Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "KATHY MILLER" at "28/08/2015 - 20:39":

Yes and who can guess how far down it [Envelope tax] will go.

I am wondering whether the fact that all MPs/ministers are trotting out the 'fair taxation' and 'level playing field' line is more to do with them not understanding the implications of the proposals themselves, rather than them being totally intransigent? (although that will be a major part of it probably!)

I have to say that I did not find it the easiest thing to get my head round at first and it affects me!

These people are, like myself, probably not the sharpest knives in the drawer when it comes to understanding figures and rather than bothering to immerse themselves in working through the implications of the proposals it is easier for them just to follow the script.

If that is the case would it be a good idea for us to make even more use of Jerry's masterly letter in which he likens MP's staffing costs to the finance costs of landlords, and to send personalised copies to at least DC and GO if not the rest of the cabinet as well?

It would involve a lot of work to put the letters together, but it would be very powerful I think in illustrating to those individuals just how severe the effects of the proposals would be if it were themselves who were going to be affected.

Reply to the comment left by "Anne Nixon" at "29/08/2015 - 07:18":

I agree with your analysis Anne. We have that challenge of making them spend at least 10 minutes listening, reading and/or thinking about it in a concrete way. As you say, the letter showing how if would affect them - the attempt to extract some empathy - from them is a really useful tool for this and should be sent to as many MPs as possible. Even if the letters aren't all individualised, the one by Jerry would still be good as it shows the basic idea and it should be easy enough for MPs to apply it to their own figures. I'll show it my Labour MP when I see him in September. As he is already supportive (he says - but I haven't met him yet and so it's not definite), I'll show him the letter rather as another reason he should be on our side.

While, we are approaching our respective MP'S. I feel that a lot of landlords had been away on holidays & would have lost our inertia in so far as the petition etc. Perhaps it is time for another effort to put in place to get to our 100k petition target.

I have just sent a third open letter to my MP regarding the need for homeowners and landlords to play on a level playing field, please see the link below

http://www.property118.com/level-playing-field-between-homeowners-landlords/79644/
.

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "29/08/2015 - 09:16":

Agreed Ros, I will send that original example to my own MP now - it will serve to remind him of issue as parliament reconvenes!

Reply to the comment left by "KATHY MILLER" at "28/08/2015 - 15:20":

Thanks for posting the below NLA link yesterday Kathy.

Worth a read if anyone missed it, so am bumping it:

Finance Bill 2015-16: - Impact of clause 24 on private landlords
http://www.landlords.org.uk/sites/default/files/Finance%20Bill%202015-16%20-%20Briefing%20-%20August%202015.pdf

Reply to the comment left by "BTL INVESTOR SCOTLAND" at "26/08/2015 - 19:59":

Hi BTL I S

Upad have just sent this link to the English Housing Survey on a government website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/453668/Bulletin_12Aug2015_FINAL.pdf

At the foot of page 1 it credits the private rented sector for much of the increase in the number of dwellings between 1996 and 2013. It says “much”, but should have said “the overwhelming majority”. It reads:

"From 1996 to 2013, the total number of dwellings in England increased steadily from 20.3 million in 1996 to 23.3 million in 2013. Much of this was due to the notable growth in private rented housing which more than doubled in size from 2.0 million to 4.5 million (19% of the stock) over this period."

Thus 2.5 million out of the 3 million increase was thanks to the PRS. That is 83%.

4.5m is 19% of 23.3m.

I don’t know if there are similar surveys for the other parts of the UK.

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "29/08/2015 - 12:13":

Hi Appalled. I like this statistic too, but there is a problem with it - which is that our opposition could say the 2 million or so new-builds should have gone to owner-occupiers, but we 'stole' them. It would be good if we could get a figure on how many landlords had these houses built - and how, if landlords hadn't funded them and/or been willing to buy them off developers, they wouldn't have been built...

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "29/08/2015 - 12:57":

Hi Ros

I posted the above figures as an update to my post of 23.31 at:
http://www.property118.com/budget-2015-landlords-reactions/76164/comment-page-345/#comments

in which I rebutted an article in the Guardian by Patrick Collinson. I quoted the chairman of the RLA saying:
“Between 1986 and 2012, 57 per cent of all new dwellings created were private homes to rent, the majority of which were by individual landlords providing vital houses for those requiring accommodation, especially those needing to move for work or study. These homes were not “taken” from those who wished to buy.”

The government’s figures that I posted today, for the period 1996 to 2013, endorse
what I wrote before, but the percentage is dramatically higher – 83% over 17 years, as opposed to 57% over 26 years.

Potential occupiers had just as much opportunity as landlords to buy these 2.5 million dwellings in England. I bought a flat, a town house and a detached house that were already finished and available for viewing, but which had not attracted owner-occupiers. Those who were able to buy their home at that time must have got what they wanted elsewhere. I did not take these properties away from anybody.

I also bought several flats off-plan, which required putting a lot of faith in the builder as regards the final product. Maybe owner-occupiers were not willing to take a leap of faith with their deposit, or wait 18 months for the property to be finished.

If developers had had to wait for owner-occupiers to view the finished product, they would not have had the finance to start new sites, so the stock would be lower now. Therefore prices and rents would be higher than they are, and potential owner-occupiers would be worse off than they are.

The under-supply of new dwellings has been the cause of the housing problem for many years. The fact that should be brought home to people is that landlords are responsible for 83% of the increase in the supply of dwellings in England between 1996 and 2013.

As regards the analysis of sales of new-builds between occupiers and landlords, the developers probably have these statistics. Maybe their national federations/associations collect them.