Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "David Lawrenson" at "02/12/2015 - 17:17":

I foretold lenders tightening criteria somewhere back in the early pages of this dialogue. My suggestion to everyone is to review their mortgages with urgency, especially if sitting on the lenders SVR eg if your rental valuation isn't covering your existing borrowing, firstly don't panic as the likes of Woolwich will still allow as I type product transfers to good rates even if the rent doesn't fit their current rental calculation of 135% at 5.79%. BMids & TMW are the same as are many lenders - at present anyway. There's also another lender who's offering up to 75% loan to value a 3.99% 5 year fixed with a 1% Arrangement Fee based on a rental calculation of 125% of 4.1%. If in a fixed rate now that is due to end sometime next year, if really concerned over whether lenders will continue to offer product transfers where your rent doesn't fit their rental calculation, then your only alternative is to weigh up the early redemption charge vs switching now. Meanwhile I can confirm that the likes of BMids now use a rental calculation of 125% of 5.49% but if below 65% loan to value or even if at 75% but want a 5 year fix, they'll still work on a rental calculation of 125% of 4.99%.

Reply to the comment left by "David Lawrenson" at "02/12/2015 - 17:17":

I foretold lenders tightening criteria somewhere back in the early pages of this dialogue. My suggestion to everyone is to review their mortgages with urgency, especially if sitting on the lenders SVR eg if your rental valuation isn't covering your existing borrowing, firstly don't panic as the likes of Woolwich will still allow as I type product transfers to good rates even if the rent doesn't fit their current rental calculation of 135% at 5.79%. BMids & TMW are the same as are many lenders - at present anyway. There's also another lender who's offering up to 75% loan to value a 3.99% 5 year fixed with a 1% Arrangement Fee based on a rental calculation of 125% of 4.1%. If in a fixed rate now that is due to end sometime next year, if really concerned over whether lenders will continue to offer product transfers where your rent doesn't fit their rental calculation, then your only alternative is to weigh up the early redemption charge vs switching now. Meanwhile I can confirm that the likes of BMids now use a rental calculation of 125% of 5.49% but if below 65% loan to value or even if at 75% but want a 5 year fix, they'll still work on a rental calculation of 125% of 4.99%.

Reply to the comment left by "David Lawrenson" at "02/12/2015 - 16:59":

Yes he definitely needs people to have money to fund their old age.
Its the first time that the next generation of workers will be smaller than the older people

Reply to the comment left by "David Lawrenson" at "02/12/2015 - 17:17":

I foretold lenders tightening criteria somewhere back in the early pages of this dialogue. My suggestion to everyone is to review their mortgages with urgency, especially if sitting on the lenders SVR eg if your rental valuation isn't covering your existing borrowing, firstly don't panic as the likes of Woolwich will still allow as I type product transfers to good rates even if the rent doesn't fit their current rental calculation of 135% at 5.79%. BMids & TMW are the same as are many lenders - at present anyway. There's also another lender who's offering up to 75% loan to value a 3.99% 5 year fixed with a 1% Arrangement Fee based on a rental calculation of 125% of 4.1%. If in a fixed rate now that is due to end sometime next year, if really concerned over whether lenders will continue to offer product transfers where your rent doesn't fit their rental calculation, then your only alternative is to weigh up the early redemption charge vs switching now. Meanwhile I can confirm that the likes of BMids now use a rental calculation of 125% of 5.49% but if below 65% loan to value or even if at 75% but want a 5 year fix, they'll still work on a rental calculation of 125% of 4.99%.

Reply to the comment left by "Manchester Landlord" at "28/11/2015 - 09:49":

"I have a very powerful idea which may persuade George Osbourne to change tack.

In a few years Conservative party members will have the opportunity to vote for the next conservative leader..."

I think that is a great idea, but why stop there?

I'm running a few days behind in my reading so forgive me if this has already been mentioned:

Why not all sign up now and start making a nuisance of ourselves at local party meetings?

Waiting until we have a chance to vote him down for leader is a long term matter. Signing up now gives us a possible chance to agitate from within. After all, we are bound to meet many like-minded people within the ranks of the party faithful.

Think of it as pulling the same stunt as the Corbynistas have managed with the Labour party by all signing up and voting for JC!

How many people would it take to start having a real impact on a local meeting? As few as five or six I'd venture to guess at.

No then, if we divide the number of landlords in the country by the number of local party offices how many does that give up per constituency?

Reply to the comment left by "KATHY MILLER" at "02/12/2015 - 15:56":

Net immigration in the year to last March was 330,000. This was made up of 636,000 immigrants minus 306,000 emigrants: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/27/net-migration-predicted-to-hit-record-level

Theresa May said at her party conference recently that 210,000 houses need to be built every year because of mass immigration. Presumably this was in addition to what was needed due to the increase in the native population.

The figure for new-builds completed in 2014 was only 118,760: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/feb/19/new-build-houses-falls-short-despite-small-increase

Many of them in London were bought by Chinese and other foreigners, some to be kept empty. David Cameron said in a speech he made in Singapore this summer that he would welcome more foreigners buying property: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/tackling-corruption-pm-speech-in-singapore “The vast majority of foreign-owned businesses that invest in property in the UK are entirely legitimate and proper, and have nothing at all to hide. They are welcome in Britain. Indeed I want more of them.”

Two days after his July budget introduced the levy on finance costs designed to nudge us out of the market (and into bankruptcy in some cases), Osborne announced that planning approval would be made automatic for building on brownfield sites. He wants to make it easier for institutional investors to build the flats to rent out themselves.

Osborne is betting our futures that institutional investors can build enough properties to replace ours. Unfortunately, the new leader of the Labour party proposed in August that tenants should have the right to buy their homes from large-scale landlords, in the second paragraph on page 5 of:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/jeremyforlabour/pages/106/attachments/original/1438782182/housing.pdf?1438782182

Even when he loses the leadership, that idea will have taken root in his party. That should provide food for thought for institutional investors, who look forward further than the next general election or two.

What could possibly go wrong?

Reply to the comment left by "Manchester Landlord" at "28/11/2015 - 09:49":

"I have a very powerful idea which may persuade George Osbourne to change tack.

In a few years Conservative party members will have the opportunity to vote for the next conservative leader..."

I think that is a great idea, but why stop there?

I'm running a few days behind in my reading so forgive me if this has already been mentioned:

Why not all sign up now and start making a nuisance of ourselves at local party meetings?

Waiting until we have a chance to vote him down for leader is a long term matter. Signing up now gives us a possible chance to agitate from within. After all, we are bound to meet many like-minded people within the ranks of the party faithful.

Think of it as pulling the same stunt as the Corbynistas have managed with the Labour party by all signing up and voting for JC!

How many people would it take to start having a real impact on a local meeting? As few as five or six I'd venture to guess at.

No then, if we divide the number of landlords in the country by the number of local party offices how many does that give up per constituency?

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "02/12/2015 - 19:39":

The only person that seem concerned about the empty property in London and he said it was complete blocks was Lord Lamont.

Although they did suggest double council tax. My sisters council tax in London is cheaper than mine in the South west.

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "02/12/2015 - 19:39":

Appalled, that is a brilliant point, which I didn't think of at all. I was thinking more that JC would try and get all us private landlords to sell our houses at massive discounts (how that works when you're in negative equity or have a high LTV and CGT to pay I don't know - presumably you draw out savings or try and take out a loan for people to buy your house); but I hadn't applied that to what could happen to 'institutional investors.' Ha! It's a corker. It would be really good if this was publicised more - as I bet these 'institutional' guys haven't thought of this possibility. That could scare them off good and proper. Indeed even the way the Chancellor has been prepared to get rid of the centuries' old taxation principle of profit = income minus costs - could also make them think twice. Unless they're thickos, they should realise he is not to be trusted and could turn on these 'chums' of his at any stage. I think I'm experiencing what the trolls experience with regard to us - the old Schadenfreude, although mine is still theoretical.
Down my way I've only seen the institutional guys or they may even be more modest corporations (I'm not sure) involved in student lets - they charge loads more than private landlords, of course - although to be fair the little boxes look high spec. And of course HMOs and/or student accommodation is another weird one in this regard as how could Right to Buy work in this context?

Mr Carney said the move could push up mortgage bills as banks are likely to pass on any extra costs to borrowers in the process of increasing capital.
London and coountry said banks will have to pass on any increase in their operational costs to borrowers who have grown accustomed to record cheap mortgages.

Seems everyone else is able to pass on costs so why dont they think landlords will?