Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "David Lawrenson" at "03/12/2015 - 09:59":

Yes, I really liked the 'politics of envy' article and wrote to RD personally to thank him and told him a few anecdotes of my own regarding envy. I was really pleased to see something that tried to get to the root of the inexplicable attack on one section of the population/business community. Envy - and also prejudice - is often behind the inexplicable. I haven't read the comments section and maybe he hasn't either - I'd say he's too busy to give it much thought. Hopefully, if it's that bad. On the other hand, looking at all the hatred that is usually there against him and against private, non-incorporated, unencumbered landlords (the other types of landlords are okay), it may strengthen his resolve.
In fact, I'm looking forward to his next offering.
I have still not heard from Ian Cowie - unsurprisingly, as his argument comparing us to OOs was pathetic and he won't be able to counter our arguments on this.

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

"Buy-to-lets are defined as properties in which MPs do not live, which are worth over £100,000 and which generate more than £10,000 rent per year."

What a strange way of defining things.

Surely there will be many MPs that own properties north of the south east and here generating £10,000 rent on a typically modest BtL unit is surely very much a pipe dream.

In short, a statistic framed in these terms must surely be a massive underestimate in terms of units held by MPs.

Reply to the comment left by "Saeef Khan" at "02/12/2015 - 12:13":

But will it get around the new stamp duty issue....forgive me for banging the same tune....but I believe the stamp duty tax is the biggest killer....particularly in the south....where you will be looking at up front purchase costs of 20k-35 k ....it's not at all clear yet if incorporated will be exempt from that.

Reply to the comment left by "Saeef Khan" at "02/12/2015 - 12:13":

But will it get around the new stamp duty issue....forgive me for banging the same tune....but I believe the stamp duty tax is the biggest killer....particularly in the south....where you will be looking at up front purchase costs of 20k-35 k ....it's not at all clear yet if incorporated will be exempt from that?

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "03/12/2015 - 09:46":

Done and Done

Reply to the comment left by "Saeef Khan" at "02/12/2015 - 12:13":

But will it get around the new stamp duty issue....forgive me for banging the same tune....but I believe the stamp duty tax is the biggest killer....particularly in the south....where you will be looking at up front purchase costs of 20k-35 k ....it's not at all clear yet if incorporated will be exempt from that?

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

Ros you wrote: ‘non-incorporated, unencumbered landlords (the other types of landlords are okay)’

Sorry for being picky (pain in the ...), assume typo, so should be:
‘non-incorporated, *encumbered* landlords (the other types of landlords are okay)’

If one was being super picky, one could also say *residential* landlords, as landlords in all other commercial property sectors are unaffected, whether they use financing or not, whether they are incorporated or not.

I suspect a large proportion of the electorate simply think that C24 is a (good or bad) attack on ALL residential landlords, which it is NOT.

How many of them actually know whether a particular landlord uses/used finance for their business or not? How many of them know which landlords are incorporated and which ones aren’t? Do they realise that their landlord was already incorporated and can continue to deduct the entire cost of the (LTD) BTL mortgages? How many of them know that some wealthy individual landlord or corporates are hoping that C24 gives then more buying opportunities, especially if they already own 15 or more resi properties? I say 15, because as we know that is the figure that has been rumoured to avoid the proposed extra stamp duty.

As far as I have seen: not many journalists, MPs, interest groups etc have highlighted the point that C24 ONLY affects to non-incorporated, encumbered landlords, whilst those landlords who are not may actually benefit and grow their businesses as an indirect result of the consequences of C24. I think needs to be repeated to every journalist, MP, letting agent, interest group etc and included in every piece of correspondence with them?

Reply to the comment left by "Costas Tzanos" at "03/12/2015 - 10:54":

Costas, information available to date, suggest that, incorporated landlords who have 15 properties or more regardless of their value will be exempt from 3% surcharge.

Again this is based on information available to-date. We will know full details when they are published on 9/12/2015.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Shine" at "03/12/2015 - 11:42":

Mark,

It's also worth noting that it will have more effect on "working" landlords as they have an income already. So those who have saved and saved hard to get a BTL will be punished more.

The stamp duty I believe is to discourage pensions from being used to fund purchases. as I know a few friends of my parents were planning the very thing but they live in the south and so this plan is effectively void as this point.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Shine" at "03/12/2015 - 11:42":

Yes, Mark, it must have been a typo - I have to repeat the same stuff so many times...
You are quite right about journalists and others not realising it won't touch the wealthy landlords and/or those who don't need to use finance. I believe the Guardian for example hasn't fully appreciated this and that if they did they would take a different stance. Letters to Patrick Collinson at the Guardian pushing this specific point could be very useful.
And great stuff Gareth, getting straight on to writing to James Coney - I suggested it and haven't even done it myself yet. You are super-dynamic - together with quite a few other landlords here who are getting the message out all the time. If we had a thousand landlords as dynamic as this - getting the message out all the time I reckon we would get this thing reversed - as, for a start, it would have a powerful effect on newspaper coverage and also the efforts to convince politicians are bound be bear fruit the more effort that is made.