Investor Today

News Story

Reluctant landlords sell their way out

Friday 30th October 2009

The number of reluctant landlords,or people forced to rent out instead of sell properties, has dropped for the third consecutive quarter, according to the Association of Residential Lettings Agents (ARLA).

ARLA's research shows that 60 per cent of its members' offices reported property being rented out rather than sold during Q3 2009. This number has dropped from 80 per cent in Q2 and 95 per cent in the first three months of the year.

These figures suggest that fewer homeowners are struggling to sell their property and being forced to rent it out - supporting industry-wide speculation that the housing market downturn is coming to an end.

Ian Potter, spokesman at ARLA, said: "The fact that the number of reluctant landlords has dropped once again, and supported by the rise in demand for buy-to-let, suggests that movement is beginning to occur across the market.

"What remains key is that all landlords - reluctant or otherwise - are fully aware of their obligations to their tenants, and of the importance of choosing a regulated and qualified letting agent."

In particular, 48 per cent of members in Prime Central London reported rental property coming onto the market because it cannot be sold, compared with 73 per cent last quarter.

View Comments 7 comments

Posted By Gary on Wednesday 14th April 2010 01:57:36
i am a professional landlord and have a number of properties. i have done my due diligence when purchasing and supply a good property for good tenants. buy to let is in demand. all my tenants are vetted through LETSURE and that means my rental income is INSURED against them losing their jobs. i still get my rent and am then able to seek alternative tenants. it is supply and demand and quite frankly it is better to have quality landlords supplying good properties than unscrupulous ones pinning tenants down!!!!

Posted By Simon on Tuesday 16th March 2010 08:25:12
I think buy to let is good if the person letting is under the same entry criteria as someone applying for a mortgage? What do you think chaps?

Posted By Ray on Saturday 31st October 2009 02:38:23
I think Barry has a point .... If a tenant does not want to pay there is nothing on earth that can make them pay ... one or two bad eggs in the basket & the lot could collapse leaving innocent victims in the pile .. I am sure "Buy to Let" was engineered by the government in their ultimate plan to take back houses into local council ownership

Posted By Barry. on Friday 30th October 2009 12:59:28
Is it not time, to call a halt to "but to let" mortgages. After all, the ability to repay the mortgage is based on successful renting and the tenant paying their rent. Very dubious indeed.

Posted By Gary on Friday 30th October 2009 07:01:07
I'm quite sure Barry has never been a Buy to Let Landlord...bricks and mortar purchased using due diligence is the best way to invest. The bigger your portfolio the lower the risk. The Stock Market is the biggest gamble of all.

Posted By Barry. on Friday 30th October 2009 02:50:21
You totally miss the point. With "buy to let" the basis for lending is not on a persons income, but the ability to rent. How many tenants lose their job, or don't really have the ability to pay the rent in the first place and end up in arrears. I suspect that many landlords would have a problem paying the mortgage anyway, particularly if they too lost their job and ended up with two mortgages to pay. That's why "buy to lets" should be withdrawn from the market.

Posted By Leo on Friday 30th October 2009 02:02:33
Why would want to ban Buy to Let. If someone wants to invest in a property its their right. Why not ban the stock market. Long term investing in a property will be safer than investing in shares. It is also one of very few ways for many people to secure an investment for retirement.