Huge drop in number of homes to let across the UK

Your confusing this Government with someone who gives a s**t!

See my previous comment

Landlords are not a charity.

Most are trying to supplement their retirement income and because of the increased regulations and tax burden the only option is to put the rent up.

If the government (past & present) really wanted to help they would build more housing specifically for rent.

Which is why Gordon I believe housing should be provided through charities - or subsidised as with council and social housing. There are lots of ways to make money but expecting to make it through high rents is not the answer. In fact, don't many landlords buy property as they expect it to increase in value and they will make money when they sell it? I'm aware that this is a gamble but so are many investment strategies. If landlords raise rents to unaffordable levels then they risk tenants falling into arrears - and that causes headaches for everyone concerned.

Presumably you have the same opinion of supermarkets, water companies,electricity companies, gas companies, your local butcher, grocer. Get real!

Rents have to rise because the Government is increasing Landlords costs. Without substantial increase in rent Landlords woul face rates of tax in excess of 100%. Yes that's right the Government takes all the profit and more esides. You are getting State control in all but name! The Government has set up landlords as the whipping boy for their tax grab.

Barryin Wilts... I do think that utilities - electricity, gas, water and the railways should be nationalised and that foreign investors shouldn't be making huge profits at our expense. As far as supermarkets, butchers, retailers are concerned, you have a more varied choice of where you shop and what you buy. If you need to rent a house near where you work and your kids go to a local school you might find that there are only a only a handful of affordable homes available. If they are all unaffordable do you give up your job and hope you'll find another in another area every time your rent increases? Do you move your children from school to school chasing rental property you can afford? Would you expect poor, disabled and elderly people to suffer from hypothermia in the winter months because they can't afford to heat their homes and cook nutritious meals? And do you think that we should continue paying for a substandard rail service when we've no other way of getting to work/school etc.? I think it is you who needs to "get real".

I didn't know Karl Marx was still alive

State run utiities tend to be so inefficient, that private companes are able to do a better job, more cheaply and make a profit.

The only necessity is someone working and educating themselves to a level where they can afford a roof. The government does not need to provide houses, it needs to cut taxes and make sure wealth generating business can thrive. NB "Wealth Generating and not UK based service industries."

More than 20% of workers in the UK earn less than the so-called living wage of £8.45 an hour. We will always need people to carry out jobs that do not require a college/university education but these people should be paid enough to afford a roof over their head. As should single parents who can't work full time due to childcare responsibilities. I agree with a lot of what Richard says. The financial systems across the world need mending but that's unlikely to happen any time soon. Money was spent by Jo Public prior to the crash but I believe the blame firmly lies at the door of greedy bankers and their wealthy clients who have salted billions offshore in tax free havens. Young people prior to the crash were pushed into home ownership by "financial advisers" desperate for commission offering loans at 7 times annual salary with no deposit. Of course they defaulted because the mortgage was unaffordable and the homes they'd bought dropped in value and left them with negative equity. Credit card limits increased three or four times a year to levels that were totally unsustainable. That's where a lot of the money went. Yes people spent money they couldn't afford but they didn't take the country to the brink. Massive funds were spent bailing out the greedy bankers followed by quantitative easing. Some of this did find it's way back to those that really needed it to compensate them for mis-sold financial products and PPI. And getting back to wages... many employers have paid ridiculously low wages for years expecting the government to make up the difference through in-work benefits. If employers can't afford to pay employees a real living wage then they shouldn't be in business. The same goes for landlords who charge extortionate rents for substandard housing. Where they have very little equity in the property they need to understand that they are merely middle men creaming money off those least able to afford it. That doesn't mean that there are no ethical landlords out there. I know there are many. They've also been conned into believing that the pension hits and dire savings rates they've suffered can be replaced by money made from property investment and letting property. Many are finding out this is a flawed investment strategy as they're perpetually at the mercy of whatever government is in power. Austerity doesn't work and isn't necessary and it's time the poorest amongst us were not made to suffer in the name of a political ideology that has shown time and time again to be deeply flawed. Feel better having got that off my chest :-)

The problem is that people like Sue Kelly expect to be paid more money without earning it.

You don't need a University degree to go out there and get a good job. You just need the right attitude and to work smart! When people create wealth it also creates more jobs and wealth for others.

I'm a little confused by your statement Gordon. What makes you think that I want to be paid more money without earning it? I thought that was what I was arguing against - landlords and letting agents charging extortionate rents for doing little to merit ever increasing charges. It seems you've missed the point entirely. I believe in a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. I also believe that everyone should be able to afford to put a roof over their head and food on the table. If that makes me a bad person then so be it.

Sue, I'm not sure if you just don't understand or if you're purposely contradicting yourself.

Most full time landlords never increase rents on sitting tenants, period! Up until S24 was announced I had tenants that had been with me 10 years and not seen even one rent rise. So you see landlords understand very well that putting up rents whenever they can is just not the right policy. Most will (sorry.... would) only increase the price at the time of tenancy change. Indeed if you look at the measures of rent inflation they tend to look at advertised rents, and they basically keep in line with inflation overall.

Now Government is forcing a different picture. It's starting with sitting tenants seeing rents rise substantially and will rise further over the next few years. There are now also 40k less properties in the rental market than this time last year. This restricts choice and further supports rent rises. This scenario is not something the rental sector wanted, and just to be clear, Government knew damn well that this would be the outcome.

The issue is felt greatest by the lowest income individuals and families that are being forced out completely by Government meddling, and from what I glean this is where your particular concern is.

What these measures will further do is discourage investment in housing. One major housebuilder is already reporting that they can't hit targets because of landlords no longer buying. Many landlords convert commercial buildings into resi, or bring back disused houses into use, or convert big houses into flats etc. This is now reducing, further exacerbating the problems.

If you really believe that people should have somewhere decent to live then you're banging the wrong drum.

They did see it coming but their BTR buddies haven't taken up the slack! (Nor as yet handed out lucrative non-exec Directorships).

If properties were to drop by 20% or even anywhere close to it, you'd have lenders withdrawing products quicker than you can count them.

Plus you'd also have people that have recently got on the ladder stuck with negative equity and this would be doubly worse for those that used the Help to Buy scheme. When they come to the end of their term they will not be able to remortgage and be stuck with their lender's SVR.