Spotted by Steven_L in Which?:
Which? calls for action on rent rises
Over a million consumers will face a £300m hike in rents over the next year as landlords increase rents, according to new research from Which?. The consumer champion found that 70% of tenants are concerned about an increase in rents, while some 14% say they are already struggling. The greatest impact of these latest rises will be felt by 'rent prisoners' who fear that their deposits will be unreasonably withheld.
Rent increases to cause consumer struggles
Some 75% of tenants told Which? that they would be affected if their rents increased by £50 a month, with 41% saying they would need to cut back on regular spending, 20% would need to reducing savings and 11% would not have enough for essentials. An increase of £100 a month would see 20% of tenants not having enough for daily essentials like food and 11% being unable to pay in full. Consumers also highlighted the emotional impact of increases in rents, describing them as 'devastating' and 'a disaster'.
Action is needed to help struggling tenants
Which? chief executive, Peter Vicary-Smith said: "Our advice to anyone struggling with their rent is speak to your landlord straight away. It is encouraging that a third of people we spoke to had approached their landlord, but, worryingly, in one in five cases, they said their landlord offered no help at all. This is just not good enough and we want to see landlords do more to help their customers who are struggling.
"These rent increases are the consequence of the lack of competition in the market and the failure of the Government to take action to promote competition. This is why the new housing regulator, the HCA, needs to be a watchdog not a lapdog. It must stand up for consumers and stand up to the landlords."
Tuesday 1 May 2012
"Tenants face £300m hike in rents"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Lack of competition? WTF? How does this square with "Buy to let landlords facing reposession as they struggle to find tenants"?
Let's go back to the good old days of rent controls; it was such a success, after all.
Lovely slant MW, well spun, too subtle perhaps.
Bayard, read the actual link.
B, I refer you to SL's comment. Although in principle I am against rent controls, it cannot be denied that it was one factor in increasing the spread of owner-occupation in the UK.
SL, ta.
If land tax is low, owners can afford to hold out and will always be able to take renters for all they're worth. The property system is geared for the benefit of those who have, not those who need.
These kinds of articles which appear every few months mystify me. People get the mortgage deal which suits them best at the time of taking it out. If they choose one that reverts to a variable rate at the end of the deal then that is what they have agreed to. If an equally good deal is not available five years later then it's a pity but hardly the state's responsibility.
[Many] People need to grow up!
AJM, off-topic, but yes.
BE, exactly. The Homey's pay lip service to "free markets" and "personal responsibility" and so on, right up until the moment they ask for yet another bail out.
"Bayard, read the actual link."
Bugger, got me again!
"Although in principle I am against rent controls, it cannot be denied that it was one factor in increasing the spread of owner-occupation in the UK."
That's good? How about putting it this way, "Although in principle I am against rent controls, it cannot be denied that it was one factor in increasing the spread of Homeownerism in the UK."
B, whatever raft of policies the UK had in the 1950s and 1960s as regards housing and banking was far from perfect, but it was sure a damn sight better than what we have now. If we could turn the clock back fifty years, it would fix a lot of things.
Post a Comment