Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Btw, whilst one can't paint all LLs with the same brush, I know many 'individual' LLs who are very professional, hands on, offering a very high standard of service (& pretty much immediate maintenance). I also know many 'corporate' LLs who are effectively armchair investors and haven't a clue what customer service is.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12092051/Councils-responding-to-Britains-housing-crisis-by-telling-tenants-to-stay-put-in-buy-to-let-properties-when-landlords-ask-them-to-leave.html

Yet more evidence of the absurdity of George Osborne's tax policy. The last thing this country needs is a reduced supply of rental accommodation and higher, taxation-driven rents.

Reply to the comment left by "Gareth Wilson" at "11/01/2016 - 00:35":

I am ASTONISHED no one here thought of ANY of these arguments! ?

1. If rent increases of say £500 per month were advised when evicting, AFTER the periodic has ended "to assist with legal fees" -could this assist?

2. The tenancy has ended, as proper notice was given, so it is a new tenancy?

3. The council may then become responsible if they advise a tenant to stay at an unaffordable rent.

4. Might need to be stated in the AST from the start?

5. Would be a disincentive to overstay.

6. Offer the council to rehouse them - for an extra £500 pm - so they can't say they can't rehome them.......

7. So you let your house out for 6m as you can't or don't want to sell the old one then, expecting to get it back and sell within the 18month window, and hey presto you are landed with the higher SDLT. Who pays, you or council. Consequential damages?

-----------

Going through the eviction process typically takes around four months and costs landlords hundreds of pounds.

David Lawrenson, of LettingFocus.com, said: "It's stupid, the councils are within their rights to advise people to stay on but it doesn't encourage landlords to take on people who are [financially] vulnerable."
------ I'm sure we mentioned this. Besides, even though not unlawful, it is unsocial, gives tenant a bad reference, and reduces stock of HB rentals.

It partly comes back to immigration, as there are lots of people coming to this country and they typically want to rent properties
----- and this

Alan Ward, chairman of the Residential Landlords Association
The likelihood of landlords dealing with sitting tenants has grown as Britain's housing shortage has worsened.
--------- and this

Around five people compete for every property available to let nationally, rising to nearly nine for every rental home in London. Property experts Rightmove say demand is at an "all time high".
-------- surprising 80% of them parasites aren't planning increasing rents

As the population has swelled due to people living longer and immigration, the country's housing stock has failed grow at the same pace.
------ why didn't we think that might happen?

and the seemingly inexorable rise in house prices in the south - has pushed rents higher.

-------- but Marris and the HPC zealots posting on the DT comments advise us this won't can't shouldn't happen.

It has become particularly difficult for those on lower incomes to find suitable properties when they try to move, and many are turning to local authorities for help.
-------- that's amazing. Sad, but true. And we hadn't thought of it.

I would like to put in new TAs a clause to the effect that the rent will rise in line with inflation (the Option 3), but add, "+ additional property taxes imposed by any Statute, Licence or Regulation"

Is this viable? Fwiw, I believe I am asking less than market rates now, and all refurbished are to a high standard.

Thus selctive licensing or HMO licence or any property or possibly even wealth tax can be apportioned correctly.

It might be a disincentive to money grabbing councils to know it is a transparent transaction, like vat or oil price increases affecting pump prices.

Can these additional charges, if legal apply, within 12m of a previous increase where imposed on the LL by the Authority?

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Byways" at "10/01/2016 - 15:29":

I don't know about a REIT but the minimum for an OEIC or UT would be five million or more. Also, although attractive from there being no CGT for the holder on internal asset exchange i.e. selling and buying pproperties, there is the disadvantage that the fund's value must be made public, and a bit more so than with companies and that there must be a publicly tradeable price and that anyone can buy into the fund, even if the minium is set at say £250,000 you could find the KIO or some oligarch knocking on your, several, front doors or in the latter's case possibly suggesting you might like to sell at a discount!.

Reply to the comment left by "david porter" at "09/01/2016 - 12:12":

Which would you rather live in?

I would prefer to win the lottery.

Reply to the comment left by "stuart edwards" at "11/01/2016 - 08:51":

53% of PRS renters thought their method of tenure was the best for them. (But obviously OO & SR are higher.)

This has increased by 15% over past 10 years!

Over 2/3rds were happy with the repairs and services provided by their LL.

You don't get those facts on HPC.......

@MM
Hi,
this is not suggested to be a one size fits all, possible solution, but might be worth exploring for some, greatly increased flexibility, option for tenants to have a slice of the action and own a PART IF THEIR HOME.

I would think a fund would be £50 - 500m, and 50 to 500 property owners, and a few hundred or thousand other investors including tenants to provide added liquidity in place of bank debt.

There could be different Funds for each region. But public accountability is essential. Why would such a fund sell at a discount? KIO?

Even the HPC numpties could participate......

Am I the only one that thinks that rather than create all these silly complicated tax rules....which gives advantages to one set of property investors over the other, that the simplest way to give an advantage to owner occupiers would have simply been to get rid of interest only mortgages. The biggest advantage btl mortgages have is the lower monthly repayment levels. In fact by removing interest only mortgages the field would have been tipped definitely in the owner occupiers favour as they only have to raise 10% deposits. If we landlords where able to still offset interest payments but on repayment mortgages I think that would have been a win win for all.

Reply to the comment left by "stuart edwards" at "11/01/2016 - 13:27":

In my opinion, Its never been about make more people home owners or helping first time buyers, there are already first time buyer incentives out there, the political spin is simply a smoke screen to cover Gordon Osborne's agenda of supporting and increasing corporate ownership whilst taking a large tax bonus in the form of CGT as many consider selling to the corporate landlords.
Shifting the ownership from private to corporate, that is what is going to happen and I am sure that is what was intended. Of course corporate landlords have higher overheads and so will benefit from increased rents. There is going to be absolutely no winners from the owner occupiers or private landlord groups if Clause 24 is allowed to continue in its current form.