors need protection from FRAUD by not allowing Estate Agents to let properties they sell within two years of selling them, because they consistently manipulate sales away from owner / occupiers and defraud vendors into accepting sales at lower prices.

(Fraud is the antithesis of Libertarianism).

AGAIN, I have to deal with numbskull responses from a bunch of idiots incapable of discussing the injustice of this that I have observed, which is why you all live like slaves.

Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:18AM Report Comment
 

12. sibley's b'stard child said...

I think we'd be more idiotic humouring your paranoid rants. Besides which, I thought you were leaving this place in peace?

Thursday, February 19, 2015 12:09PM Report Comment
 

13. bidin'matime said...

This is an interesting point - if every agent has a handful of BTL clients, to whom they offer the pick of the suitable properties, then it is indeed a fraud on their vendor clients. No doubt if we put this to the RICS or whoever, they would say that they would act if there was evidence, but that no one has come forward with evidence.

We once bought a property that first showed its face as 'under offer' - I looked up the vendor's name on Land Registry and, when I suggested to the agent that I knew the vendor (referring to him by name) and he might not be too happy if they didn't consider better offers, suddenly I got a viewing...

Thursday, February 19, 2015 03:21PM Report Comment
 

Add comment

  • If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
  • If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines
Username  
Admin Password
Email Address
Comments

Main Blog | Archive | Add Article | Blog Policies