Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Yet another article by Mortgage Strategy that, forthcoming move is unlikely to be reversed.

http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/news-and-features/sectors/buy-to-let/buy-to-let-features/buy-to-let-watch-petition-of-rights/2023573.article

Scottish landlords take tax case to The Treasury

Scottish landlords will today meet with senior UK Government officials in London to urge them to rethink planned tax changes for private landlords or risk threatening investment in the Private Rented Sector (PRS) at a time when Scotland is facing a long-term housing crisis.

Representatives from the Scottish Association of Landlords (SAL) will meet with senior Treasury officials in London to point out the consequences of the changes announced in the Budget in July.

In his Budget Statement, the Chancellor has proposed reducing tax relief on buy-to-let mortgages and replacing the current “wear and tear” depreciation allowance for items such as furniture. These changes will significantly increase costs and result in reduced investment and upgrading of properties, or some landlords exiting the market altogether.

In his Budget Statement, the Chancellor has proposed reducing tax relief on buy-to-let mortgages and replacing the current “wear and tear” depreciation allowance for items such as furniture. These changes will significantly increase costs and result in reduced investment and upgrading of properties, or some landlords exiting the market altogether.

“Even the numbers put forward by The Treasury, which claim only 1 in 5 landlords will be affected by the tax changes, represents a huge swathe of the sector. We believe, when taking the changes to ‘wear and tear’ in to account, the actual number will be a lot higher.”

“We have heard just last week in the press from a landlord in Edinburgh about how these tax changes will make it harder for families on benefits to find accommodation in the private sector, increasing demand on council housing which is already over-subscribed across Scotland.”

“Both SAL and our members are in favour of ensuring the highest possible standards in the sector and are working with the Scottish Government to achieve that but these measures could see landlords forced to pass at least some of the burden on to tenants in the shape of increased rent which they don’t want to do.”

Reply to the comment left by "Lisa Stux" at "16/09/2015 - 09:23":

Good point Lisa. I tried to press the 'no' button yesterday when it was on zero and it stayed on zero so I thought I had done something wrong. I now just did it again and it went from 9 to 10 so that might have been me! Others should do the same as you say. I don't know if anyone even looks at this, but it takes a second to press the button, so it's got to be worth a try.

Here is the link again:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2015-09-09.9770.h&s=landlord#g9770.r0

Reply to the comment left by "Scottish Association of Landlords" at "16/09/2015 - 09:32":

That's brilliant Scottish Association Landlords". Could you perhaps make a point that, change should not be retrospective (I am sure you'll make this point anyway).

That way, new entrants can make an informed choice whether or not enter this sector or buy a property via LTD company. We bought our properties under previous legislation therefore we should not get brunt on something we never planned for.

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "16/09/2015 - 09:39":

So easy even I could do it. The no count now stands at 11.

If the government does really thinks that, they do not want BTL investors buying properties and want to give first time buyers first opportunity then why are they making this legislation restrospective?

We won't buy anymore properties, we'll let first time buyers buy the properties but leave our existing properties alone, this way government will achieve their aim.

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "16/09/2015 - 09:43":

David, do you ever buy properties from Clive Emsons Auctioneers since you live in Kent?

Reply to the comment left by "Scottish Association of Landlords" at "16/09/2015 - 09:32":

Personally, I think the one battle of the 'tax grab' should be focused on. There are so many things wrong with this and it will affect a massive number of landlords and tenants. I really hope the 'wear and tear' one doesn't get pushed as I can see the Treasury compromising on that and SAL thinking they've won something, when the wear and tear issue means nothing to many of us - the central issue here is disallowing us to offset costs - costs which we can prove because we have the mortgage statements to show it. We are still allowed to claim for maintenance (for the moment) when we have the receipts to prove it and I think many people would not sympathise much with the argument that we should be able to claim for maintenance even with no evidence that we've spent any money on it.
Before I get shouted down for this, I reiterate - the issue to be focused on is the disallowing of us to offset costs (I really want to stop using the 'tax relief restriction' phrase even in inverted commas). It is scandalous and I am really worried about SAL and the RLA being sidetracked onto the wear and tear issue.

I have similar experiences to you Saeef: a number of landlords that I have asked about their thoughts on the proposed budget changes have responded along the lines of 'what budget changes?'

I point them to resources they can use to learn about something that is about to wipe out their income - in some cases totally - but I am quite sure that most haven't bothered to investigate properly.

I am in two minds about this: part of me wants them to understand it and react accordingly; part of me says that if they can't be bothered to find out on their own, they are making their own bed and will have to lie in it sometime

Maybe I will even have a chance to buy from them at good value in due course.

Reply to the comment left by "Saeef Khan" at "16/09/2015 - 09:46":

The answer is a definite maybe. I have never bought a Clive Emson property at auction but have occasionally bought one that did not sell after the auction.