Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Cooper" at "28/11/2015 - 13:16":

Maybe there is an anti-landlord/anti-tory diatribe in the Guardian, Independent, Mirror, New Statesman from a while back... Where more such Conservative MPs like Mr Blackmore have been "named and shamed" by the author so to speak.

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Cooper" at "28/11/2015 - 13:16":

Unfortunately, I bet most of them are unencumbered, in which case C24 won't affect them. They were unlikely to be in the category of portfolio landlord as that is usually a full-time job, as we know and we are the ones who face the potentially catastrophic scenarios. If I had one BTL I might be disappointed and annoyed at my options for future purchases scuppered, but it is no way as devastating as when you have tens of thousands of pounds of interest payments upon which you will now be taxed.

MPs couldn't run that level of business at the same time as being an MP (even with a managing agent you'd get a lot of shit - whenever I used them in the past whenever there was a problem they just handed it over to me - glorified middle-men I found - sorry to any agents reading this - it is my opinion, based on my limited experience).

Also, these MPs might like to prove how 'impartial' they are by voting for measures against landlords... Conflict of interest and all that. So we get the non-landlords with their politics of envy and jumping on the populist bandwagon and the landlord-MPs trying to prove they're not biased.

On the other hand, the level of vitriol has reached delirious proportions. They need a good hard slap in the face to shake them out of their hysteria. Idiots.

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "28/11/2015 - 12:49":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/12020298/One-in-three-Tory-MPs-own-buy-to-lets-but-theyve-wrecked-it-for-everyone-else-say-landlords.html

I think this might be the article you meant before Ros.

Reply to the comment left by "Gareth Wilson" at "28/11/2015 - 13:32":

Thanks Gareth. Yes, that's the one - but I can't read it on-line as I haven't got a subscription and have used up my 'views.' I am very careful with the money...

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "28/11/2015 - 13:35":

One has to be... Maintaining our evil citadels and building them to conduct bolts of lightning just right is an expensive business!

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Cooper" at "28/11/2015 - 13:16":

Bob Blackman
Phillip Davies
Christopher Chope

...

Reply to the comment left by "Gareth Wilson" at "28/11/2015 - 13:24":

Here is one such anti-landlord/anti-tory article with Conservatives identified in the process:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/tory-mps-donors-taking-millions-5614468

Article in the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/nov/28/stamp-duty-buy-to-let-autumn-statement

It would appear that Patrick Collinson is reading Property118 as he directly quotes something David Lawrenson wrote a day or two ago here.

Apparently, we are now 'threatening retaliatory rent rises.' Uh, if that means we are going to charge as much as we possibly can for the service our business provides, because we can no longer offset the main cost of our tax-producing asset, then we are doing just what any business would. He presumably thinks that being faced with infinite tax rates on losses we will delve into our bottomless pit of money and use that and make sure that we do not increase rents as that would be 'retaliatory.'
As we know, many of us have kept our rents low for years because we are not money-grabbing and were happy to let things tick over. We get no credit for that; they don't believe it.
If their ideas were true and that we in fact are already charging the maximum, then increasing them would be impossible, so what are they worrying about? They want it all ways.
Presumably the Government and/or Labour Party (the same thing as far as landlords are concerned) will also pick up on this phrase now and outlaw 'retaliatory rent rises.' God give me strength.

If anyone can find a reliable email address for Patrick Collinson can they post it here as I have tried to write to him in the past but the emails bounce back?

Reply to the comment left by "Gareth Wilson" at "28/11/2015 - 13:57":

That one really gets on my nerves. I don't care how rich those people are. They are providing a housing service. Are they supposed to do it for nothing? The only way out of being accused of 'taking taxpayers' money' by receiving LHA is to discriminate against people on benefits. That is the natural conclusion of this argument. Only take workers and you can't be accused of this particular crime. The Government can then see what they want to do with all of the millions of people on benefits who need a rental home and will never be able to buy. Presumably they will then beg and try to incentivise private landlords to please come back and help them out? And they can get stuffed.

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "28/11/2015 - 13:29":

I have to disagree with your Ros. I have always worked an 18 hour day in my day job (more recently down to 12 hours which I bet is still a longer day than most MP's), but always managed to run my portfolio (admittedly not as big as others) of 17 properties in and around London (since sold 2 with a 3rd shortly - proceeds of which have unencumbered the remaining 14) & was able to manage the portfolio these last 6 years with the help of an excellent managing agent which admittedly took me quite a few years to find but was my quest & paid off (they go beyond the call of duty). However, although I am blessed in that Clause 24 doesn't effect me personally, nor the hiked stamp duty for 2nd property purchases, as stated before, I wished & still wish to join in helping those in a less fortunate position than myself as I also knew that the abolition of the 10% W&T allowance & Clause 24 was just the beginning (since proven right by the 2nd tier of stamp duty & dramatically reduced window on paying one's CGT just announced). Even now I still expect there is more to come - egs an increased rate in CGT and/or; Inheritance Tax rates on top of the frozen threshold, followed by changes to Business Retirement Relief - to name but 3. UK Plc is in trouble & needs to survive before it can thrive again over the longer term.
I think we have to be careful damning others without knowing their views or circumstances.
Although the private landlord seems to be the one under severe attack at present, I can understand why GO has done this as he has got to pull some extra revenue (albeit he's still going to be short) in from somewhere & everywhere & who else will the landlord electorate vote for? May be we need to argue our case from a different stand point & instead use well researched data to evidence the medium/longer term effect of his decisions along with other alternatives he could/should consider to obtain the additional revenue required, whilst simultaneously helping the first time buyer. I have no idea what the alternatives are at this stage but I have learnt over the many years I've been in business, that to argue one's cause with someone who's back is against the wall is a sure fire way to lose. To win one needs to create a Win/Win scenario and at present we are fighting a Lose/Win scenario by threatening this will result in a Lose/Lose scenario. We need to box clever not just harder.