Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "Barry Fitzpatrick" at "08/09/2015 - 22:33":

Hi Barry

Can you cut and paste, I cant access it a popup is in the way and I cant get rid of it

Thanks

Reply to the comment left by "Barry Fitzpatrick" at "09/09/2015 - 06:26":

Hi Barry.
As you say then, yours isn't a good example if we want maximum impact. So perhaps you should think about the arguments of justice and fairness etc. and direct the journalist to some of our resources - e.g. Mark's article 'A Level Playing Field between homeowners and landlords'? Perhaps others here can suggest the other best resources you could point him/her to. I also like the letter to George Freeman (based on Jerry Jones' letter), showing how this would affect MPs if it were applied to their staffing costs?
Then, the journalist can find their own case studies or ask Mark, as I think he has a few willing landlords.

We would all have received the e-mail form the Petitions Team saying we can write in to the Public Bills Committee.

Can I suggest we urgently craft a single version of the correspondence and in doing so create a stunning sucinct 3,000 word document that we all email. It is imperative the committee see the common fundamental concerns and issues and if we have a single version correspondence then we can be sure they get the pint of our argument and are forced too consider the issues without getting lost ion 26.000 versions.

Also if we have a pre-written version then we can get others who have supported us in signing the petition to send it also where they would not find time or or have the inclination to write their own.

How do we proceed?

Reply to the comment left by "Trendo " at "09/09/2015 - 03:02":

Hey Trendo. You could almost have been talking about me! I recognise a lot of what you say - including the cannabis factory. You've come up with a good list there to illustrate the work and there will inevitably be even more jobs we do that others could add.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Brown" at "09/09/2015 - 08:20":

I'm not sure, Mark. We sent in some concise submissions - a few weeks ago, addressing the inaccurate and weak impact statement by HMRC, the lack of logic in GO's justification of it (fairness, level playing field etc), also on myths about landlords and prejudice, one of how it will impact on tenants, another with arguments from this forum, another one on 'alternatives and one on case studies, showing how it will affect landlords with different size portfolios. These needed to be in the 8th of September.

Another one might be being drafted in the next few days, depending on any other deadline...

I don't know what other groups - the RLA, NLA, other individuals etc. are also submitting I wouldn't want to flood the Committee with emails as they then might not see the ones we put a lot of work into. I do favour flooding MPs email accounts and targeting key individuals... I wonder what others think?

Speaking at yesterday's FCA mortgage conference in London Legal and General group chief executive NIgel Wilson threw down the gauntlet to BTL landlords calling for " an end to the cottage industry of fragmented ownership of private rented housing in the UK"
"Renting will becme a huge institutional market creating 20,000-30,000 new homes a year-thay,s £6bn market."

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Brown" at "09/09/2015 - 08:20":

@Mark,

I'm not sure how the Public Committee will view receiving thousands of identical letters, if it were me I'd probably regard them once I've read the first few.

Would it not be better if we can put together a list of bullet points and that people can then put in their own words? Yes I know some people won't be bothered

Reply to the comment left by "ray selley" at "09/09/2015 - 08:49":

Maybe it will become an institution dominated market. If there is yield to be had, they will come.

Build to Rent has already featured in government thinking and there is no doubt that the likes of L&G have more of an ear at the Treasury than individual landlords (and their associations).

I am not bothered about 'competition' from an organisation like L&G.

HOW TO SUBMIT TO THE PUBLIC BILL COMMITTEE
(from the Government website)

Guidance on submitting written evidence

Deadline for written evidence submissions

The Public Bill Committee is now able to receive written evidence. The sooner you send in your submission, the more time the Committee will have to take it into consideration. Consideration of the Bill in a Committee of the whole House is expected to take place on Tuesday 8 September 2015. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee are scheduled in the programme motion to conclude by Tuesday 20 October 2015, but could finish earlier.

Please note: When the Public Bill Committee reports, it is no longer able to receive written evidence and it could report earlier than Tuesday 20 October 2015.

What should written evidence cover?

Your submission should address matters contained within the Bill and concentrate on issues where you have a special interest or expertise, and factual information of which you would like the Committee to be aware.

Your submission could most usefully:

suggest amendments to the Bill with explanation; and
(when available) support or oppose amendments tabled or proposed to the Bill by others with explanation
It is helpful if the submission includes a brief introduction about you or your organisation. The submission should not have been previously published or circulated elsewhere.

If you have any concerns about your submission, please contact the Scrutiny Unit (details below).

How should written evidence be submitted?

Your submission should be emailed to scrutiny@parliament.uk. Please note that submissions sent to the Government department in charge of the Bill will not be treated as evidence to the Public Bill Committee.

Submissions should be in the form of a Word document. A summary should be provided. Paragraphs should be numbered, but there should be no page numbering.

Essential statistics or further details can be added as annexes, which should also be numbered. To make publication easier, please avoid the use of coloured graphs, complex diagrams or pictures.

As a guideline, submissions should not exceed 3,000 words.

Please include in the covering email the name, address, telephone number and email address of the person responsible for the submission. The submission should be dated.

Reply to the comment left by "KATHY MILLER" at "09/09/2015 - 07:33":

@Kathy

Here's the extract (I hope I don't get chased for copyright infringement)

This shocking tax attack on landlords will turn Britain into bedsit land

The scale of the threat to landlords from the government’s tax attack on buy-to-let is starting to become clearer — and it doesn’t look pretty. Many landlords are going to have to pay substantially more to HMRC when tax relief is curbed. Unless they take action, the changes that will be phased in over four years from April 2017 could turn a profitable business into a loss-making enterprise.

Tax advisers are already urgently talking to clients who might be affected. For some it will be enough to force them into selling up. Others will try to negate the loss by pushing up rents for their existing tenants.

Alternatively we could see landlords turning their back on the traditional one or two-bedroom buy-to-let flat. As a means of remaining solvent it could encourage them to chop up existing properties into tiny units, turning them into so-called Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO). Research out this week claims that a HMO can generate up to four times as much rental income as a standard buy-to-let property. Platinum Property Partners says that the average monthly rental income for a HMO property in 2014 was £3,298 compared with £754 in the wider buy-to-let market. Could one consequence of George Osborne’s shock tax change be a Britain turned into bedsit land?

david.budworth@thetimes.co.uk