Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "BTL INVESTOR SCOTLAND" at "19/09/2015 - 19:41":

Hi BTL,

I suppose it depends on what is meant by new borrowings.....when you need to remortgage e.g. because your special rate has finished, I'm assuming that is termed as new borrowings, especially if you were to change lenders. And what would happen if you remortgaged your outstanding amount plus a few thousand, are just those extra few thousand deemed as new borrowings or the whole amount?

If the new tax only applies to new purchases, we can make positive decisions. If the new tax applies to 'new' borrowings it is only a matter of time til most of us, with properties bought way in the past, will be affected.

I hope I used the word 'inevitable' wrongly. I do think it is possible to get this overturned to some extent, but whatever happens we are going to be taxed more.

Just as an alternative view...and I don't like giving too many alternatives to the government because I think they may use them all, rather use them instead of,....how about a small tax on new mortgages ....something like the insurance tax. 1% perhaps...little but often.

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "20/09/2015 - 01:24":

Thanks A.L. it does seem a little strange. Maybe it was a different employee (with differing views) sending out slightly different emails on Friday (when I got mine) and Saturday (when you got yours).

Reply to the comment left by "Barry Fitzpatrick" at "20/09/2015 - 06:49":

Barry, I don’t think that there is much fairness in Clause 24 or the resulting implications really thought through very well.

How many tenants do you think happen know whether there landlords bought/hold the property they rent (1) via a company name or (2) via their own name or (3) do not have a mortgage? (1) and (3) will be unaffected by Clause 24 as it stands. How fair or logical is that if the govts main rhetoric is levelling the playing field between residential LLs and FTB/OOs?

You rightly said yesterday: ‘The 10% incorporated LLs could conceivably hold 30-40% of the properties.’ This 10% could also hold a lot more than that. Hopefully if/when we get responses to the FOI requests we ‘might’ get more info re that?

One could argue that a non principle residential levy expressed as a small % of rental income for ALL residential landlords is not fair, but it would be infinitely fairer and generate more revenue for HMT than Clause 24.

I agree with you and others that repayment may cripple many businesses including mine, unless it was phased in over a sufficient period. Or perhaps monthly repayments of a certain % value of mortgage to bring LTV’s down.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Shine" at "20/09/2015 - 10:54":

A tenant would not have a clue until they signed a contract as to whether or not the landlord was incorporated. The thing is even if they knew....They would not have a clue as to the potential significance. I think in london.....A much greater proportion of property is incorporated....I think back to when I used to rent.....and other than one house share whilst I was in uni....and my landlords where limited companies.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Shine" at "20/09/2015 - 10:54":

@Mark,

In all probability there probably isn't a single tax that would affect all LLs equally.

But the overriding principles I believe is that all business costs should be fully deductible against income, should not discriminate against or favour any particular business and thirdly taxes should not be retrospectively applied.

The tax system for PRS is already distorted with incorporated LLs paying only 20% tax (going on 18%), as opposed to some LLs paying 40% or 45% (going on 100%+).

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "19/09/2015 - 14:27":

All my houses put together are worth less than his (just), but they house 6 families.

Reply to the comment left by "Saeef Khan" at "20/09/2015 - 10:21":

Not sure, but I decided to make sure that all properties have both anyway,> in some areas, the Fire Brigade will install them for nothing.

Interesting article here from the Observer today (although on-line is coming up as The Guardian). The writer manages to write a very intelligent piece about the 'housing crisis' without slagging off private landlords!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/20/right-to-buy-disastrous-for-housing-market

Reply to the comment left by "Kathy Evans" at "20/09/2015 - 12:18":

I believe it to mean all rented property from 1st Oct

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "20/09/2015 - 12:41":

He did advocate against landlords indirectly, read following paragraph which hinges on taxation.

To change this, Britain will need to tax property more, relax planning laws, build much more and, above all, strike at the debt creation process described above. As property became more affordable, so the whole crisis would unwind: there would be a more natural passage from renting, either in the private or social housing sector, to owning. And conservative politicians would feel less need to pillage social housing for opportunities for home ownership because the whole structure would work better.