On 30 Nov, 09:36, mogga  wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:38:00 -0800 (PST), "mart2...@hotmail.com"
>
>  wrote:
>
> >And how would the government tackle the cost of housing?
> >Most properties are not owned by them. Most rents are not set by
> >council or government.
>
> >Martin  <><
>
> Fair rents should be enforced.
> For my street it's 85 quid a week decided by the rent officer. Council
> charges 75 and private landlords who keep buying the houses round here
> charge 135-160.
>
> If rents were set and fixed at a more sensible level then house prices
> would not have risen massively and caused the boom and bust senario
> we're about to see.
> --http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk

LOL.
Private landlords are buying the properties for how much? And
presumably want to cover the mortgage (which tends to be higher than
base rate) or investment they have made in purchase.
A £90K mortgage might be covered by £160 a week rent. And have to
stick in some of their own capital as well - its much easier to get
buy to let mortgages when they aren't 100%.

If your property prices are above £90K, its likely the landlord is
taking a year on year loss on the property until such time as they
sell it (though losses can be carried forward to future tax years).
And you want them to have rent fixed at a more sensible level?
Congratulations on your bravery. I wouldn't have expected you to want
to give the landlord more money. That is what you mean by 'fixed at a
more sensible level' isn't it?
Sensible all round - reflects the real cost of the property, gives a
realistic return on investment as good as leaving cash in a plain
deposit account, and avoids the boom or bust scenario.
Well done.

I would honestly have expected you to argue that property should have
a lower rent. Though the only way I would expect that would be
compulsory purchase of rented property by councils or social housing
groups and rent set by the council.
Thats all rented property. Good for investors.

Martin  <><