I have written previously about a claim about a Census question supports the legitimacy of rent-to-buy transactions. In this post I’m considering the claim that “even the banks are suggesting rent-to-buy”.
I don’t claim that ‘rent-to-buy’ transactions aren’t legal. Most of these transactions are probably within the law – although the legal status of a variety of “creative strategies” may not be settled until determined by the courts – some day. I suspect, for example, that discussion amongst operators about different types of “joint ventures”, and when a joint-venturer might require an estate agents’ licence might just be one example where the law hasn’t been fully tested. The fact that a NSW tribunal ordered that the majority of an amount paid as an option payment was rent, and was to be credited to the tenant when the agreement was terminated, also suggests that the application of our current state and federal laws to these deals is far from settled.
However, the claim I am considering here isn’t one used to support the legality of rent-to-buy, but used to indicate broader mainstream acceptance and support of rent-to-buy.
“Even the banks are suggesting rent-to-buy”
In 2012, a post appeared on the Commonwealth Bank blog about the benefits of home buyers entering into rent-to-buy agreements, as a way to “get on the property ladder”.