Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "Jonathan Clarke" at "07/12/2015 - 09:26":

Hi Jonathan

80% of landlords own just one or two properties.

It is these landlords the Chancellor is really targeting. In many cases they are a liability because they don't have the foggiest idea about regulations and are often struggling to make ends meet.

At the other end of the scale, around 1% of landlords own 40+ properties. Some of these will incorporate, but not all of them.

For the record, I don't like the idea of threatening toi serve s21 notices. A slightly better idea might be a National Rent Increase Day where all landlords serve section 13 notices to increase rent, accompanied by a well drafted leaflet explaining why. HOWEVER, as the take up on the petition has shown, ignorance of the problem and general apathy prevails. I very much doubt many landlords would be persuaded to participate, a few hundred at best in my humble opinion.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "07/12/2015 - 10:26":

Mark,

I agree they want the small scale out, however I think they will drape this in the fact they want the "clueless" and "unprofessional" out. Being a professional landlord is not to me done in terms of time spend, but in the way you deal with the responsibility of being a landlord and this is far more important than just the time you spend. This is the effect of not having more common sense in the system. You have to set a rule and then the rule is stupid or cumbersome or just down right wrong.

Another is choice clause 24 effectively takes that away from smaller working landlords. You incorporate or sell or pay huge tax. I have those three options, however another professional tradesman does not.

In regards the stamp duty they are putting a another financial penalty in the way of aspiring to become a landlord opposed to "letting off" companies with 15 or more properties. This I disagree with because it effectively protects larger entities because going through the barrier of 15 extra sets of 3% Stamp duty charges is quite a bit of tax tax.
average house 200K average extra stamp duty 6K
extra tax before you are "exempt" 90K in tax.

This seems like a rob from the aspiring and let off the rich.

Reply to the comment left by "James dengel" at "07/12/2015 - 11:46":

Hi James,

I believe you have encapsulated the unfairness of Clause 24 very well here. I'm just wondering if you have communicated these points to your MP. It would be great if so.

I thought clause 24 was to target the large highly leveraged portfolio landlords and not the small BTL investor. Taking the MortgagesForBusiness April 2015 survey 49% of landlords don't have a mortgage so clause 24 is not going to impact on them.

Also regarding earlier post of the Chancellor not targeting properties within companies, I think it would be very easy for him to target residential properties within companies without impacting on other business. SIPP schemes allow commercial properties but not residential.

Is there anyone here with tenants that are aware of Clause 24 and concerned about its impact upon their rents, most particularly in terms of their ability to save for a deposit to buy their own home?

If you have, could you let me know ASAP as there is a journalist seeking to obtain their point of view on the matter.

Hi,

Does anybody know if an LLP falls under the new tax relief rules - or would it be classed the same as a LTD?

Thanks,
Jarrod

Labour has ‘moral mission’ to tackle inequality, says Tristram Hunt

Making the case for a property wealth tax to replace the existing regressive council tax, Hunt pointed out that 14 OECD countries – including the US – raise a recurring tax on the value of residential property. An annual 0.5% tax upon the value of each property – less than most countries – would completely cover the cost of replacing the council tax, he said.

The tax would be raised on owners not occupiers, taking “generation rent” completely out of local taxes altogether.

Reply to the comment left by "KATHY MILLER" at "07/12/2015 - 19:21":

Another cost that all landlords, social, corporate and individual would pass on to tenants.

Wether LL or Tenant we all need to eat. Any business that exists must be based on

Profit = Income - expenses to run it.

The more cost added (gov with its snout in the trough) the higher they will force rents.

A few simple TV documentries will show this very soon I'm sure.- then hopefully the average Joe will see that LL are not quite what they thought, most work hard for meagre returns - they are now being stuffed along with the tenants - all is not as it seems !!!

Whichever side of whichever fence you may be on - it should be plain to all that rent will increase.

If property prices go down then by default yields increase in % terms, anything above a few % will keep investors firmly committed wether they be existing or new blood.

The general OO public are not going to thank GO if the market drops 10 or 20% and they get stuffed with neg eq.

The crowds of FTB with their deps ready to go will also keep prices level ...havent you seen them - they are everywhere !

Reply to the comment left by "KATHY MILLER" at "07/12/2015 - 19:21":

Kathy this raises the question as to who is the "Owner", the person or entity registered at the land registry, the beneficial owner, the tenant with a greater then six month tenancy? Occupiers may or may not be "owners".
The local Authority Finance Act defines ownership for council tax purposes, would we have another definition for wealth tax purposes? All such taxes are fraught with problems as was the poll tax.