Are most landlords under charging?

Reply to the comment left by "money manager" at "15/11/2015 - 09:30":

Quantifying it is very straight forward .

If you collect 100K in total rent and have a tax bill of 40K then TAT collected from tenant by LL to hand over to GO is 40% & will vary from LL to LL.

If rent is £1000 pcm then i have no issue in explaining to tenants that 40% of that is going straight to GO in the form of £400 TAX. then other £600 is rent i will get to keep as LL to run my business, pay my staff, pay the mortgage, service the property and if there is any left, over feed my kids.

Reply to the comment left by "Doreen Marr" at "14/11/2015 - 18:25":

You hit the nail right on the head. I'd rather lose out on a few pounds than lose a good tenant.

generally we only raise the rent between tenancies for or 11 flats [10x1, 1 x2bed] in Plymouth. Rents probably c 90 of local upper decile.Occasionally after 3 years, especially if the tenant doesn't respect the properties. Longest without a rise was 8years. A new tenant is always at risk of turning out bad, so keep the good ones. We generally get good reviews about the standard of our properties. We'd consider letting them decorate if they knew how to - most don't, and don't want to either for us to for them, or to make good and restore when they go.

At the moment I have 6 properties that are rented out significantly below market value to vulnerable people on low income.I will be switching these properties to holiday lets to help me to survive the tax changes.This will ruin the tenants lives because my properties are in high demand and it will be very difficult to find decent alternative accommodation for them.Some of the tenants have spent substantial sums of money furnishing their properties eg curtains and sofas and it may be difficult to transfer these items to new premises if for example they are too big.

I have not told all these tenants yet as it is likely to cause them depression and many have young children.It is not something I want to do and it makes me so angry that people like Shelter have caused this.They are clearly stupid and incompetent.It's a shame Shelter can't be interviewed to see what they have to say in their defense.The Government do not realise just how bad housing will get for the poorest members of our community.I believe there is trouble on the horizon and there will be a big shift away from housing benefit.

Reply to the comment left by "Bill Morgan" at "22/11/2015 - 04:04":

Hi Bill.
This is what I wrote to Shelter (under the name of 'David' who asked me to write a reply). Still waiting for an answer!

http://www.property118.com/campbell-robb-ceo-shelter-open-letter/81625/

Also, have you seen the survey mentioned by Kathy Miller on the landlord reactions thread - you will want to complete it as it is being done for 'Crisis' and is on the very theme of the impact of the tax grab on Housing Benefit tenants and the homeless. This is going to be one hell of an interesting survey and I can't wait for the results. At least it shows Crisis is now taking it seriously - after the horse has bolted, but maybe it will turn them around to seeing what a dreadful decision it is. They then might liaise with Shelter - this could be a good thing.

I have had the same tenants for 15 years with only one rent rise, from £450 to £500, during that time. I know this is well under the going rate for a small 3-bed house with garage, but I value the good tenants. I recently reduced the rent on my other property, knowing the tenant lost her job.
I, too, get tired of being viewed in Rachman-esque terms. Aren't most landlords simply trying to provide decent homes, with affordable rents? If a good supply of council homes was available, there would less need of the Private Rented Sector.

I wonder if anyone has ever done what we are thinking of doing? As we have no children, and most relatives reasonably well off, there is no real reason to leave anything, to anybody.

Howver, as I put in another earlier comment, one house we rent out, has a brother and sister (30's) sharing a the property (he has a former partner and child living elsewhere nearby) which they have done for 4 years now, and I suspect, as things stand, they will be there until we die.

If this is the case, then providing the house is paid off, or somewhere near, then we propose to leave them the house. They will have paid rent for a long time, and we will have benefitted, so why not them? Has anyone else done this before?.

Reply to the comment left by "Martin S" at "25/11/2015 - 16:13":

Funnily enough Martin this has crossed my mind too. We are in the same position with no dependants. Most tenants stay less than two years, but we have one family who love the house and always say they'd love to stay forever. Our mortgages are up in ten or twelve years time, so depending on our position at the time, we might be able to pay off that one mortgage and keep it paying us a pension until we die. If our tenants are still there, we might just leave it to them.

I went thru a LLs portfolio with him last week, by investing £165K into converting a 4let HMO into a 7let, building 2 garages on the backs of other props, emptying his junk out of 2 more garages & letting them, and xchanging 4 properties of Asylum seekers paying BMV rent into market rent paying tenants (& refurbing the damaged properties) will increase rental income by 77k pa.

Well done GO, that is no less than 30 people (asylum seekers) who will have to be rehoused in the very near future.

YES this LL is very much undercharging!

Reply to the comment left by "Trendo " at "25/11/2015 - 19:16":

Wow, Trendo. It does show what spare capacity we have and how we all need to analyse things more carefully now. I used to be happy just to let the whole thing tick over. Not now. I've got some higher-rate mortgages I didn't bother to change, but will now, I've been putting rents up both on change of tenancy and some on current tenants, I've stopped investing in any other than essential works in order to build a war chest. My kids will be adults soon so I'm looking into actually paying them for the help they give me - my teenage son always comes on viewings with me, for example. I wonder if there are any rules regarding how much they can be paid? There are quite a few jobs they have helped me with and they can do more of the same now - gardening, cleaning, painting and so on. Is there any reason why my expenses can't go up in this way? I can't see why not - if we pay letting agents, other painters etc. to do this work, it's tax deductible. I wonder how much the maximum hourly rate I can pay them is? They would of course only be basic rate tax payers.... And I can sit on my arse more, if I like - as GO et al assume I do.