Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "BTL INVESTOR SCOTLAND" at "02/01/2016 - 19:37":

Thanks for that BTL. I've just posted it on the 'irish' thread as well. It gives us a good update of how things are there now.

Reply to the comment left by "NW Landlord" at "02/01/2016 - 19:42":

I bet you neither GO nor the Treasury officials responsible for it even knew about the Irish experience. It would be good if a few people can write to the Treasury and give the link to my article and also this newspaper article. You might put in the email something along the lines of - 'The Chancellor has announced this policy and I wouldn't be surprised if neither he nor the other architects of this Alice in Wonderland tax didn't even know a similar move in Ireland has proved disastrous.' Any volunteers?

This is the link to my one:

http://www.property118.com/uk-rents-set-sky-rocket-osbornes-tax-grab/83275/comment-page-2/#comment-70804

Reply to the comment left by "stuart edwards" at "31/12/2015 - 12:57":

Stuart, if he applies this on LTD companies then he will have to apply on all on other LTD Companies not just property, as this will amount to singling out property companies which then again can fall foul of discriminatory treatment and again challenged in EU Courts.

Reply to the comment left by "Andy King" at "02/01/2016 - 21:35":

Is that a given? I'm not so sure, a number of different regimes apply to incorporated entities of differing size and ownership or operating in differing sectors.

Reply to the comment left by "Andy King" at "02/01/2016 - 21:35":

Since companies are taxed at a flat rate of 20%, applying Clause 24 to them would have no effect.

Assuming (1) the govt accept a request for Judicial Review to proceed and (2) they appoint a genuinely impartial judge to preside over it, then I actually fancy the chances of a *fair hearing* at least.

Thanks to Chris & Steve for doing what you've done. At VERY least the exceptionally manipulative way that C24 was announced and defended by the political elite and their MP spokespersons copy/paste antics will hopefully be finally fully exposed to the electorate?

Btw to those 'haters voyeurs', who now claim they believe the PRS is ok for one kind of LL (GO's buddies) but not for other LLs (many of whom offer a far better service than GO's LL buddies are capable of)... who copy/paste many of what they deem juiciest comments or at least part of individual comments from here on to their own often delusional & very manipulative forum, who have mentioned the NI contributions point again today on their own forum and in online comments following last 48 hrs news articles:

Personally I have made the voluntary NI contributions monthly via direct debit for almost 20 years on the advice of my accountant.

Does that change things and if so, please explain why in detail?

Reply to the comment left by "NW Landlord" at "01/01/2016 - 14:44":

It might not appear but I just posted the following response.

"This is Professional Adviser and not the Daily Mail isn't it?

The writer's style appears to convey as much a personal sentiment as it does any analysis of the comments reported and as a result an important topic is done no favours. That part of the article preceeding the comments, clearly unbiased comments at that, by Rock is littered with invective adjectives which are given no quotation marks and can therefore only be assumed to be comments of the writer.

I will at this point declare two interests a) as the provider of high demand medium term accomodation for a highly mobile UK and international work and educational sector i.e. a landlord and b) a former regulated and authorised individual of a long enough standing so as to predate even the self regulatory regimes of the '80s.

In 2010 HM Treasury issued a call for consultation in the form of document "Investment in the UK Private Sector" or https://www.gov.uk/.../consult_investment_ukprivaterentedsector.pdf The author would have been well advised to read it but here are a couple of points from the introduction:

"1.3 The Private Rented Sector (PRS) plays a critical role within the housing system, helping to meet growing demand and providing a flexible tenure of choice. It has also played a dissproportianate role in funding new build suply in recent years.

1.4 It is clear that the level of investmet directed by individuals and institutions into the PRS will be key to it's development and will strongly influence both the volume and quality of supply."

The foregoing is just the start, I could quote section after section in which HMT refers positively to then extant PRS which is almost wholly non-institutional investment (of institutional property investment in the UK only around 0.9% is in residential). I won't list them all here, download the document for yourself.

At it's most basic, less time has elapsed since this document was published than the duration of a single five year fix mortgage and the current perjorative language from those who do or should know better, including one MP for Tatton, does no service to would be home owners nor the country as a whole."

Reply to the comment left by "money manager" at "03/01/2016 - 07:46":

Hello, your response would also make a fine letter to GO and the Treasury.

In case any Honourable Members of this forum are in any doubt the honourable? Member for Taton is George aka Alice in Blunderland Osborne,

The copied link, MM, was I believe
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/81460/consult_investment_ukprivaterentedsector.pdf (?)

I did also send a comment to that rag, but it has/will not be allowed by the moderators. It might be the referenc to Silly Girl ........ But at least these replies can be seen here.

It is not only the two paragraphs you mention that are very interesting, but many others IE 1.14 & 1.18 & Chapter 2, showing the reliance HMT then put on PRS.

This is something the legal team will want to consider, whether HMT actively encouraged the activity, long term by nature, that they now FORCE into a loss making position?

However this might not sit well with the limited EU law challenge options, I don't know.

With all the time and effort that went into this, following the Rugg Review, it beggars belief they were not aware of the Irish balls-up.

And that so few MPs know these things. Can we have a resume of the salient facts that we should all be either quoting, or linking to, as brief as is possible, as most MPs have an attention span of 1 1/2 lines. Marris excepted, but still could not argue HIS position!

I am concerned these attacks will continue to make all small PRS Non-viable.

So far as contingency planning, where would a speculator be investing? Emergency Accomodation? If so what will councils be looking for?