[jlokier]

Rents have already skyrocketed while the private residential letting sector is thriving.

It's not clear at all that changing the market forces to increase access to ownership by occupiers would lead to increasing rents, even with reduced supply of rentable properties.

At the moment, a lot of tenants would rather buy if they could, and are paying the same or more in rent than they would pay on an equivalent mortgage, plus rents are rising faster than a mortgage would if they had one. Rents are also rising faster than their salaries. So they would gain location stability and financial stability by owning, but they can't get a mortgage. Mortgages, like anything in a competitive market, are preferentially offered to the best-looking customers, and property speculators are better-looking than ordinary working folks struggling to make ends meet on their current and rising rent.

If those people could buy properties like the ones they are currently renting, rentable supply would go down. But demand would also go down by the same amount, and mostly from those competing to pay the higher end of rents currently. I think this would reduce average asking rents for the remaining tenants.

[mytailorisrich]

The proposal is to ban investors from buying more properties, it is not to increase access to ownership. If anything the effect is more likely to reduce supply than to increase it.

Those who are already able to buy may benefit, but that's about it.

Again, a big part of the problem is also the mountain of free money in the market.