Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "Sean Graveney" at "11/05/2016 - 18:31":

Oh cool that does indeed make him qualified to be managing the countries biggest city and to make stupid statements about rent caps. I do apologise - my bad!.

I don't suppose the law firm was Kahn Kahn and Kahn parters was it? I don't suppose they were experts in property letting law or business claims did they? I'll bet you point 1 is yes and 2 is no?

Reply to the comment left by "Markb " at "11/05/2016 - 18:39":

Seeing as you were speculating on his past and saying he doesn't know anything about anything I thought it might be useful to provide some facts and some evidence that he does know something about something. No idea why you're apologising.

In answer to your points: 1. No and 2. No

Reply to the comment left by "Sean Graveney" at "11/05/2016 - 19:02":

Irrespective of Sadiq Khans background, if rent controls of any kind are introduced by whoever without being fully thought through (unlike SK's blanket catchall statement of rent should be based on one third of average local income), there is more evidence spouted by economists to suggest this can cause more housing problems in terms of number of properties available & quality of property/maintenance. SK's statement is dangerous if ill thought through ie how can you apply a simple rent control formula of one third of average local income when all tenants & properties are so different. Property variations include the obvious eg number of bedrooms/bathrooms, whether a parking space or off street parking, or a large vs a small 1 bed property, well maintained/kitted & fitted kitchens with most only providing a washing machine vs others with dishwasher/tumble drier, whether with garden/terrace or not, flat on 4th floor no lift (many ex council flats) vs with lift, concierge service albeit rare, new build vs second hand stock conversions of eg Victorian vs a simple terraced house built post war, immaculately furnished vs landlord furniture pack, local amenities including schooling (the list is endless). Then there's the question of the Tenant variations that make up the average local income - for example Tower Hamlets London has some of the richest and poorest people in a tight radius, hence why it's said that much of the rent controlled property in New York is home to some of the highest/er earners & doesn't benefit the lower/st earners who do not have the means or capacity to find the better/best properties or just don't have the perceived right profile to compete. Will the average local income include benefit income? Will landlords still exclude letting to tenants on Housing/Income benefits aka Universal Credit. I hasten to add I don't exclude but an extremely high % of Landlords in East London do due to experience of these tenant types i) fall more in to arrears vs others hence why Rent Guarantee insurance is extremely expensive by up to 5 x the premium vs other tenant types, if available at all, ii) high maintenance ie landlords get more call-outs, iii) more often than not no deposit yet often more damage at the end of a tenancy & a local authority Bond Guarantee covers very little, iv) and/or English not being their first language making it difficult to establish a good tenant & landlord/agent relationship, v) and/or condensation becomes more prevalent with this tenant type - may be because they're not used to being brought up in this climate or have been used to the council doing everything for them, vi) and/or as a result of their culture they put little importance on maintaining the outside of the property in a tidy/clean manner, vii) plus a landlord's building insurance with these tenant types is much more expensive & in particular contents insurance & especially so with Rent Guarantee Insurance if this can be obtained at all and lastly viii) rent is often paid in arrears not in advance ix) lenders T&C's state no tenants on benefits x) Universal credit & that rent cannot be paid direct to the landlord xi) constant changes in someone's entitlement to benefits xii) & finally if you have to deal with the local authority, often their attitude towards landlords is extremely poor to say the least & their turnaround time is extremely slow. Hence why most landlords don't want housing benefit tenants yet they're the one's in most need albeit they can also be their own worst enemy as can the local authority.

The governments policies are kicking in buy to let valuation instructions down 40% that is massive

http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/buy-to-let-valuations-plummet-40-as-dodgy-deals-put-in-an-appearance/

Not sure even GO is after this kind of headline !!

"Landlords should be 'squealing' under George Osborne's crackdown, Treasury minister suggests"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/13/landlords-should-be-squealing-under-george-osbornes-crackdown-tr/

Pity that Alan Ward (RLA) hasn't got the backbone to name and shame the prat who made the comment. Interesting that they go on to suggest that :

"The Government is facing a growing backlash from senior Conservative MPs who are concerned about the impact of the crackdown. The Telegraph understands that six Tory MPs are prepared to champion landlords amid concerns that they are being unfairly treated.
Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 committee of Conservative MPs, said: "There are some legitimate policy objectives in terms of trying to ensure supply for people buying. It isn't a completely one way issue.
"But on the other hand a lot of people are involved in residential letting. It is a perfectly proper and legitimate business and makes a very important contribution to labour market flexibility and mobility.
"I think there are some quite serious concerns about elements of it [the crackdown]. There are questions about the different treatment of some businesses from others. There are some quite legitimate concerns."

Maybe there is intelligent life in Westminster after all !!

The tide is turning, with some very good coverage of our side of the argument in the press. I am pleased that the RLA 'leaked' the discriminatory comments made at the Treasury. Words like 'crackdown' and landlords 'squealing' make us sound like a combination of criminals and rodents. I did ask the RLA some time ago to commission some research on prejudicial language in the press regarding landlords - this could be very important for the legal case and for the campaign in general if we could show how policies are emanating from pure anti-landlord prejudice and not from any rational basis.

On the plus side, we are seeing some new people wading in to the debate, exposing this outrageous nonsense:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/buy-to-let-tax-will-push-up-the-rents-of-sitting-tenants-says-lo/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/13/landlords-should-be-squealing-under-george-osbornes-crackdown-tr/

http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/money/mortgages-bills/who-will-be-the-bigger-loser-in-the-buy-to-let-crackdown-11364060781176

Reply to the comment left by "Grumpy Doug" at "14/05/2016 - 08:23":

"Maybe there is intelligent life in Westminster after all !!"
I admire your optimism.

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "14/05/2016 - 10:03":

Yeah - I did think twice about that, but despite my pseudonym I'm known for my sunny disposition and the sun is shining so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt .... for the moment anyway!!

What I find really irritating about these press articles is that only the report by the LSE housing studies researchers get the facts about income tax changes right. Even journos who profess to be taking a dispassionate view are parroting Osborne's misleading (actually downright dishonest) presentation of the changes as merely making 'tax relief' on mortgage interest 20% for all landlords. One author even trots out the myth that basic rate taxpayers won't be affected. This misrepresentation skews the whole perception of the situation by the public in general and tenants in particular, making it look as though we are greedy tax dodgers rather than merely running businesses in the same way as all others are run.

Buy to let is really being hit on all fronts now. I think the biggest threat on the environment other than a britexit is the new implementation of deposit requirements by the bank of England. Nationwide has already tightened it's rules.
Basically cash is becoming king.