Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

EU In or out, I have no idea what ukip will then become, but as an alternative in marginal areas to put pressure on lame, hostile to PRS, tories might give some bargaining power when contacting MP's.

Why do the feckless Xbox playing scroungers that so typically cheer on every bit of bad economic news, and say they will not buy even when prices crash to 1/10 etc so love to hate PRS (on that other forum), yet say nothing against the Institutional Investors? They would not stroll into their offices for less than a 7% net return. Most private LLs would be delighted with those returns.

I assume it is as the institutional LLs are faceless, and don't have direct contact with tenants, and they do not cater for the lowest cost rental units, benefit claimants and the most vulnerable. They see the 25 - 34 year olds as continuing to rent affordably. I assume they will be aiming for the young aspiring, and those earning less than £30k or so, "not interested in you mate".

"Overall, we see the twin engines of buoyant investment volumes and robust economic growth driving continued strength for property. We expect 2015 total returns to surpass 14%, followed by another double-digit return next year – the fourth in a row"

http://www.mandg.co.uk/-/media/Literature/UK/Institutional/MG-RE-UK-Outlook-Aug-2015.pdf

Call me naive but I've jus gone on this HPC site and cannot believe what I have read can somebody explain to me what there angle is ? What have landlords done to them ? Why are large corporates OK but little man down the street is a parasite etc ! Reckon I have the answer but won't post as I've seen they like copy and pasting ?

Explanation please ?

My sister is a PR director of a large company and was at a small conference with the editor of the daily mail finance section.

He said in all his career he has never had so much mail and uproar on a story completed to the landlord tax

He said is was by a mile going to be there biggest story the will be writing on over the coming months

Looks like the story is gathering momentum rapidly

Sometimes I just think gov are dumb, other times it is obvious.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/news-parliament-2015/right-to-buy-report-published-15-16/

Selling council houses at a massive discount seemed dumb. Now they have decided it was not so clever all by themselves.

It might be as well to be aware of their:-

"Proposals for the future
The Committee calls on the Government, before the 2016 Autumn Statement, to provide some certainty over rent levels post 2020 which would help long-term business planning and increase investor confidence. In the long term, the Committee recommends housing associations be given the freedom to set their own rents. The Government is committed to deregulating the housing association sector: freedom for housing associations to set the rents for their tenants should be the next step, since housing associations understand their tenants and the local market and are best placed to set fair rent levels.

The Committee considered the proposed ‘pay to stay’ policy, where differential rents would be charged according to tenant income, and welcomes the Government’s announcement that this will be voluntary for housing associations. The Committee believes the suggested thresholds should be reviewed and support housing associations being given local discretion, should they choose to adopt the policy.

The Committee recognise the scale of the Government’s policies regarding Starter Homes and the new legal duty on councils to ensure provision of 200,000 new Starter Homes across all reasonably sized sites. However, Starter Homes should not be built at the expense of other forms of tenure if there is a local need for affordable rented accommodation. It is important that homes for affordable rent are built where the need exists, particularly as Starter Homes can now count towards satisfying the affordable housing allocation in section 106 agreements."

Reply to the comment left by "NW Landlord" at "12/02/2016 - 10:37":

Who is the Daily Mail journalist please?

We have a team of excellent researchers who will be only too delighted to help him.
.

Hi mark

I will find out and get back to you

Hi mark

His name is Lee Boyce and he is consumer affairs editor for daily mail and this is money

Hope this helps haven't an email address but would be great to get him on board

Reply to the comment left by "NW Landlord" at "12/02/2016 - 10:51":

Was it James Coney?

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "12/02/2016 - 12:01":

Oh. I missed the previous post. Yes, we have seen one or two articles by Lee Boyce. We'll have to include him more from now on when we want to publicise things. The Mail was very slow to understand the issue, but has finally got it, hopefully.

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Byways" at "12/02/2016 - 10:47":

Utterly stupid! So much so, I'm not sure I'm reading that correctly. It's all so bad, I can only imagine a bunch of unqualified, inexperienced interns can have come up with this.

"The Committee calls on the Government, before the 2016 Autumn Statement, to provide some certainty over rent levels post 2020 which would help long-term business planning and increase investor confidence. In the long term, the Committee recommends housing associations be given the freedom to set their own rents." - rents go up then, and no restriction imposed on corporate LLs that would make the business unfeasible for them. All power to them then (the Tory way).

"The Committee considered the proposed ‘pay to stay’ policy, where differential rents would be charged according to tenant income, and welcomes the Government’s announcement that this will be voluntary for housing associations." - WT??? I don't understand how this flip from one side to the other politically, but this is a shocking proposal. Two people living in the same property will have their rents set depending on their status. Can you imagine the backlash we'd have if PLLs did this? I can't see the EU allowing this - it's discriminatory. On one hand, it's the Tory way, allowing corporations to charge the maximum the tenant can afford. On the other hand, it goes against all Tory ethos to encourage people to do well, as if you do, you'll pay more rent. Bugger that then, the social housing tenant will think, why should I work more to earn more money and pay more rent to the HA.

Tell me someone, I've got it all wrong haven't I, as it just makes no sense.