Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

It is rumoured that HMSO are buying special paper on which to publish Osborne's policies, paper which matches the quality of his decisions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36162953

I noted some months ago that landlords letting to asylum seekers via govermment employed agencies were taking properties back as rents were becoming no viable, i also noted several calls from said agency desperately trying to procure more property to house the above. Spoke to a landlord today who is a week past 2month notice dated given for AS to leave property......tenants still in situ as alternative accom is not yet available to clients......

Are there no charitable LL left who want to let their property just to pay GO tenant tax on Tenant behalf, or have they all now seen that the Tenant will have to pay it and given notice on non viable tenancies so that they can acheive proper market rents ?

The more I see and read about Clause 24, the only point I can take is that its purely a tax raising strategy. Its Unfair at best and positively extortion at worst. It wont help anyone apart from the treasury. The reasons given are total BLX! Im a fair man and although this will hit me much harder than most I cannot see any positive benefits for first time buyers etc etc

Why does a landlord with unencumbered houses get away scott free?Totally unfair.

It makes me sick to look at either GO or DC they are both as slimy as each other. Every day I read something else which is NOT in the mainstream press to incriminate them both with more offshore accounts or tax avoidence while we are persecuted! Im just hating the whole system!! .

These other MPs are towing the party line and are clueless and a waste time when they are there to represent us! And so we have to wait on being given mission to have a Juditial Review!!

". . . . outcomes prevailing in the buy to let market: landlords absorbing the cost and taking the hit; landlords withdrawing from the market causing supply to fall; or landlords regaining those costs through hiking rents. Next month we can start to assess the damage.”
http://blog.propertyhawk.co.uk/2016/05/arla-blame-stamp-duty-for-lettings-dip.html

The clever councillors in St Ives are banning the building of new homes in order to increase the supply of new homes. Ingenious...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/06/towns-ban-on-new-second-homes-could-drive-up-prices/

Interestingly, there is a Judicial Review application going in to oppose this idiocy, based on the right to property.

Perhaps I misread The Times but my understanding was that the Council was banning the sale of newbuilds as second homes, a move I applaud and which could be extended to all properties and a use of the planning system that should have been Osbourne's proposal instead of his cackhanded 3% SDLT surcharge which is irrelevant if a London staycationer is shelling out £0.5 for a cottage but of significance to the PRS. I see no conflict between restrictions on sale for second home usage and sale for letting on a principal residence basis. Targetted accomodation controls are used in Switzerland and I think Singapore to some effect.

Reply to the comment left by "money manager" at "07/05/2016 - 12:44":

But if an outsider buys a piece of land in the designated area (or even a decrepit old building or a commercial one that has for example sat on the market for years), builds/develops the property and then lets it out to holiday-makers this is a good thing for the area. Without the outsider the property would not exist, so the owner is not 'stealing' a house from under the noses of locals. The outsider may also decide to rent it out long-term to tenants.
Even if they left it empty, how would that affect anyone else?

Also, if current larger developers want to build housing and are charging £300,000 for these properties, banning outsiders from buying them will presumably just put a halt on these being built - banning outsiders doesn't magically shove a deposit into the hands of locals and mean that they will meet mortgage criteria etc. to be able to buy new-builds.

Banning this doesn't make sense to me.

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "07/05/2016 - 13:30":

Banning outsiders doesn't magically.... Yes it does. The price of the finished product, and not neccessarily the same product either, is determined by how much it can be sold for. If I know I can sell to a London banker (or Prime Minister) for a £1m I might do so, no local gets a look in. If I know that the market is limited to those living full time in St Ives or any AONB the unit price is more likely to be between £1/300,000, the land itself will be worth less. So a developer can still build but perhaps something different, the Candy brothers wouldn't bother but plenty of builders will.

This actually refelcts part of London's problem with entire developments being sold off plan in China/HK over the course of a weekend to people who may use the apartment occassionaly but may also see it as just a safre place than a bank. Let's face it, London is a bigger money laundering operation that many sundrenched isles while young Brits have to jump through MMR restricted applications and god know what else.Restriceted access does make a difference to the purchaser profile, the evidence is there.

With regard to the dilapidated/refurb issue I take the point but think that such discrete situations ARE best left to local planning considerations than the ineffective blunderbus of the 3% approach.

Guys, what do you think about Sadiq Khan becoming a Mayor of London. As he had previously pledged bringing rent controls in Capital which could rippled out to rest of country.

Has he got enough power to implement such measures despite Labour Government is not in place?

Reply to the comment left by "Simon Hall" at "08/05/2016 - 10:13":

Hi Simon,
Despite possible rent controls(I've no idea if he has powers to introduce this), I voted for Sadiq.
The alternative, who happens to be my MP, was just too unpleasant to consider.
I think it far more likely that he will introduce compulsory Landlord licensing. As I'm a HMO license holder already (not in London), and provided he doesn't get greedy I have no problem with this and think it could be quite positive.