This article is about landlords complaining about how long it can take to get a hearing with the tenancy tribunal. They are asking for government action to protect their investments. I have a couple of problems with their argument:
Firstly, the article itself states that many complaints aren't forwarded to the tribunal because the complainants (the landlords) don't include supporting evidence. So, basically, the landlords just expect the tribunal to rule in their favour, because they ask them to. They don't seem to appreciate that it is a court of sorts, and therefore evidence must be produced.
Secondly, the landlords seem to be expecting the government to remove the risk in their investment choices. Let me make this very clear: the risk with any investment lays with the investor! Basically, the landlords are asking the government to transfer this risk away from them.
The idea that property is a low-risk investment is a myth promoted by greedy real estate agents and greedier property speculators. If you want a risk-free investment for your money, put it in the bank. In fact, the whole concept of property being a low-risk investment is what has driven the price of housing to unreachable heights, while simultaneously jamming the world economy in the toilet for the last four years.
Meanwhile, this article describes how some landlords are squeezing poor tenants and using the accommodation supplement to jack up rents: when the landlord finds out that the tenant is getting the accommodation supplement, they simply increase the rent by that amount. In other words, tax payer money is being used to enrich greedy landlords.
Can anyone tell me why we should listen to landlords' complaints of hardship?
No comments:
Post a Comment