Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "michael fickling" at "07/10/2016 - 10:01":

P118 - can you put Michael's post on a new thread so that it doesn't get lost?

I can't help thinking that the fact the government has control of mortgage express may have an influence in this. Majority of borrowers are large individual portfolio landlords sitting on gold plated 1.75 tracker mortgages. This would be an easy way to get there hands on this stock and re distribute it to associations or large corporate landlords i might be paranoid but the loan book is huge and the government want rid and this would be an easy way whilst interest rates are low and going nowhere.

Sincere thanks to Steve, Chris and team for their sterling efforts to date. We do not regret the money we pledged in support of this worthy cause for one moment. We must remain upbeat and still believe that ultimately justice will prevail if not through the judicial review.
The Irish example has a very important simple message - the government will likely only really listen when it has firm, undisputable, damaging evidence before it which forces action. Rent increases. Right at the outset in fairness to the NLA Policy team they said to us whatever noises are made, campaigns, lobbying, press releases etc however valid and well meaning it will need hard facts and statistics for the government to wake up. That's it. Until then they are not bothered. Everything else is noble in cause, useful, needed etc but will be no substitute for rent increases. All those who have met, emailed, written etc to their MP's know that none of them are either interested or intelligent enough to do anything before it hits the fan. If you need any further incentive to get on and increase rents then pause for a moment to consider how you will feel if rent controls are introduced and your rents are stuck permanently behind market value with a paltry annual RPI uplift. Before Laurel and Hardy were in charge no-one would have thought interest payments would no longer be treated as an expense by a so called Conservative Government - rent controls will surely be on the agenda once rent increases start to bite. This will of course make matters worse still for tenants and landlords until breaking point is reached and it is then and only then that policies will be reviewed. In the meantime we have to batten down the hatches and weather the storm. In a sense sail into it by getting on with rent increases. Bring on the storm. We have had no fall out from our 10-12% increases. When we have a void we have refurbished and gone for top money which the tenants have to pay - demand is increasing, supply is diminishing. It's not fair for the tenants and it's not fair for the landlords but my repeated calls to the MP to work on proper policies to address the real issue of increasing supply of homes to buy and supply of homes to rent is ignored - what choice do we all have ?

Reply to Michael Fickling

Hello

Can we start a new legal challenge on the points which Michael has mentioned that there can not be tax on financial costs as it is a genuine expense.Tax can only be charged on profits. Outgoing such as this is not profit. It is completely different to disallow entertainment expense or penalty notices.There are lots of landlords who will not be able to wait for a few years for the same thing to happen as happened in Ireland. They will not have the financial resources. Something needs to be done NOW. May be Michael or 118 can take the new legal challenge forward ? I am sure many will contribute for the legal costs to take forward.

Reply to the comment left by "michael fickling" at "07/10/2016 - 11:42":

Hi Michael. Do you have any objections to Neil from Property118 giving me your email address so that I can contact you privately?
Thanks.

Reply to the comment left by "Rachel Hodge" at "07/10/2016 - 11:59":

Agree with Rachel. this thread is far too long and we are now discussing the outcome of JR hearing and the strategy for the next months (if not years).
Thank you.

Reply to the comment left by "Eden Lan" at "07/10/2016 - 12:32":

I would add retrospective application of such regulations / law (as already mentioned by someone, sorry I do not remember by whom ;o) )

Hi Good People,

Mark is traveling without internet at the moment and we are out all day tomorrow at the Property Investor show Excel to promote the Property118 Action Group and Ax the tenant tax group.

I am sure he will get to this asap when he is back in communicado to set something up 🙂

I thank Steve & Chris for their relentless and applaudable efforts which are beyond comprehension for an average Joe Blogg.

Nonetheless, without disregarding above sentence, I concur with Michael to certain extent that, in order to tackle Clause 24 we should not have had compared Limited Company's Tax treatment with Individual Landlords tax treatment as they both differ in entities and tax treatment in any case. The best course of action would have been that Cost can not be Taxed"

Reply to the comment left by "Rachel Hodge" at "07/10/2016 - 11:59":

Response to Rachel and Dr rosalind regarding my inputs>>> and re posting comments etc
Im happy for neil / 118 to give you my email..and re posts What i do not want to do is usurp 118.. I wouldnt do that.. making that plain for 118. Also I am not a barrister or qualified lawyer. To be clear my background was in investigation ,,presentation of evidence and management of forensic processes and forensic product at senior level and in connection with that some media experience but again no specific qualification. I have presented to various forums... an out of court advocacy for those things. Almost all of this concerned crime not civil matters Some of my causes were subsequently adopted. .BUT I have next to no recognised qualifications whatsoever. If that doesnt put you off then by all means drop me an email with Neils assistance. Thank you.