Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "Gareth Wilson" at "06/01/2016 - 17:59":

Only Osborne can drop another brick - and get it wrong. Look at the photo, he had it back to front...........

As proposed, the 3% is from £40k to £125k, unlike the table to DM published?

I am thinking of bidding on a flat, providing a I get it for up to about £39k.

Is it £40,000-01 p and above that the 3% kicks on?

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Byways" at "06/01/2016 - 18:10":

And as for David Gauke:

"Gauke claimed £10,248.32 in stamp duty and fees involved in the purchase of his second home in London, a flat. A Channel 4 Dispatches programme revealed that he was claiming expenses on the flat in central London despite having a property located only one hour away on public transport.

Gauke sold the flat in August 2012, keeping £27,000, the property price having increased by £67,000 since purchase. He paid nearly £40,000 of this to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) as MPs only have to pay back any profit made in the previous two years [4]

He told the UK public that negotiating a price discount with a tradesmen for paying in cash for the purposes of evading tax is morally wrong."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gauke

George Osborne and David Gauke really are made for one another aren't they?

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Byways" at "06/01/2016 - 18:10":

But on the plus side... that's only one home he's effed up this time!

Reply to the comment left by "Gareth Wilson" at "06/01/2016 - 18:17":

Yes ha ha.

Regarding evil eyed Gauke and Osborne, they not only stuff the taxpayer, BUT DO IT FOR PARASITIC PERSONAL GRATIFICATION, at least us 'parasites' with a social concience pay our double taxation to provide decent homes for the good, the poor, and the feckless alike, not just for us, and we do it lawfully.

But am I right our pernicious +3% starts at £40,000-01 ?

Governments are rarely joined up in their policy decisions and it seems that this latest somewhat misguided measure could do more harm than good - so says James Quinn in The Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/12085816/Property-is-all-about-location-and-theres-no-place-for-George-Osbornes-stamp-duty-reforms.html

Reply to the comment left by "BTL INVESTOR SCOTLAND" at "06/01/2016 - 22:30":

IMV The most interesting part - what we have known - but even the most respected HPC luminaries, Rob Marris, GO & Co. seem to dismiss.....

"The converse is that the amount of private accommodation available to be rented, a sector for which there is ever-increasing demand, particularly in big cities, could decrease sharply, potentially making the housing crisis worse if rents increase."

referring to the increased SDLT could have two very real impacts:

"One, in certain areas of the country this could lead to fewer properties being bought by investors – therefore reducing demand and potentially price. The converse is that the amount of private accommodation available to be rented, a sector for which there is ever-increasing demand, particularly in big cities, could decrease sharply, potentially making the housing crisis worse if rents increase.

Two, reduced buying of “off plan” apartments and houses by investors could hurt the cash flow of property developers. As Jon Bell, of Barclays, pointed out in a research note on Wednesday, such a move could lead to “the law of unintended consequences” taking hold. Osborne’s moves are part of a wider government push to increase home ownership, which includes an emphasis on a rise in residential construction. But Bell points out, quite rightly, that “there is a risk that new home construction in London could be negatively impacted by these measures, particularly when bank finance remains relatively scarce”."

Some interesting comments on landlord today. Is this correct viz a viz Holiday lets, as this makes it even more sense? But does not suit most cases of course.
https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2016/1/investors-challenge-controversial-clause-24

Andrew McCausland 04 January 2016 10:46 AM

I don't know which pimply youth in Conservative Central Office came up with this howler, but they need to be sent for immediate retaining. Apart from the basic unfairness of the whole thing, turning all business accountancy rules on their head, there are 2 issues which the Government seem to have missed:

1. They need a robust PRS to help deliver the homes required for the increasing population and changing household dynamics. The builders will not be able to deliver all the units required so someone else needs to provide them.

Step forward the large number of middle earners who want to save for their retirement or bring in a little extra cash per month. They have invested huge sums, mostly renovating poor quality housing and making them habitable again. Without these small investors there are thousands of properties which would remain empty or be below decent homes standard for their tenants.

2. George Osborne is described as a very political animal yet he has failed to see that this policy attacks some of his own key supporters. Many of the BTL investors are natural Conservative voters - or they were before they faced ruin through this policy. I live in a marginal parliamentary seat and I personally know of a large number of voters who are moving their votes elsewhere as a direct result of this nonsense.

[shame there is no credible alternative, if the Corbyn Clowns got their act together, and a dearth of Rental Property along with the "Treasury Tenant Tax wreaking havoc, Osborne might then reflect...]

NEXT

Lou Valdini 05 January 2016 11:25

However, what appears to have been missed is that this ill-conceived tax change will not be applied to those who buy properties for 'holiday letting'.

I will be hard hit by the BTL changes, but my partner, who has owned a holiday cottage for 15 years, will still be permitted to claim mortgage interest against her income!!

The 'holiday let' industry is growing exponentially, especially since the pension changes, and is hugely more damaging in large areas of the Country than BTL i.e. in rural areas, where employment is predominantly agricultural and relatively low paid, and private rented and low(er) cost family homes are essential. However, rural properties are being snapped up for holiday lets and farms are converting outbuildings and 'tied' cottages, and therefore removing them from the market. These properties remain unoccupied for many months each year, yet the Government sees no problem with the owners claiming tax relief on their mortgage interest payments.

We provide outstanding housing for young professionals in London. Our tenants stay on average for 2/3 years or more. We pay all bills, provide a weekly cleaner and have maintenance issues rectified on the same day. The number of times our tenants have emailed positive feedback is countless.

This absurd legislation will wipe out many years of hardwork, graft, sweat, blood and tears. Our whole business is doomed. Our only option would be to sell our properties and displace 40 or so young tenants. Tenants that will struggle to find alternative good accommodation when all landlords follow suit

To lighten the mood I got told on the telegraph forum that I had fangs and I was sinking them into all these first time buyers that I am stopping getting on the property ladder find that quite amusing to say the least

Reply to the comment left by "r d" at "07/01/2016 - 14:29":

Hello,

Have you written to your MP and Council Leaders explaining and warning them of what Clause 24 is going to do to your business and tenants?

Society needs rental accommodation like yours to remain viable, and these people must know.