i have a good selection of properties, and have some very good tenants, it is wrong and unfair to brand tenants in the way he has! they pay his mortgages, and above there good landlords too,

i rent to the homeless,domestic violence victims and peopel who have lost their homes through losing their jobs! however that doesnt make my properties at the lower end of the market! infact it makes me a better landlord that why my propeties are all full up, rents all paid and i have received 3 awards for my troubles!!!

So Mr Wilson have respect for people in flats and good landlords who are happy to help others!!

Many of his tenants, maybe the majority, will be entitled to

housing benefit. HB cost the economy £20 billion last year.

Landlords like him are in fact living off the council

tax payer.

Controlled rents will return, I have no doubt. When this

legislation is enacted, the bizarre practice of BLT will

vanish like snow in August.

Fergus just goes by the laws and deals on gut instinct and knowledge of his area. He forecasts house price rises – although stating it was a sort of fact rather than crystal ball gazing. Well they have been rising by the odd 0.5 to 1% here and there. He can sit on his properties and ride out the CC. That is how large landowners make their money – wait until the time is right and re-let say a farm they took back with a higher rent.

Whether he has 900 homes and some have none or one, is irrelevant. The underlying problem is the planning and land laws. LVT would be fine,but only if people are allowed to build on subsidised fields. Only 7.5% of the UK is settled, if more land is available to build on, then more people would buy, and build their own homes as in other countries, and the likes of Fergus would be history.

I’m sure most of his tenants rent because they can’t afford to buy. Yes, he didn’t have much of an idea of the underlying drivers to the housing market, which to be fair is complicated and can change from district to district. If a new factory opens in the area his land value rise, so he makes money because of someone else’s efforts, but so does the fish and chip shop increased business. So, he would look at it that way. LVT would make him and the chippy make a fair share, as his shop value would rise too. He views houses and land like they were washing machines.

Taxpayers money in improved infrastructure have increased the value of his 900 homes, that is for sure.

At one point you say “allow the capital value of the property to increase”, as if he just has to permit it and it will happen.

You use the fact that he doesn’t use his own money as an accusation.

The fact is he’s brave enough to trust his judgment, is good at finding properties, and his track record means banks will lend to him.

In answer to your question on how you should feel about being unable to buy one house while he has 900, I would say “you could have 900 too some day, mate, with a bit of ability and some courage.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210885/Maths-teacher-property-tycoons-700-homes-sale-go.html

So I would be very surprised if he weren’t talking up the prospects for the housing market. Perhaps ‘a health warning’ to this effect should be given at the start of the film.

The equation is more complex, as locational value changes over time, as industries come and go (superseding technologies, over-seas competition etc.) and new infrastructures come into being. As new locations become desirable for industries and home buyers, values can plummet in previously desirable areas. This leads to big problems for some speculators, as indicated by commentator stephen clacy above. Previously profitable sites can become ‘under-water’ and over leveraged speculators go bankrupt. These situations can arise even when the property market is broadly rising. Zoning regulation for new development tied with infrastructure development is intensely political because of the vast profits to be made by privileged competitors.