Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "Whiteskifreak Surrey" at "06/03/2017 - 16:24":

Yes, that's what I mean about "skewed viewpoint". However, I also wanted to highlight the depth of ignorance which informs so many of the comments, with the underlying sentiment expressed by one that tenants are slaves paying up to 80% of their hard-earned income to tyrant landlords who won't even allow them to undertake a do-it-yourself loft conversion! We don't take on any tenants whose rent would be more than 30% of income and four of our six tenants have pets, dogs, cat, bearded dragons, and more. And to regularly have been been served a S.21 after only six months she can't exactly have been a model tenant. What landlord wants that hassle and risk of void just for a few pounds extra rent? Same one says landlords do nothing!

Reply to the comment left by "Old Mrs Landlord" at "06/03/2017 - 17:14":

I meant same commentator who says tenants pay up to 80% of their hard-earned is under the impression that landlords do nothing for their income. Reading it back that wasn't clear, sorry. Also apologies for straying from the thread subject.

Hi WS

I have not looked at the comments, but I think that the No Goldfish article reads like a GCSE essay, presenting a one-sided view but with nothing new.

Penny Anderson is a middle-aged artist and renter. Since October she has churned out an article on renting every month for the Guardian. She wants guarantors banned, winter evictions banned, and letting agents’ fees to tenants banned, and she wants rent controls, tenancies for life, the Right to Buy in the PRS, the right for tenants to stay in situ when a property is sold, the Finnish right to make structural alterations, and the Spanish right to have tenancies passed down the generations. No idea is too mad for her.

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/pennyanderson

Presumably she gets paid for stirring up anti-landlord resentment amongst Guardian reading renters, reinforcing their sense of grievance and raising their expectations. If so, it is in her financial interest to keep going.

If she is not paid for them, well at least she has an outlet for her demands, which she believes would improve her lot, but which would in fact reduce the size of the PRS, thus forcing her rent up - if she could find somewhere. She almost ran out of money in a hotel once before after a council declined to accommodate her.

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "06/03/2017 - 19:21":

If you read the comments you will see she has certainly succeeded in stirring up/reinforcing anti-landlord sentiment and raising unrealistic expectations! I didn't realise she'd made a career of it. No wonder she can't hold down a tenancy in the PRS with her attitude. One element of her dissatisfaction is not being able to benefit from capital appreciation of property, so I can understand why she would want the right to buy (at a fat discount) our properties that we've saved so hard for and spent so much time, money and effort turning from neglected dumps into homes attractive to renters. "Property is theft" takes on a whole new meaning.

Reply to the comment left by "michael fickling" at "06/03/2017 - 13:04":

Unfortunately you are wrong.

It is not all tax on the same money.
Income and Stamp Duty: Yes.
Tax on rent: no; that is new money.
Capital Gains tax: No; that is new money.

If we try that argument it would undermine legitimate arguments about S24 and 'level playing field', because we would not be taken seriously.

Reply to the comment left by "Whiteskifreak Surrey" at "06/03/2017 - 16:24":

I allow pets and my neighbour who rents has 2 dogs, 2 cats,some rabbits and several reptiles.

One of the most boring Budgets in history.

Reply to the comment left by "Simon Hall" at "08/03/2017 - 13:47":

Good.
At least they have stopped putting the boot in to landlords.
Perhaps a recognition that the country needs a thriving PRS.

Reading between the lines it's saying incorporate ur business and we are going to take our slice I can live with that roll on my trust . I still strongly believe the government want companies as opposed to individuals to run the PRS and that is the reason for s24. Still totally wrong as not all landlords have the option but I really beiieve that is the ideological intention .

Reply to the comment left by "NW Landlord" at "08/03/2017 - 14:03":

I am not sure if I misheard the Chancellor, but he did make reference by stating those who incorporate their existing affairs into Ltd Company and LLP to take unfair advantage needs to be addressed.

I did think for vey split second that, he was going to remove S162 Relief but to my surprise he moved on. He may be in the process of looking at it and may announce it in later Budgets?