Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

The best & equatable way is to move forward the proposal to a future date say the 5th of April 16 and in addition another year of CGT holidays for those who wish to set up a Ltd Company.

To change the rules of an existing model is nasty, deceptive & wicked. If the change or watering down does not place. Then we need to mount a legal challenge.

Reply to the comment left by "Neil Allen" at "13/08/2015 - 12:28":

I really don't think we should enter any dialogue looking for a softening of the blow. The whole proposal should be scrapped because it is fundamentally wrong. A lesser blow will still have negative effects on rents, property standards and evictions. And if we accept a weaker attack at us now without repelling it, then we leave ourselves open to future attacks.

It's akin to saying to a mugger, "Don't kill me but I don't mind if you rough me up a bit".

Whichever he does it is 'plain wrong'. Where have I heard those words before???

Reply to the comment left by "shakeel ahmad" at "13/08/2015 - 14:00":

The CGT holiday doesn't solve all the problems. Some of us can't change our mortgages at all - if they are ME ones they could call in all of them for the slightest change and for others they are tied in with massive early redemption penalties. Also, why should we incorporate them into limited companies and pay 4% stamp duty? (there is now no security that the Government won't do the same to limited landlords next - they'll say they want to 'level the playing field' between incorporated and non-incorporated landlords - take a 'relief' away from one group and then the next, and then the next)
On my joint portfolio incorporation would also cost me a one-off £160,000, not counting whatever other fees would be involved. And the alternative is to sell at a point when I don't want to, in order not to pay the CGT.
I'm already thinking about the legal challenge and I think we have a few arguments we can use. In terms of discrimination law, I have an idea, which is to get some research done on anti-landlord discrimination - to show that we are a stigmatised group. It is only within the context of anti-landlord discrimination that the proposal makes any sense.
And the other/additional tack will be referring to human rights legislation. I would also be interested in finding out if there are any tax law arguments we could use. It wouldn't hurt for the Government to be made aware that we are discussing all of these things.
Also, the 'forced into exile' discussion is important - as the Government could lose a whole stack of money if the biggest portfolio landlords go AWOL. We can use some of these arguments in submissions to the Public Committee on the Finance Bill.

Reply to the comment left by "John McKay" at "13/08/2015 - 14:17":

I agree 100% John. I am already planning to put in my submission to the Public Committee the following (in draft form at the moment):

'Whilst some landlords may suggest amendments, I cannot suggest an amendment to something that, to quote the Director of the IFS again, is 'plain wrong.' Rather than there being an amendment I suggest a thorough examination of what the problems are in the housing sector, followed by solutions to those problems. For example, if it is identified (as is likely) that there is a shortage of both owner-occupier and rental properties in the UK, then policies should be brought forward to encourage building. Private landlords could be among those incentivised to provide this housing. Another example: if it is identified (as is likely), that potential first time buyers find it hard to purchase their first home, an analysis should be done of the reasons why - these reasons may include, for example, mortgage companies asking for too high a deposit, house prices being too high because of an undersupply (caused by not enough building of new homes) and so on. It must be made clear that merely forcing landlords to sell or have their properties repossessed because of this punitive tax on turnover (over-ruling the common sense position of 'income minus costs = profit) merely changes the ownership of these properties and in no way guarantees that currently tenanted properties are re-occupied by owner-occupiers (a very dubious aim of Government policy in any case).'

@john McKay.
I agree with you . I have been in UK for over 45 years & understand the arrogance & the ego of the people in power.

A typical approach is to fudge things up when faced with a real challenge.

With people's apathy, ignorance & I am all right Jack mentality. A plan B has to be in place which is fair to as many as possible.

We cannot tackle the market forces. We can however tackle a planned attacked by design within weeks of elected them.

Reply to the comment left by "Neil Allen" at "13/08/2015 - 12:28":

Hi Neil

I know you are trying to think of a way forward, but I don't agree with limiting numbers held. Its a business and people should not be subject to this, one landlord might have 5 properties but 2.3 million on finance and another landlord could have 50 and only 500,000 on finance. The government are totally wrong on this and should not compare us with home owners

Yes I see what you mean.

Trying to soften the blow somewhat only says were open to more punitive tax measures. The policy is fundamentally wrong. We are operating as businesses and should be treated as such.

Reply to the comment left by "John McKay" at "13/08/2015 - 14:17":

Agreed completely!

Reply to the comment left by "KATHY MILLER" at "13/08/2015 - 15:43":

I think its called clutching at straws Kathy. Anything but this bloody ridiculous policy. But I agree, we have to stick the course, and mount a legal challenge if necessary.

I just sent my first email to an estate agent. I took objection to him being quoted in the 'Western Mail' (a Welsh newspaper) as saying landlords are in competition with first time buyers. This is what I wrote (and added links and an example underneath)

Dear Tony

I saw that you were quoted in the Western Mail today as saying that landlords and first time buyers are in competition with each other. Could you give me some details and figures on this? I am part of a group trying to get the Government to overturn the Budget decision on restricting 'tax relief' for landlords. In fact this entails preventing landlords from offsetting the costs of our business and is a move which will bankrupt many landlords and lead to tenants losing their homes.

One of the premises behind the Government proposal is that landlords are somehow in competition with first time buyers; personally, I have never come across this in the purchase of my properties. I have rentals in Cardiff for instance, where the only time I ever knew there was any competition was when another landlord was shown my 6-bed student let just as I was leaving the viewing (perhaps an estate agent's tactic to make me offer the asking price, which I did!). So if you could give me some figures on this issue, I would be grateful.

The Government has singled out landlords with this decision and is trying to imply that we are to blame for the housing shortage. In fact, the main cause of the housing shortage is that not enough houses are being built.

I am going to paste below some links which explain some of the issues and also an example of what the Government decision will mean for landlords. As an estate agent, this is not going to be good for business, so I also hope you can help us by signing and circulating the petition against it. I am pasting the link at the bottom of this emails.

Thanks and best wishes.