Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Shears" at "12/08/2015 - 15:13":

Very strange, perhaps try a re-start of your PC if it happens again?

Alternatively, try it in a different browser and see if you get the same problem.
.

Reply to the comment left by "KATHY MILLER" at "12/08/2015 - 14:47":

I don't think you will stand any chance of winning any arguments when it comes to comparing a sole trader and a limited company.

They are completely different entities. If you want to pursue that line of argument you will first have to answer the question why you chose to operate as a sole trader versus a limited company. Most people would have chosen the former as not only are there less administrative burdens for a sole trader there where also tax advantages. Yes, its a fact that limited companies now have more preferable tax outcomes...but that does not change the position that the status of sole trader and limited companies are completely different, and I am afraid you will not win much sympathy with outside observers over the difference treatment of the two.

The only injustice, in my view is the fact that this increased tax burden is hitting people retrospectively, and even the mitigating grace period of 4 years, will not be sufficient for some of the more heavily leveraged landlords out there.

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "12/08/2015 - 13:27":

Thank you for taking the time to read it, clarify and also to share the link (difficult to do so on my phone.) I thought to write to the Editor and inform him of the campaigning that people have been involved with, the petitions, Q&A, etc.

In short, it would be good if they did a follow-up article - at the very least keep this in everyone's mind.

Reply to the comment left by "James Tallis" at "12/08/2015 - 15:23":

Hi James

I chose sole trader as mortgages were easier to get and cheaper. Most accountants at the time were saying if your profit goes over 100,000 then look at a company structure. I don't think any accountants support this change.

I'm meeting with my MP in about 3 weeks time, that was the earliest he could see me, I arranged this appointment just after the budget announcement.
I personally will not be in the high risk category as I'm not highly leveraged but its still enough to make us consider selling one property to reduce the outgoings and risk resulting from the interest rate rises expected. Apart from being annoyed the house we will sell has the highest maintenance and is the poorest performing for energy conservation etc. (Large Victorian terrace) so it was probably going to go anyhow in favour of newer properties.

What would be handy is if there was a single point of information to take to the meeting outlining all the concerns and real likely outcomes, I have seen several sources to draw from, mostly on this site. What would be good is to highlight the outcomes of other peoples MP meetings or correspondence where the MP showed a vague interest. My MP Mark Lancaster has already indicated his lack of interest by putting me way down the list of appointments. I plan for my meeting to be not just about my situation but for the greater good of the But To Let industry and associated trades.

Reply to the comment left by "KATHY MILLER" at "12/08/2015 - 14:47":

Hi Kathy.
I was thinking along the same lines and looked into this briefly a few weeks ago. I'll have to check where I saw it now, but I saw something about the 'rights to property.' I thought that could be a good starting point.
I think we always have to have in mind a legal challenge if this gets passed in November. We'll have to raise funds between us for legal advice and representation - but it is definitely worth us doing some of the legwork ourselves. I haven't had much to do with lawyers in this country, but I've had a fair bit to do with them in Spain and I found I often had to do the thinking for them. So any research and thinking we can do would be good. One other area is tax law. I've also looked at discrimination law, but couldn't find anything promising there, as I recall - because it tends to refer to defined categories such as race, gender, sexuality and age for example. It's a shame because this is a clear case of discrimination. We should all wrack our brains about what could be used in a legal challenge. It also wouldn't hurt for the Treasury to know that this is the route we will take.

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "12/08/2015 - 16:42":

Hi Ros
We could also consider under European Law.

There was an interesting article today in the Money Mail, by James Coney. He was writing about UKAR and said that about 389,000 borrowers are customers of UKAR, 'and many are in dire financial straits...UKAR is a business without a heart. ..Its sole point is to ruthlessly pursue the money it is owed...UKAR has shown it doesn't have an ounce of decency. Now it's up to George Osborne to show that he does.' He was specifically referring to another case reported in the Mail about a couple being made bankrupt, partly because of ME and UKAR.
It was very pleasing to see someone write so powerfully on this subject. So I whipped off an email to him (I wrote to him last week too, but didn't get an answer!). I've suggested he might like to be the first journalist to champion us and also gave him the link to the 'forced into exile' thread, as I thought that might pique his interest. Fingers crossed.

Reply to the comment left by "James Tallis" at "12/08/2015 - 15:23":

James playing devil’s advocate here, the retrospective point that you and others have made is also perhaps unlikely? If it did not apply retrospectively, then existing property finance would not be affected and all future purchases would be made using ltd company which can be set up fairly easily. There seem to be some good ltd company BTL mortgages around. So Osborne would have to look elsewhere for this £665m yearly tax grab by 2020/21?

Reply to the comment left by "James Tallis" at "12/08/2015 - 15:23":

James, am playing devil’s advocate here, the retrospective point that you and others have made is also perhaps unlikely? If it did not apply retrospectively, then existing property finance would not be affected and all future purchases would be made using ltd company which can be set up fairly easily. There seem to be some good ltd company BTL mortgages around. So Osborne would have to look elsewhere for this £665m yearly tax grab by 2020/21?