Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

One of the attractions of large corporate landlords for the government is that they would probably be purchasing / building homes funded by investors, they would not need to borrow money and therefore there is no tax relief. It seems it would be a cheaper option for HMT.

Savills policy response on BTL tax relief

Worthy of a peruse imo

http://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/141280/192753-0

I try to keep an open mind, but in this case my thoughts on the likely outcome of C24, if it goes ahead, have not changed much since I heard the budget speech on July 8th, particularly given that:

1. The Govt have made it clear in words and actions over recent years that they will do whatever they can to avoid a house price crash.
2. Tenants (and votes) are protected.

It is possible that the effects of C24 may help some tenants become OOs, which is a good thing… but I still think the main outcome of C24 will be a transfer in ownership from the minority of LLs to the majority of LLs.

Minority of LLs = encumbered and non incorporated. These will be the main losers in addition to the majority of tenants.

Majority of LLs = unencumbered / wealthiest LLs as well as a growing number of ‘corporates’ all the way from the one person band ‘borrow to let’ types to institutional players. These will be the main winners, in addition to possibly a very small percentage of tenants.

https://www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2015/10/petition-against-buy-to-let-tax-change-a-waste-of-time-says-industry-group

was an article about NLA re ‘the petition’ this morning. At the end of the article: ‘Instead, Lambert says his association is attempting to meet and brief MPs directly’.

Does anyone know if NLA, RLA, SAL etc have formulated a plan offline to coordinate their lobbying efforts together for greater efficacy?

Reply to the comment left by "S.E. Landlord" at "12/10/2015 - 11:03":

Government are giving them incentives and free loans

Reply to the comment left by "Jon Pipllman" at "12/10/2015 - 11:14":

Meeting rental supply
This suggests that Government policy also needs to take steps to expand the supply of rental properties in a way that does not create competition with first time buyers and which also provides them with an affordable and flexible tenure until they are in a position to graduate into home ownership.
This would indicate that large-scale institutional investment in the private rented sector remains an important part in dealing with the housing crisis, particularly with planning measures to ensure that the supply is additional. Specifically that would support the need for purpose-built accommodation that delivers a yield premium to investors.
In the absence of such measures there is a risk that the market becomes further under-supplied with a resultant upward pressure on rents.

Rents will rise

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Shine" at "12/10/2015 - 11:20":

Richard Lambert is being more than annoying with regard to the petition. Of course we should be lobbying MPs and we are. All the bloody time. It's not a case of 'either/or'. And he is actively discouraging people from signing the petition (by calling it a 'waste of time'), which takes them about a minute to do.
We all know it doesn't necessarily have any big impact on its own. But it's better to have 100,000 signatures or 50,000 signatures than to have 0, which is how many there would be if everyone followed Mr Lambert's view.
Of course, at first sight, it seems really weird that the head of a national landlords' association should be against people signing a petition against the worst attack on landlords in history. Could it be perhaps because his arch rival organisation, the RLA agreed to promote it (finally - I pestered them for weeks to start a petition, eventually giving up and then they had to be persuaded - by Connie I think - to actually circulate Ruhal's petition to members).
It seems to me that he is letting personal issues get in the way of policy - I've got no idea of what went on in the past between the NLA and RLA but he should not let it affect how he sees this campaign.
He says his way is the best way, well I would like to know what he has achieved behind the scenes then.
In the meantime, he should stop undermining the various efforts of all different landlord groups, including ours. I may remind him that it was us who asked Richard Dyson to start the Telegraph campaign. What has the NLA done to promote our case in the Press?

Amendments to the wording of Clause 24 by David Gauke posted on 8th October:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0057/amend/pbc0570810a.1-7.html

Any accountants able to translate into English?

This is the Bill before the clause amendment:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0057/cbill_2015-20160057_en_5.htm#pt4-pb1-l1g24

In addition to someone explaining whether the amendment means anything, can someone alsotell me where it states that we will be able to claim 20% of the finance costs if/when the clause is in operation?

Hi Ros,

In this section:

BR × L

where BR is the basic rate of income tax for the year, and L is the lower
of—

274a section 3