Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "adam prospect" at "08/01/2016 - 22:08":

You say you were shot down earlier for contra views. I don't immediately see those, but it is good to have alternative argued views. We don't just want to preach to the converted, and there are more risks and also more issues with high leverage.

It is worrying what Osborne will get up to next following his geography oik mentor. For once he has done far too much far too late. Over last 5 years he could have modulated the LTV percentage, just with a phone call to Carney, and titrated to the desired outcome. No need for extra SDLT & C24 and divisive rhetoric.

With 1.5m LLs and 4.4m private renters* affected by untried policies, and near certain resultant rent increases, UKIP or LibDems could give GO a run for his money in 2020, if they took on board our sensible considered suggestion.

If it ain't broke don't fix it. So now all LLs groups need to act together on common issues, like identifying and dealing rogue landlords and rogue tenants alike. Better security for decent tenants, but completed eviction within 14 days of an application if the rent is 2 months overdue. If the premises are claimed defective that is no ground to delay rent unless Environmental Health agree breaches are significant and not remedied.

Housing Office must surely be advised of any impending eviction where there are mental, physical or children issues. By paying rent immediately may save ALL parties much grief and expense. There are sensible changes that can be a win-win for tenants, housing providers and public purse.

Adam's and any contra views help with the debate.

* https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461439/EHS_Households_2013-14.pdf

Reply to the comment left by "adam prospect" at "09/01/2016 - 06:26":

Tax change is a warning and the thin end of the wedge.

You see this as a warning and yet you are not going to increase your rents to reduce risk?

Charitably subsidising your tenants rather than de-leveraging quicker and building a bigger reserve fund.

What a good egg.

Almost too good to be true.

Reply to the comment left by "adam prospect" at "09/01/2016 - 06:26":

I get the impression from your reply that you feel your position is one of enlightenment. But whilst there is still a lot of ranting on here (including some quite unsavoury attitudes IMO), the general argument has become a lot more focussed.

Firstly it is focussing on the discrimination against one group (private landlords) in favour of another (corporate landlords) who provide the exact same service. Second, it is looking at whether the measures, which will inevitably cause a lot of pain for those being discriminated against, are in fact likely to achieve the reported aims of the tax changes.

Whilst popular opinion and lack of sympathy are being exploited - indeed whipped up - by the government to resist any backlash, it is clear that the press and public are only just starting to give any consideration to the consequences of the changes - and who really are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries.

At best it will transfer a limited number of properties from private landlords to owner occupiers who can afford them. The remainder will largely be transferred to corporates and funds (including international funds like the ones who have purchased from the Wilsons). Leaving an increasing number of people who cannot afford (or for whom it is not practical) to buy their home, fighting over a dwindling stock. Whilst all the time increasing the distance between the tenant and the owner.

You say that "to expect anyone not in our position to support us is at best naive." Whilst I agree with that at this time, I think that to roll over and suck up the pain in the belief that you are doing a public service equally naive.

And to think that owning lots of property outright rather than with a mortgage will set anyone apart from the other "greedy and predatory" landlords in the sympathies of the public is doubly so. They don't care about / understand the difference.

Over Xmas I spoke to an Irish lobbyist who works in the States. I was telling him how surprised I was at the lack of understanding of the current system amongst those advocating the changes. He replied "that's how it works". In general, if he knows just a little bit about a subject, then he knows more than the general public and you can usually get away with making the rest up. The politicians don't generally have time to analyse what they are told. All he has to do is pick up on a sentiment, feed a couple of lines to people in powerful places and, if necessary, tweak it until they run with it. It is rare that anyone has time for / interest in the details.

"At best it will transfer a limited number of properties from private landlords to owner occupiers who can afford them. " this is the crux of the matter, or one of them.

It does not create a single new home. And in the face of a near insatiable demand. It merely transfers, makes a possible benefit to an aspiring group with some affordability, (and to take on risks of default and serious loss - as wee saw before), and a distinct dis-benefit to those that can't or through geographic mobility needs, need a vibrant competitive PRS. Limiting FUTURE LTVs instead was the obvious answer.

Reply to the comment left by "Jonathan Clarke" at "08/01/2016 - 23:07":

and even more so given that with mortgages we don't really "own" the property but are, hopefully, rewarded over time for commiting time, commiting capital at risk, and thereby providing accomodation to those who cannot or do not wish to purchase. None of our tenants are thwarted home purchasers and rent entirely electively.

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Byways" at "09/01/2016 - 11:53":

Within my own family /immediate friends we have two newly married couples, one rent a one bed flat the other bought a three bed house.
Two people in a three bed house ( owner occupiers) two people in a one bed flat ( renting)
What is the most efficient use of space?

A quality of life v. cost decision. A student,or person out all day would often want the cheapest.My Son rents in France, far better and more mobile than buying. Also wants to use his finance to grow the business, not his accommodation.

With a housing crisis and insatiable demand from beyond our immediate borders, the 2 in a 1 bed is most efficient. Choice is the key!

"We need to ALL commit to raising rents by a given and significant percentage (20% 25% 30%) after a set date (when the legislation passes) and when individual tenancys expire/allow you to do so. The Government needs to take note that we are deadly serious about LARGE and COORDINATED rent increases, which in effect would be our own version of a Strike.

Leadership, teamwork, loyalty and commitment in coordinating such a proposal in needed.

Thoughts?"

In an ideal world I would double rents 🙂

Realistically, coordination of a million + landlords would be tricky.

More so because this would be deemed price fixing under UK law
and those guilty of price fixing can be sent to prison for up to 5 years and be fined.

Property ownership is fine - if it's on an industrial scale (4th December):
https://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/industry-views/2015/12/property-ownership-is-fine--if-its-on-an-industrial-scale

Consultation action confirms buy-to-let contempt (8th January):
https://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/industry-views/2016/1/consultation-action-confirms-buy-to-let-contempt