Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Shine" at "14/07/2016 - 21:00":

To be more specific he said their (ie HMT's) 'advisors' had considered various options before concluding that C/S24 was the best way forward.

From today's Telegraph. They should have added that S24 will even further reduce the availability and affordability of homes for rent.

"The Government must build 300,000 homes each year in England to help solve the housing crisis, an increase of 50pc from its current target, a committee of Lords has advised.

The cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee said that the Government had to “recognise the inability of the private sector, as currently incentivised, to build the number of homes needed”.

Lord Hollick, chairman of the committee, also criticised the Government for being “too focused on home ownership”.

He added: "It is very concerning that changes to stamp duty for landlords [the 3pc hike in April 2016] and cuts to social rent could reduce the availability of homes for rent. The long term trend away from subsidising tenancies to subsidising home buyers hits the poorest hardest, and should be reversed.”

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Shine" at "14/07/2016 - 21:00":

"He hoped institutional investors would take over more of the PRS"
I think this is very telling. The treasury no 3 (now treasury no2) implying support going from small landlords to institutions. It is what contributors on here have been saying for ages and it is just plain stupid.

https://www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2016/7/hammond-urged-to-delete-all-and-start-again-on-buy-to-let-taxes

London getting hit hard by that fools policies

http://m.propertyweek.com/5083734.article?mobilesite=enabled

The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee published its long awaited report on Housing this month.

Here is a summary of some of the key points:

The Government has chosen to promote the expansion of owner occupation. This reflects the aspiration of many people to own their home. However, it must be recognised that home ownership, whilst a wish for many, is not achievable for all.

The Government’s focus on home ownership neglects other tenures; those on the cusp of ownership are helped and those who need secure, low cost rental accommodation are not.
Opportunities to increase investment and funding in the private rental sector are potentially undermined by policies designed to assist owner occupation.

Whilst the number of individual buy-to-let landlords has increased, witnesses questioned whether they were “squeezing out” first time buyers.

Stephen Noakes of Lloyds Bank pointed out that between 2011 and 2015, first-time buyer numbers increased by 60 per cent: “The first-time buyer market has grown quite substantially over that period”.

The Council for Mortgage Lenders predicted that the overall impact of recent tax changes would be “to increase the cost and limit the availability of private rented sector homes”.

The Council of Mortgage Lenders was also concerned that these recent tax changes, in particular the higher rate of stamp duty land tax, could hinder the development of a build to rent sector.

Investors argued a flourishing build to rent sector could ameliorate some of the perceived problems in the private rental sector by supplying high quality homes and providing greater security of tenure.

The Committee was told that an estimated £30 to £50 billion could be available from institutional investors to invest in the private rental sector. However, the British Property Federation stated that if the stamp duty increase was to apply to institutional investors “we may as well forget it” as the “institutional money has lots of places to invest.”

Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies said he would put stamp duty “high on the list of suspects” as regards the reasons for lack of turnover in the secondary housing market.

The Council for Mortgage Lenders said that stamp duty contributed to high transaction costs and so it had “a detrimental impact on activity levels, market liquidity and labour mobility”. They thought this was particularly so amongst people looking to downsize which was “restricting the choice of larger homes for younger families.”

The full report is available at this link:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeconaf/20/20.pdf

No mention of clause 24. Why is taking so long for so called experts to see the blindingly obvious it beggers belief

Given that http://www.gov.uk/government/news/changes-to-tax-relief-for-residential-landlords
& http://www.gov.uk/guidance/changes-to-tax-relief-for-residential-landlords-how-its-worked-out-including-case-studies

published on HMRC website today (20/07/2017), am guessing that after the cabinet reshuffle Govt are still very happy with the treasury’s S24.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Shine" at "20/07/2016 - 12:04":

Means no hope for us, small landlords with mortgages?
Gauke is still there, BTW.

Wouldn't expect any favours from them plan for the inevitable and hope the review works