Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "10/01/2016 - 13:09":

Sorry Ross I would feel uncomfortable in showing/copying our exchange. What I said was related to his rhetoric around the tories being beneficial for just the few (you can guess what that means) and pointing out other countries policies would basically mean Osborne was 'left' wing in some regards. I did a follow up pointing out the LL angle in passing ie no in depth details) and he did another followup saying a word with the same meaning as thanks. I emailed Corbyn as well but no reply as yet.

For what its worth If we can make them see the bigger picture is the private rented sector will be corporate run and 'social' housing gone we may make them think the private landlord is not so bad. The rank and file labour mp is corrupt in my view but Corbyn and possibly Mcdonnel are not hense why most labour mps don't like them. So those 2 may actually read what we say without the mumbo jumbo reply.

Kind regards,

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "10/01/2016 - 13:09":

Ros I believe that he copyright lies with the writer and this is confirmed by advice given in the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-2260,00.html) although it must be emphasised that Guardian advice does not represent a legal authority. Physical objects are the property of the recipient but not the intellectual content.

When it comes to communications from MP's and the like I adopt the same principle as you. There is a convention that quoting a small part of a publication for reporting purposes is acceptable ("Fair use"); I am uncertain as to the extent which this is enshrined in copyright law, further information can be gleaned from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html.

Perhaps it would be prudent in future to say in correspondence that any reply received is likely to be published on the internet.

And in conclusion I must add the rider "Other sites on copyright are available".

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "10/01/2016 - 13:09":

It does not seem my message got posted. Sorry if it later turns up not trying to spam the site. In a nut shell I don't want to post what I or he said but it surrounded his common refrain of the tories are the party of the few and then cited examples around the world were in some respects Osborn/tories are left wing. I don't think Corbyn/probably John McDonnell are corrupt unlike the rest of Labour by and large (hense why most labour mps didn't support Corbyn). Therefore they may take on board 'our' arguments rather listen to the usual mumo jumbo from ministers regarding the matters raised. Especially if we raise it with reference to corporations being probably exempt. Plus if we make clear to them the alternative is a corporate run private rented sector they may take a shine to the 'private landlord'.

Reply to the comment left by "Gareth Wilson" at "10/01/2016 - 00:52":

Ladies & Gentlemen,

Estate Agent Today have a press team: press@estateagenttoday.co.uk.

We should all contact them, thanking Estate Estate Agent Today for the excellent articles of Colin Shairp I posted last night, and humbly requesting that they run a piece encouraging their readership to participate with the following:

* The Crowd Justice Page
* The Legal Action Facebook Page (Like it to be updated of when the pledges resume)
* The Petition
* Writing to local MPs, Gauke & Osborne

"Despite the negative outlook, a survey by the Council of Mortgage Lenders this week found that landlords are confident that they will be able to absorb the impact of the tax changes, and over 80 pc are confident they won't have to raise rents in order to cope."

Even if she misinterpreted the data, this "confidence" is such a howler, it makes one suspect the rest of the useful charts.

Obviously our model is wrong, 91% if regions can't lose money on PRS by 2021, so if we can't CHANGE Osborne's policies by legal challenge, and he doesn't show any intent to, the next is to ADAPT, reorganise, deleverage, OR become corporate, or REIT or OEIC?

IE
"REITs
A REIT, or "Real Estate Investment Trust", is a company that owns and usually manages commercial or residential property like apartments, offices, factory space, etc. on behalf of shareholders. This allows shareholders to invest in property without actually having to own the property outright. The major advantage of a REIT, in this respect, is that it is much easier to buy, or sell, shares in a REIT which are traded on major exchanges than to buy, or sell property in the traditional way.

A REIT must in order to maintain its REIT status, pay at least 90% of its taxable income annually to shareholders and invest at least 75% of it's assets in property.

Unit Trusts & OEICs
Unit trusts and OEICs ("Open Ended Investment Companies") are collective or mutual funds which allow the monies contributed by a large number of investors to be "pooled" together for investment in the stock market. The principal advantage of this approach is that it allows individual investors to gain exposure to sectors of the market that would otherwise be too risky or uneconomical. Investment in either type of fund is controlled by a professional fund manager.

The fund manager is tasked with investing in specific types of share and/or specific geographical regions to produce the best results of income, capital growth, or both. This is based on the requirements of individual shareholders. A fund manager can create additional units or shares if demand dictates.

Both types of investment can be considered "open ended" in this respect. The difference between them however is that unit trusts have an "offer" price at which they can be bought by an investor and a "bid" price at which they can be sold, whereas OEICs have a single price. The "bid-offer spread" which is typically 6-7%, should be considered an extra cost when weighing up the total cost of investment. Charges for an OEIC are deducted explicitly from the total amount invested."

Sorry yes caught in spam filter.

Telegraph seem to be all doom and gloom today

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/house-prices/12087971/UK-house-price-crash-looms-as-global-asset-prices-unravel.html

Reply to the comment left by "adam prospect" at "10/01/2016 - 12:58":

This was a tongue in cheek response to the poster "r d" who suggested that we (the UK's landlords) should increase rents 25% or 30% in a coordinated fashion in order to get the government to reverse clause 24.

I was simply pointing out that this was illegal and an imprisonable offence. However, as one who has something to sell, I would ideally like to get a higher price for it if conditions allow.

Reply to the comment left by "stuart edwards" at "10/01/2016 - 20:50":

Gloom and doom may apply to central London investment area but in the real world, where people actually buy a property to inhabit, I think supply and demand will still predominate.

Reply to the comment left by "adam prospect" at "10/01/2016 - 12:58":

Adam, sorry but I think you need to 'chill Winston'. Sensible, logical debate based on reality is always welcome but..

You simply cannot gauge what ALL individual landlords views are by one (or a few) random comment(s) by a random individual poster(s) on a public internet forum. There is already one (devious/manipulative) property related forum out there that appears to actively promote such behaviour on a regular basis, so best leave them to it eh?

The reality is that 'the market' sets rental levels. That said, the impact of C24 will undoubtedly encourage individual LLs to try and achieve similar rent levels that the 'corporate' LLs that I know (who don't seem to be overly concerned about void periods) always try and achieve. Hence, some upward pressure on rental levels is likely to be a direct result of C24?

Edit to add: I see that HB was joking anyway.