The National Association of Estate Agents says more regulation for agents and more appropriate taxation across the property industry are two key demands in its 2015 manifesto' ahead of the May general election.
Much of its comments on regulation concerns letting agents, where it wants it to be compulsory for agents to be members of a client money protection scheme, plus a tighter licensing code across the lettings agency industry. It also wants any future government to resist banning agency fees on tenants.
The manifesto joins the band of high-end estate agents campaigning against the mansion tax with this statement: While we support fair property taxes, the prospect of punitive taxes for those who own property at the top-end of the market are already having an impact. While the price of property has shot up in recent years, people's salaries and living standards do not reflect this. Those who find themselves caught in the web of the
proposed mansion tax, because their family home has gone up in value, are in a difficult position. While this is by and large an issue that impacts those in London or the South-East, it is by no means exclusive.
Less predictably, the manifesto also says Local authorities need to be empowered to be
able to effectively fine home owners who leave properties sitting empty, raising the severity of penalties the longer the property stays empty.
The manifesto - which also covers lettings - spends much of its time demanding additional house building to help meet current demand and lower the prices of existing properties. It wants less bureaucratic and speedier planning.
Providing housing, or more importantly homes, requires finance, suitable land, time and skill. Policymakers seem to have forgotten this. Housing cannot be a political football for future governments to use to score points against each other. Ultimately we need to take the politics out of housing says Mark Hayward, NAEA managing director.
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
%20A%20property%20tale%20for%20our%20times.png)
Comments
I agree with the below comment. However, there seems a bit more substance to the lettings arguments. The PRS is in danger of implosion if 3 year tenancies are introduced and regulation continues to increase.
I suppose it is good that the industry bodies are doing this.
BUT - saying we need more houses, anyone could shout that, couldn't they
Yeah, but with a housing crisis, don't you find it a little bit wrong for all these properties, particularly in London, to just be sitting empty for most of the year. What's the point It's got nothing to do with being a free country - if some rich investor buys up property, leaves them empty and then waits for the prices to slowly rise before selling it on again, it's easy to say they've done it for one reason and one reason only - profit, profit, profit.
And what does it say to young people and first-time buyers who are being priced out of the property market completely, people who might never get their toes on the property ladder at all They're likely to feel a little bit aggrieved if they see all these properties just sitting there waiting to swell the pockets of some super-rich oligarch.
I think it's perfectly justifiable to fine home owners who leave properties empty over a long period of time. If you're not gonna live there, rent it out!
Local authorities need to be empowered to be able to effectively fine home owners who leave properties sitting empty, raising the severity of penalties the longer the property stays empty.
Have the NAEA forgotten that this is supposed to be a free country
This is an asset that people have paid for and they should be able to do mainly what they like with it (subject to planning). Also, most legislation of this kind promotes 'empire building' and it eventually costs the public.