Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

With only 32,843 signatures to the e-petition we're not going to get the reversal of this Bill debated in Parliament as we need 100,000 signatures for that.
If I were GO, I'd be thinking that only 2% of the landlord population have signed saying they disagree with this Bill.
We need to grow teeth in the eyes of the Government.
We need 100,000 signatures minimum ASAP
We need the whole of the Landlord community to understand how they will be affected & engage them. This must go viral.
We need to keep up with sending letters/emails to MP's, Councillors, the Press & even if no response (send another copy until you get a reply & even if negative, send another and another)
We need to know our rights ie why are landlords deemed a cottage industry with too many tax breaks & "not" being treated as a property business if unincorporated
We need to know our rights ie are all landlords with similar incomes paying the same tax ie why are incorporated landlords after the deduction of 100% of their finance costs from rental income paying less tax than a self employed person who earns from the identical amount of rental income & pays the same amount in finance cost (aka horizontal tax inequity).
We need intelligence - what is the true long term game plan. Only then do we know what war to fight (or adjust to) & therefore en route know the difference the battles that need to be won or those that can be sacrificed or are just smokescreens.
We must not believe GO is stupid. He's not.
We need to get inside his head/his advisers heads & understand the basis on which his decisions are being made and the Governments of all EU Countries long term objectives/strategy so that we can understand & fight the long game (or be given a fair chance to adjust to accordingly).
Having been a director in a major blue chip company for many years, when a big long term plan was decided on, we would know exactly how we wanted the end game to look having collected all available data (eg economic viability of the PRS - especially in London) & exhausted all the options available to us until we came up with a step by step tactical plan on how to bring about this desired change, one of which was "we" the Commanders needed to influence (some would say manipulate) our heads of dept senior & middle management (front & back bench MP's) who were afraid of fighting back, to help get us there ie we planned takeovers of other firms (clear the playing field & become a super group) & on taking over the employees under continuous service/rights, we'd implement contract changes (for the worse) for junior management & the foot soldiers (under the guise of being fairer & better in the long term) in order the "all so rans" (accidental landlords) would leave fairly quickly of their own accord, and senior/middle management (landlords with small(er) run portfolios employing few if no staff) would also leave over the next 2-5 years under their own steam. This just left the Chief Commanders (large corporate developers & landlords) & a few senior mngt (larger portfolio self employed landlords who had disencumbered themselves) to bed in the end game, which was to ultimately sell out, leaving the Stake/shareholders (aka Government & larger corporates) very happy having got the organisation (UKplc Housing Market) lean & mean to attract further investment (the Governments initiatives is to encourage increased supply through a National Planning Policy Framework, Build to Rent, a PRS taskforce & the PRS Housing Guarantee.
However quite a few senior management came together & with careful planning were able ride on the coat tails of this change & have done and still are doing very well indeed. But this was only because they made it their job to i) gain the right intelligence ii) to understand what they couldn't change iii) the courage to plan ahead on how to benefit from these changes iv) the courage to change the things they could & most importantly v) the wisdom to know the difference.

Reply to the comment left by "Steven O'Neill" at "05/10/2015 - 18:55":

Steven.....I don't quite understand...If you are still in the fortunate position of being able to consider buying another property...why not just do it through a limited company? Btl is not dead....its just the landscape has changed. Although I must admit. ...I am tempted to try buy to renovate and sell for my next project. Never tried that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-25757566
A council keeping homeless families for prolonged periods illegally in bed and breakfast hotels is to spend £4m on 40 houses.

Reply to the comment left by "KATHY MILLER" at "07/10/2015 - 08:08":

Bit of a cheek for the chief exec of Crisis to say the private rented sector is 'broken' - and said in a very casual way as though that is a given. It isn't broken from where I'm looking - apart from all the attacks on us from all directions, including all the regulations premised on discrimination and a kind of 'guilty until proven innocent' philosophy my houses are run very well and most people are very happy. That's why they stay put for year after year (yeah, I'm kicking them out regularly, because I love having voids). They won't be so happy when the rent increase letters start though.

Reply to the comment left by "Manchester Landlord" at "07/10/2015 - 08:24":

It looks like a good idea but the mortgage interest would still be paid by you and, assuming you took much the same income in salary plus rent on your leased property from the housing association as you now receive in rent, you would still not receive higher rate tax relief on the mortgage interest.

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "07/10/2015 - 09:38":

Hi David,

I was thinking of leasing my properties at say 50% of the market rent on a guaranteed basis with maintenance and repairs included, and my wife taking the salary. I would still retain some income but would minimise the effect somewhat. Could be seen as aggressive avoidance so will have to check it out - also I could be complicating things when there is an easier solution.

Reply to the comment left by "KATHY MILLER" at "07/10/2015 - 09:26":

Interesting article Kathy. Nice to see Labour blaming a local council for buying cheap properties that OOs could afford 'in the poorest areas.' It makes a pleasant change for someone else to be blamed. Of course, if OOs could afford them and wanted them they'd be buying them.
And 2-bed properties are most in demand, the article says. They can come and buy some of mine - I'd be glad to be shot of the ones in the 'poorest areas,' because these are the ones where you periodically find yourself having to go back to square one with a house, when an errant tenant is evicted and/or leaves - spending a fortune re-decorating etc. when the house itself isn't worth much and the rents are low. Yes, I'd love to sell these to the council or OOs.

Reply to the comment left by "Laura Delow" at "07/10/2015 - 09:15":

Hi Laura

Yes I agree they want the sector , I can see the landlords with perhaps 1 or 2 and a day job leaving as with all the reg its not going to look attractive to them, so I agree hes dressed it like hes helping them.But as made an error in the tax calc pushing them into 40%.

And yes they are making it difficult and more cost with regulation after regulation piled on us.

And they have definately helped turn Joe public against us.

So what are your views on the benefit housing sector because he is encouraging the social sector to build for affordable rents not social.
Having said that from reading debates I got the feeling he does not like the HA and I think they will also come under pressure from GO soon. Probably see some go to the wall.

But there will be a massive fall out , look how many areas the industry employs , jobs will go in the millions. What do you feel is plan is regards this?

Then there is the mortgage sector and the banker friends how do you propose he will sweeten them with all the lost business.?

Do they really want massive bankruptcies ?

What about foreign investment , they will still want that
?

I can see he wants the rents raised to encourage the big boys but we get the blame for it ie greedy landlords.

If he succeeds no jobs/grants for shelter , they cant be seen slagging off their mates in government.

Reply to the comment left by "Manchester Landlord" at "07/10/2015 - 09:51":

Avoidance is just what GO is advocating, 'giving landlords time to adjust'; in any case avoidance is legal. There is some case law which I believe is Inland Revenue Commissioners -v- Duke of Westminster 1935, "Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so that the tax under a tax statute is less than it would otherwise be"
Provided your wife works for her salary you may be in with a chance. If she does nothing then it could well be classed as aggressive avoidance if not evasion.