BBC Moneybox – Saturday 17th May 2008 – Sale & Rent-back
LEWIS: We reported last week that the number of people facing difficulty with their mortgage payments was growing and repossessions rose sharply in the first quarter of this year. But some desperate homeowners are avoiding repossession by turning to firms which offer to buy their property for cash at below market value and then rent it back to them. We reported in February that there were concerns about this sale and rent back business and calls for it to be regulated, and as more people face difficulties these concerns are growing. Peter Tutton is Social Policy Officer with Citizens Advice.
TUTTON: They may have sold their house for a significant discount, below its market value. In return, they may have got very little security. In some cases, they’ve been poorly advised as to things like you’ll be able to get housing benefit when they couldn’t. And in other cases, even after entering one of these things, perhaps the rent then has shot up; they’ve been in difficulties with rent arrears. Or even that the person that sold them the sale and rent back agreement has then failed to pay their mortgage or gone into insolvency, so they’re still losing their house anyway. So we’ve got a whole basket of concerns about these things.
LEWIS: This week, the Office of Fair Trading launched what it calls a “market study” into sale and rent back. That would be step one if the Government does decide to regulate the sector. Heather Clayton is the director in charge of the study. I asked her if sale and rent back was right for anyone in mortgage difficulties.
CLAYTON: Without doubt, these products might be suitable for some consumers and they might be helpful for some consumers. The concerns raised are really whether consumers understand the arrangements and understand the other options open to them and what the arrangements really mean for them.
LEWIS: And what about the price paid because we’ve certainly heard on Money Box in the past complaints that people are being offered sometimes as little as 50% of the value of their home?
CLAYTON: We’ve heard that too. There’s not very much information around at the moment at all, which is one of the jobs of the market study actually - is to get better information on the scale of the problem, including the prices paid.
LEWIS: This market’s been around for a couple of years now and the concerns have been expressed you know certainly for the last 12 or 18 months. Isn’t there a danger that just as people are finding growing difficulties paying their mortgages, that these deals are completely unsupervised and by the time anything changes it will be too late, the horse will have bolted?
CLAYTON: This market study has to first of all establish a base line of just how serious the problem is. There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence around, but few hard facts. Ideally we’d like to talk to some of the consumers who have experience of buying these products. They’re unlikely to be easy to find in fact. And although we can’t resolve individual complaints, we would be very keen if these consumers would contact the Office of Fair Trading. The details are available on our website.
LEWIS: Heather Clayton of the OFT. Meanwhile, there are moves to regulate the industry. There are now two competing codes of practice - one by some sale and rent back companies called PROBAS, which we talked about a few weeks ago; another to be launched very soon by the National Landlords’ Association, as its spokesman Steve Hilton told me.
HILTON: Our code of practice, which is going to be published in the next few weeks, is indeed going to commit those sale and rent back providers who sign up to the code, will commit them to not evicting their tenants unless the tenants break the terms of the tenancy agreement. In other words, you know the landlord would not be able to evict the tenants just to make a capital profit on any property.
LEWIS: But surely if you’re giving them an assured shorthold tenancy, the only tenure they have is the 6 or 12 months of that tenancy agreement?
HILTON: That at the moment is the case. We are in discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and some of the key buy-to-let mortgage providers and we are hoping to find a resolution.
LEWIS: So there could be a situation from your point of view where landlords who signed up to your code had to give people assured tenancies; that, as you say, they couldn’t be evicted unless they broke the terms like not paying the rent or something like that?
HILTON: We’re certainly hoping that we will be able to persuade lenders in due course to offer further and longer assured shorthold tenancies. I think the key issue here is that no matter how long the length of the tenancy or the type of the tenancy that’s guaranteed, that in our code of practice the landlord would not be permitted to just simply evict the tenant unless the tenant had broken the terms of the tenancy agreement.
LEWIS: But that would be a code of practice. That’s not legally binding, is it, and legally a landlord can evict an assured shorthold tenant at the end of the agreement, which is normally 6 months?
HILTON: Agreed, this is a type of self-regulation. The code of practice wouldn’t be legally binding, but there would be independent redress for the tenant if the landlord decided to evict for no other reason apart from capital growth. So unless the tenant breaks the terms of the tenancy agreement, it would be contrary to the spirit and indeed the letter of the code of practice and the impartial redress system would kick in.
LEWIS: And what about the value that’s offered for the home because one of the criticisms we’ve heard before on Money Box is that people are being offered as little as half the market value of their property?
HILTON: We certainly think that 50% is obviously massively too low. This is an issue we are already in discussions with the Office of Fair Trading on. The slight problem with this issue is that it could be that if we specify in the code of practice a minimum value, a minimum percentage for the transaction, it could fall foul of anti-competition laws, which is obviously again in the OFT’s remit, so we’re trying to be very careful about how we word this piece in the code of practice. Out of interest, the research that we’ve conducted, around 600 of the sale and rent back providers that we’ve researched, 96% of those offer in excess of 80% of the value of the property, which gives some indication that for the vast bulk of sale and rent back providers in the market, they are offering a fairly decent proposition to owner occupiers who are looking to sell their homes quickly and to remain in residence. The purpose of the code of practice will be to root out these rogue operators who want to operate under the radar and, I’m afraid to say, will of course continue to operate under the radar.
LEWIS: Steve Hilton from National Landlords Association. ….Well that’s it for today. You can find out more from the BBC Action Line - 0800 044 044 - and of course our website, bbc.co.uk/moneybox. Lots of information and of course our podcast there. Vincent Duggleby’s back on Monday at three with Money Box Live, taking your questions on ethical investing. Email now or call on Monday. And also on Monday, a special programme on Radio 4. The BBC’s Business Editor Robert Peston presents ‘Power Failure at the Central Bank’, examining the huge changes affecting the international banking system. Monday evening at eight. Join me again next weekend with Money Box. Today the reporter was Bob Howard, the producer Chris A’Court, and I’m Paul Lewis.
Labels: buy-to-let, property investing, respossessions, sale and rent back