Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

If these suggested conditions are to apply to unfurnished rentals to tenants on benefits it means we will have to equip kitchens and will need annual PATs on the kettles, toasters etc. that we supply. Annual costs will exceed the price of the appliances, which is why we ourselves stopped providing these small electrical items when PAT testing was brought in. We find tenants much prefer to choose their own small appliances. Thank goodness we have only one property let to benefit recipients!

If they bring this in can we get the tenants to sign a form to say they wish to use their own. Most of my tenants on benefits would not want me to supply

I stopped supplying electrical items when PAT came in and stopped supplying any furniture when the 10% allowance was withdrawn. In the light of the LHA freeze it is now becoming loss making to house benefit tenants, so very soon - within weeks - all my benefit tenants are going to receive a section 21. I have housed this demographic for the past 30 years but no more, the local authority will have to find them bed and breakfast at vastly inflated cost.

As the GAAP was left out of Cheries application to the courts is there not a way to re-apply using this as a fresh arguement?

If anyone wants to test whether Cl 24 can actually survive longer term as is....get a calculator out and take a few minutes to play with the Gov..own stats around how many of us there are..the fraction with serious finance levels...X... fraction of those ( pick yer own on that one 1..!..)...that exit the market.....Then take that as a fraction of all uk homes..surprise surprise the % increase in homes being available for 1st timers purchase..or anyone.. only moves by the very tiniest amount. So no change for first time buyer market is seriously mathematically possible.No practical mandate for C 24s continuance.
On the other hand tenants evicted....is.going to be a fact.. people occupying ( 2.4 ave maybe) times the exact number of homes put back to private owner occupiers....I reckon around 60.000 extra people per annum for the four year implementation C 24 period.Probably about a fifth of tenants shift anyway in a normal year ?...the fractions work the other way here as 60000 additions on those is a big increase.".people" note..not homes.......the whole seeking a place in a diminishing market. Result...either a miracle building programe costing many many billions and acheived within the 4 years???..and corporate expansion to buy and rent out all of same..across the UK....in that 4 years... I dont think so.......or gov. either reduces or removes Cl 24. Im no mathematician but the figures and their effect( upon the intention ) are pathetically weak..and dont achieve the main aim of the clause ( change in 1st time buyer prices)....and on the other hand powerful in achieving displaced renters numbers being increased and forced into a diminishing market place. This is without factoring in population growth etc
The clause simply can not remain as it is. The maths and market forces are too powerful. The government will have to make some sort of tactical withdrawal. I believe its a case of when and how rather than if.

...unless there are a lot of cash buying LL who pick up the offloaded stock at bargain prices of course !

There is no shortage of them out there.

TENANTS in social housing looking to upgrade to a new home as part of the council’s £40m investment could have to fork out more than double in rental costs as part of a new business plan.

Slough Borough Council has reviewed its policy on the rents to be charged on newly built homes as part of its Housing Revenue Account (HRA) business plan, which was approved by cabinet on Monday.

As part of the plan, the council will invest £100m in its current council housing stock, which is currently 7,100 homes, and invest an additional £40m in building new properties for social rent over the next seven years.

But the amount tenants pay for these properties is set to sky rocket, as the council says it has to generate its own funding for affordable rental homes as there is no national funding available and the government’s ‘Pay to Stay’ policy means that prices will rise anyway.

Councillor Rob Anderson, speaking at the meeting on Monday, said: “For someone who has a two-bed house and has been on the waiting list for 10 years for a three-bed home, their rent will rise from £474.80 a month to £1,061.19.

“Nobody on a low income is going to be able to afford that.”
http://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/news/14814565.Council_rents_could_more_than_double_as_part_of_housing_business_plan/

https://www.property118.com/section-24-comprehensive-report/91755/

Please can everyone download and distribute this comprehensive dissection of Section 24 to every landlord, letting agent, estate agent and mortgage broker that they have contact with, along with their local MP, council housing department, council leader, or any other party they feel it pertains to.

Please also kindly SHARE this URL via Facebook and other social media platforms.

Reply from Grant Shapp's bitch:

Dear Rachel,

Many thanks for getting in touch to let him know again about your views about the changes to the taxation of landlords. After speaking to Grant about this he has asked me to reply on his behalf.

Grant is grateful for you updating him on this. After having looking into this, Grant does indeed believe that the Government are doing the right thing. Although he appreciates your concerns about this and the points you mention, he also thinks that this must be balanced against the interests of the wider economy including home ownership rates, a fairer tax system and mitigating against any future risks.

According to the Bank of England there are two key risks from high and rising levels of household indebtedness: a direct risk to UK banking system, and an indirect risk to economic stability. The Government is working hard to restore this country's economic stability and the measures you talk about will help achieve this. So with all of this in mind, Grant tends to be of the view that it’s right that the Government restricts the tax relief that landlords of residential property can get.

The current tax system supports landlords over and above ordinary homeowners, with tax relief particularly benefitting wealthier landlords with larger incomes. Every £1 of finance cost they incur allows them to pay 40p or 45p less tax.

According to the Government, less than 1 in 5 individual landlords are expected to pay more tax as a result of the restriction to Mortgage Tax Relief. Furthermore, this change is being introduced gradually from April 2017 over 4 years. So whilst this is of course frustrating for many landlords, it does give them a little bit of time to plan for and adjust to these changes.

Grant appreciates if you’re disappointed with this reply. He would also be more than happy to write again on your behalf to the minister responsible including both your email and also your attached document if you feel this would be helpful.

With kind regards

Nicholas

Nicholas Langley
Office of The Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP
Welwyn Hatfield

House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

nicholasj.langley@parliament.uk
0207 219 8497
**********************
My response:
A fairer tax system which doesn’t apply to limited companies, only those with unincorporated buy-to-let properties? Complete and utter tosh from the mouths of politicians; party rhetoric.

Please, can you forward me the information used to come to the conclusion that only 1 in 5 LLs will be affected and that those would only be the wealthiest of LLs as that is a made -up lie, but I’d like to give you, on behalf of the government, the opportunity to reference your research and study used to come to that false conclusion, and to prove me wrong. Please supply, or give me a link to the information you’ve used. I doubt you can.

This seems to be the only justification behind your decision to go through with this policy, to make the tax system fairer, and you are going to cause an absolutely diabolical mess of the rented housing sector, and tenants will be the worst effected.

I am now going to give some serious thought as to whether to sell one of my properties and I will have to evict the tenants to do this. Since they had their previous home repossessed 3-4 years ago before moving into my property, they will neither be able to secure a mortgage to buy a property, nor will they be able to rent anywhere else privately as they will not pass landlord referencing and checks. So you will be housing them in a B&B or hotel privately, and I hope you think really hard about how your policy, to make the tax system fairer (made up excuse) is going to affect their lives and those like them. It won’t affect me, the wealthy single parent LL that I am, making provisions for my pension, as I will sell my property, pay off my mortgage, and rely on the state pension as it’s just not worth trying.

Regards,
Rachel H

I really wouldn't waste ur breath and your hard earned time. They are insulting us and basically lying, it's down to individuals to plan for this disaster in waiting by looking after number 1 depressing but what these fools in London have pushed us into