Big Blue

Well said Mark. There clearly IS some ulterior motive here. Considering the TPA claims to be about bringing good tax policy and awareness of tax to both politicians and public, you’d expect Neidle to be yelling from the rooftops about how moronic Section 24 has brought rocketing rents and homelessness - all completely needlessly. You’d expect him to decry bankrupting providers of desperately-needed services like housing. You’d expect his rage to be directed at the politicians who support this ludicrous nonsense. But no. Not a bit of it. Why is that? Given that the desperate situation in rented housing is now very near crisis point, you’d think a conscientious campaigner like him might think the damage being caused to millions of families was far worse than haranging the landlords doing what they can to stop it. But again - no. He’d rather attack people trying to keep housing others, rather than attack the people who created the mess. You’d hope taxes of 80/90/100%, or taxes on a loss, might offend such a dedicated moral arbiter, but apparently he seems a good deal less keen on these injustices than on a handful of landlords trying to keep going! Very odd.... Read More

Ruth Jacob sounds like a bundle of laughs! Surely she hasn’t spotted that it was a couple of previous policy officers at Shelter, not to mention CEO Campbell Robb, that wrote enthusiastically supporting the govt with Section 24 and their plan to get rid of private landlords?! At the time, all of Shelter, (not to mention current chief Polly Neate) wanted us all gone and strenuously denied taxing landlords was a problem. Even more hilariously, Neate recently claimed that she had ‘no idea about landlord taxation’ - meaning she should probably learn the first thing about it before lobbying govt on making it worse. You really couldn’t make up the level of stupid at Shelter.... Read More

Oh come now, Gromit, to be fair to Dave he hasn’t even got as far as trying to rubbish another point of view - all he’s done so far is stick his fingers in his ears and go ‘lalalalalalal-la-la-laaaaaaaaaa’ etc.... Read More

Well I've got a couple of bananas here if you want them, Dave. Any chance of you answering any of my previous points? Y'know, maybe using a rational and referenceable fact, or even just an informed counter-argument?? Let's start with 'Does the rising interest rate environment make things better or (unnecessarily) worse for tenants? Give examples with particular reference to Section 24'.... Read More

... Read More

Indeed Neil. Back to the subject.

I had never, ever worried about the BOE. My very earliest investment purchase was during the 15% era, so I’ve seen it all. Base rates come and go and you adjust accordingly, either more to the bank or more to the tax man. But S24 has crushed that. As rates rise it becomes impossible to survive in an environment where they’re not treated as a legitimate cost. We know tenants have faced higher rents and homelessness as landlords are forced to react to this stupidity, but now the rising rates will literally cause greater homelessness as pressure on landlords to sell up increases. More and more innocent tenant families will become victims of the BOE decisions where rent prices and evictions are concerned as landlords are left with no other choice but to escape. Scrap S24, and none of this matters quite so much.... Read More

You’re an absolute prize-winner, Dave. So many false assumptions, so little knowledge of facts.

1. There has never ever been a situation, ever, where landlords are buying 90% of the housing stock, let alone for cash. In fact, even at the very over-subscribed, runaway peak of all landlord purchasing in 2002, around 16% of purchases were to investors (some of whom were bringing back derelict stock, as I do). Your example is pointless as it could never happen. In fact, the reality of the situation that the media never want to report on is that your figures are almost precisely the wrong way round - 90% of homes currently go to owners outbidding landlords, with the tenth one hotly contested between owners and those trying to supply the rental market.

2. Since you’re such a genius with the ol’ common sense, can you quantify what happens to rents and homelessness when Section 24 squeezes supply?

3. If there were no landlords at all, what happens to renters, be they by necessity or choice?

4. If there were no landlords at all, there would be very little if any discernible effect on house prices. The knowledgeable reports, from NHPAU and the LSE, conclude this. House prices in this country were doubling on average every 7.5 years since 1948 (ONS), or a whole half a century before retail BTL had even started! Plus, we’re currently witnessing one of the biggest landlord sell-offs in history at 11,000 properties a month (don’t worry, no tenants at all were disrupted by this) and what is happening to prices? Yes that’s right Dave, they’re - err - rising at their fastest rate ever! How does that sit with your little theory?... Read More

Ha! Brilliant!! Hope she cleans the bugg*rs out!... Read More

I cannot believe this is correct, unless something has changed very recently. I was an NLA adviser for 10 years and still run accreditation courses for them. We have ALWAYS said a guarantor is on the hook for the length of the tenancy and is only release-able if the landlord agrees to break the binding nature of the guarantor’s agreement. Certainly my own contracts still state this and a quick google search reveals legal sites still saying a guarantor is on the hook beyond the fixed term - indefinitely, in fact. I don’t suppose the NRLA gave you the case name, by any chance? Might it be worth asking them again?... Read More

There is a fundamental flaw in your comment that the anti-landlords also seem oblivious to.

The rental market is not a zero-sum game. If a tenant buys, it paradoxically does not necessarily (nor at all in reality) reduce the rental demand. It reduces it by that single family of course, and thus is a -1 in the moment of that transaction, but over the whole market does not change demand. Multiple other factors do that. For example, if the family in question does indeed buy such that rental demand is -1, how are you so confident that two divorcing couples aren’t coming along at that moment to add between +2 and +4 into the equation? They are! Similarly, someone gets hacked off at work and decides to go to uni. That’s +1. A struggling council suddenly finds 25 new immigrant families to house, so that’s another +25 in the demand column. The idea that the -1 buying their own home creates 1 less demand is only true in isolation with those individuals, but why anybody thinks that demand is not replaced, often many times over, is baffling, and deeply flawed. The figures become even more skewed for renters if they happen to buy the rental they’re living in, which reduces the demand by 1 but also the supply for future renters. Landlords selling also usually means evicted tenants, all of whom are then chasing fewer properties, while all the cases I mentioned above joining the rental market for the first time face even stiffer competition for rentals. In one case last week, I had a house come empty after 10 years and had 22 viewings and 3 offers in the first 48 hours alone. Some of these were renters being evicted by a local RAF base, thus increasing demand dramatically even though the departing tenant was a buyer of their own property. The ‘1 in, 1 out’ argument is factually flawed.... Read More

It would be nice if somebody, somewhere, were willing to properly stand up for landlords with the most robust of defences against all attacks, and preferably a legal challenge which both the govt and barrister Giles Peaker have accepted seem likely. Standing around on the sidelines shrugging our shoulders is absolutely pathetic and invites further attacks on us. We need to start showing some teeth or forever accept our terminal decline into oblivion.... Read More

I know the answer. I thought that was bonkers figures too, so contacted Hamptons. They told me it was because many of the amateur landlords selling are joint owners - husbands & wives usually, but often other family members too - so they’d recorded two or more landlords leaving the market where 1 house was sold. They said on average it was around 0.7 houses per landlord sold. Although it still slightly baffles me that that many are in joint names, I suppose it makes a lot more sense when explained like that.... Read More

Bloody right! This is a great start and just the kind of thing the politicians should be listening to! Not much to criticise here.... Read More

Worst letter ever for getting the govt to see the folly of rising rents and homelessness. Surely not written by Fergus Wilson?... Read More

‘Except in the public interest’ and ‘conditions provided for by law’ are the get-out clauses to be wary of, I feel.... Read More

He says his street is blighted by 1/3 houses badly-maintained by RTB (implication: landlords) but his neighbours tell a different story:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7419549/John-McDonnells-neighbours-deny-claim-street-badly-maintained-overcrowded-homes.html... Read More

Love this list. Love it. Oh for a government that would implement it!... Read More

I have two families who have been with me more than a decade. They pay rent ok but the houses are terribly kept, by far and away the worst in the portfolio and nothing like the condition I handed them over in. I would be happy to keep these two on but with the homes fitness requirements, licensing, and the end of S21, I cannot risk keeping them on and getting blamed for how they live. S21 was a safety net that gave THEM security. If it’s going, then so are they, as I can’t afford to be stuck with them indefinitely.... Read More

It’s variously 37, 38 or 39 properties and they don’t repair stuff apart from new baths/kitchens and carpets every 2-3 years. They’re in it to ‘make lots of money’ (yep, nice image of landlords, thanks), but are only clearing £30/month?? I suppose it depends how you account for that of course - a decent refurb can wipe you out for years - but it doesn’t SOUND hugely successful. Also, getting a court order against benefits IS extremely difficult as the tenant fills out their own statement of means and always, always shows no spare income, a fact one has to argue out with the judges with varying degrees of success.... Read More

So you haven’t even replaced a cupboard door in 22 years?? One can only imagine how outdated your properties must be! What about your carpets or decor or styles - the decent homes standard says a kitchen mustn’t be more than 20 years old and a bathroom 15! Mine get full and complete refurbs at great expense on a fairly regular basis, interesting to see that yours don’t.... Read More