The press carries many articles suggesting that buy-to-let ought to be regulated. Why?
If someone wants to purchase a business, whose responsibility is it that the individual should proceed?The broker who arranged the finance? The solicitor who did the legal work? The bank who parted with the cash? Or could it be the individual who purchased the business?
Suppose the individual in question made some serious money in the transaction. Whose profit is this? It is not the agents who are involved in the initial transactions.
Therefore, conversely – if the business should fail – the can ought to be carried by the prospective purchaser.
Similarly, if an individual wishes to purchase rental accommodation the success or failure is his responsibility. It is said that the broker should be responsible for whether someone should deal in the rental housing market initially. Surely a broker cannot be responsible for other people's ventures.
I believe that the FSA and the brokers who want to regulate such matters are solely thinking about their jobs and increasing their power.