Letter: High cost of renting

Ms Annabel Cartwright
Wednesday 26 August 1992 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: For those who cannot sell their houses, but who need to relocate or move to a larger or smaller home, letting one house and renting another seems a good solution from all points of view ('Mortgage debt exceeds value of many houses', 21 August).

Mortgage payments continue to be made, houses are not repossessed or sold at rock bottom prices, and owners are able to retain control over their affairs. Rents are indeed depressed and tenants hard to find at present, but what you lose on the rent you can charge, you gain on what you have to pay, so it should not be vastly more expensive to let-and-rent than to stay put.

But, unhelpfully, the building societies are quick to spot this as an opportunity to make more money. In our case, when we asked for permission to let our house, which had been on the market for a year, our building society told us there would be a non- negotiable increase of 2 per cent over our previous mortgage rate (not 2 per cent of what we were paying, 2 per cent of the outstanding loan) for the privilege. Two per cent is apparently somewhat over the odds, but I am told that 1.5 per cent is common. We would also, we were advised, probably lose tax relief on the interest on the first pounds 30,000 of the loan. I can only describe this as piling on the misery.

If the Government and building societies are really concerned to help mobilise those 'trapped' in houses they cannot sell, they should be positively encouraging owners to let. A good start would be for building societies to stop profiteering from owners who have to let their homes, and for the Government to amend the rules slightly on tax relief in these circumstances.

Yours faithfully,

ANNABEL CARTWRIGHT

Charlbury, Oxfordshire

25 August

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in