Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Having said that, we must continue campaigning and lobbying to make a point.

Reply to the comment left by "Manchester Landlord" at "10/09/2015 - 18:31":

I just tried to register but couldn't manage it. Maybe someone else can and counter the usual landlord-bashing ignoramus' comments? (there are only a couple so far)

The NLA has been a massive disappointment. How can they be so defeatist and accepting of the indefensible? The RLA are coming off far better in this campaign against the worst attack on landlords in history (I always challenge anyone to find an equally devastating or worse move against landlords by any British government and no-one has found one).

It's crap to say categorically there will be no u-turn. We have to fight to get the u-turn - or at least the amendment that it only applies to purchases from 2017 (or 2016 - I don't care) onwards. What? Has the NLA got psychic powers that it knows this?

And for their information, none of us have thought that the petition is a panacea or would work miracles - they insult our intelligence. It is also incredible that they have not backed the petition. For their information, we have been trying everything we can think of. And we are the ones who have got a national newspaper to back the campaign - not them. And what we don't need is a body supposedly representing landlords to give up within a month or two of the announcement.

Someone mentioned for example, the fact that the Government may be phasing it in so that they can gauge negative consequences - so that they can then backtrack (once they've caused a lot of damage already). A u-turn or significant amendment could come at any point. For them to be talking about roll-over relief is bloody annoying. I don't want to set up a waste-of-time expensive limited company. Why the hell should I? Where is the evidence that putting your business into that legal framework does anything other than create paperwork, cost money and provide work for accountants? It does nothing for tenants and it makes no improvement to the PRS.

I still honestly believe this madness cannot prevail. If you think of any struggle or battle in history, did people succeed because they gave up when faced with an awful injustice and the perpetrators of the injustice said 'oh, no we're not changing our minds'? The NLA needs to grow a backbone. I have no idea what their membership is but it is going to shrink as a result of this submission in the face of this lunatic policy.

NB. I just mentioned this to my teenage son and he said 'maybe they're not landlords,' which leads me to wonder maybe those running the NLA are landlords without mortgages, so they don't care? (just an idea)

Reply to the comment left by "Saeef Khan" at "10/09/2015 - 20:04":

Saeef, I pray you are right. And yes we do need to keep fighting this madness, even if the proposal does get passed.

Ros, I think you're right. I know of a lot of older members in the associations who own one or two properties unencumbered. They couldn't give two hoots about this proposal... And if anything it will probably benefit them as rents increase as a result.

Keep pushing everyone.

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "10/09/2015 - 20:10":

"I always challenge anyone to find an equally devastating or worse move against landlords by any British government and no-one has found one"
Ros, can I extend this challenge to find a worse move against any business by any government in the Western world?

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "10/09/2015 - 20:56":

David, excellent way of putting it.

I whole heartedly agree with every word you have said.

The Tories have chopped hands of very people who have relentlessly supported them through elections.

They could potentially be challenged for commiting deception as they were only party who remained silent despite having nasties up their sleeves.

They have obtained some 2-3 million votes by deception.

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "10/09/2015 - 20:10":

Hi Ros
I totally agree with you about the shameful way the NLA are behaving and treating their members. I am a member and expected they would take on the Government on behalf of its members. I have contacted them by email on occasions and only got a standardised reply to the first one. I have also written them a long letter - this has also been completely ignored. My husband and I will now be cancelling our membership and joining RLA instead - the only message they will get is when Landlords start cancelling their membership.

TIme to compare RLA vs NLA if i'm still a UK landlord when it comes time to renew.

Reply to the comment left by "Manchester Landlord" at "10/09/2015 - 18:31":

Hi M L

Thanks for the link. After all the effort the NLA put into its analysis of the proposed change:
http://www.landlords.org.uk/sites/default/files/Finance%20Bill%202015-16%20-%20Briefing%20-%20August%202015_0.pdf

published under the name of C Norris, Head of Policy, NLA, it comes as a shock that he has not only given up at the first rebuff, but has broadcast his surrender to undermine the rest of us.

The NLA may not be interested in portfolio landlords. The only example they
showed in their analysis (page 5) was of someone with a salary of £50,000 who receives rent of £9,600 a year. The annual interest is £4,252.50 so this landlord will pay an extra £850.50 tax from 2020/21.

The online version of their spreadsheet still has 4 of the 5 errors I told them about last Thursday, so must not be used. The only thing they corrected was the commencement date – they thought it was next year. I still have not received an acknowledgement from their head office or the local representative. Maybe they are all on holiday.

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "10/09/2015 - 20:56":

For any business: also in this budget, stopping one/two person Ltd companies from claiming travel expenses to client sites (without being taxed on them), but saying it does not apply to big businesses All of the CIS regime and IR35 (attack on small IT businesses)

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "10/09/2015 - 22:11":

Appalled, I agree however they have also written positive stuff in our favour..have a look:
Recommendations:
(i) Remove clause 24 of the Finance Bill 2015-16 on the basis that it will lead to increased housing costs during an affordability crisis.
Mortgage interest, and associated costs, are legitimate revenue expenses which should be deducted from income prior to calculating tax liability. This is the case in other areas of business and there is no credible justification for removing the ability from private landlords.
To remove tax relief from private-landlords in this manner will jeopardize landlords’ businesses and put the affordability of housing at risk in many parts of the UK.
(ii) Amend clause 24 to ensure that only consumer landlords are effected.
The Chancellor’s Budget Statement, and the subsequent wording of clause 24 characterizes landlords as consumers, on a par with homeowners. The NLA believes this is inconsistent with HM Treasury’s recent implementation of the EU Mortgage Credit Directive by means of the Mortgage Credit Directive Order 20158, which states:
(4) For the purposes of this Part, a borrower is to be regarded as entering into an agreement for the purposes of a business carried on, or intended to be carried on, by the borrower if the agreement is a buy-to-let mortgage contract and—
(a)
(i) the borrower previously purchased, or is entering into the contract in order to finance the purchase by the borrower of, the land to which the agreement relates;
(ii) at the time of the purchase the borrower intended that the land would be occupied as a dwelling on the basis of a rental agreement and would not at any time be occupied as a dwelling by the borrower or by a related person, or where the borrower has not yet purchased the land the borrower has such an intention at the time of entering into the contract; and
(iii) where the borrower has purchased the land, since the time of the purchase the land has not at any time been occupied as a dwelling by the borrower or by a related person; or
(b) the borrower is the owner of land, other than the land to which the agreement relates, which is—
(i) occupied as a dwelling on the basis of a rental agreement and is not occupied as a dwelling by the borrower or by a related person.