Councillor Chris Devine (Conservative – Wiltshire) Named and Shamed

Reply to the comment left by " " at "24/12/2015 - 18:51":

Oh believe me, they're not (if the one I was unfortunate enough to do business with recently is anything to go by). However, I certainly don't wish to brand all large property concerns as corrupt, based on my experience of just one; but going by Devine logic ALL large property concerns would be suspect, and then some (given his conclusion that ALL small landlords as scum, based on little or no evidence or experience at all).

The Salisbury Journal on Chris Devine seems to be just passing his message on representing his rude points in a way it is supportive of it. And as the previous user said it doesn't show any representative of the twisted facts about landlords.

The summer budget to tax landlords on their mortgage interest is illegal as it breaches the Hmrc's. This is my email to Mark earlier with this,

'Hi Property 118, RLA, SAL,

Thanks for the constant newsletter update and work you do for the PRS.

I have managed to secure a number of signatures for your petition against the taxing of mortgage interest absurdly treated as an income.

I came across the writing below which draws reference to Hmrc's charter point 5. All the points can be applied to the situation we are in.

I think all landlord associations and body like yourself can lead a campagin for landlord not to pay the tax on mortgage interest based on Hmrc is in breach of their own Charter to treat 'us even-handedly' as their new policy to tax on our mortgage interest and worse still to add all mortgage interest outlays on our final income to artificially engineer most of us to a high income tax band payer. This is clear bully and discrimination to the PRS only.

Can you let me know your thoughts?

'Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

In the HMRC Charter point 5, they promise to 'treat you
even-handedly'. That means fairly, impartially, and with equitable
treatment of all citizens.
(1) With that promise in mind, can HMRC let me know why automatic
backdating of tax credits only applies if you have children? In
other words, if you don't have children then you don't qualify for
automatic backdating.Why?
(2) Does HMRC have any documents to explain and justify this
discrimination?
(3) Can you let me know where this discrimination is stated and
justified in the Tax Credits Act 2002 (and later consolidations)?
(4) Because you are discriminating against a certain group of
people, can you please explain or provide documents to show how
this accords with your Charter point 5: treating people
even-handedly?
(6) Is this policy of discrimination just a money saving measure,
or is it ideological, or perhaps there is another reason?

Yours faithfully,
M Boyce '

info@property118.com

Kind regards, Alan.'.

The Salisbury Journal on Chris Devine seems to be just passing his message on representing his rude points in a way it is supportive of it. And as the previous user said it doesn't show any representative of the twisted facts about landlords.

The summer budget to tax landlords on their mortgage interest is illegal as it breaches the Hmrc's charter point 5 to treat 'us even-handedly' as their new policy to tax on our mortgage interest and worse still to add all mortgage interest (outlays) on our final income to artificially engineer most of us to a high income tax band payer. This is clear bullying and discrimination to the PRS only.

Kind regards, Alan.

Landlords across the UK should unite and challenge the 'legality' of unequal, unfair and clear discriminatory tax grab which is clearly in violation of the Hmrc's own charter point 5.

A draft comment for that snoozepaper:

More than 2,000 people have been on housing waiting lists just in Wales (where I have data to hand) for more than a decade.

According to figures obtained under a Freedom of Information request a further 9,000 have been waiting for more than five years.

Between 2001 and 2011, while the proportion of social rented sector fell, the proportion that were rented privately almost doubled from 7.4% to 14.1%.

Having more homes to rent provides tenants with more choices and means that landlords have to compete for business based on costs and quality.

The Government initiatives aimed at maximising the number of homes available to live in, such as the Empty Homes Loan scheme is an excellent initiative but needs further changes to maximise its impact and prevent these empty homes from becoming magnets for anti-social behaviour and criminal activity.

Faced with a housing shortage, one empty property is one too many.

It’s clear that more is needed to encourage and support the private rented sector to house those who need housing the most as often those in this group are most vulnerable.

Unfortunately, the costs of Clause 24 will inevitably just end up being passed on to tenants in the form of higher rents. RICS on 21/12/15 estimated this will be 25% over 5 years.

The effect of Clause 24 is to Change from the correct method of taxing PROFIT which is just, to taxing all rent ie turnover, but not recognising the funding cost as a legitimate expense like ALL other businesses. THIS IS NOT A SUBSIDY.

Obviously this taxing gross rent rather than net rent, also increases the individual's tax band, by taking an imaginary income before the legitimate costs. The tax rates will sometimes be 150% or even more. 100% of course means zero profit, so they will be BOUND TO MAKE A LOSS.

These providers of 20% of housing, can not lose money indefinitely, and will either be bankrupted leading to foreclosures and tenants evicted, or more prudently, the properties sold to those lucky enough to be able to afford a mortgage, or redeveloped to let at a far higher rent to cover the costs, again with evictions, or owners will sell to, or become, incorporated 15+ bodies that will NOT be affected by these changes.

This is not what the Chancellor intended, he did not intend that people struggling on minimum wage, lone parent, disabled, unemployed, those on Housing Benefit etc be evicted in droves, but by the appalling mis-communication this is already happening on a small scale, and over 4 years will increase substantially.

His intention, it is believed was to rationalise independent landlords into larger groups of 15+ which are excluded, "subject to further discussions", from the worst effects of SLDT and Clause 24.

Figures produced by the independent Office for National Statistics clearly show that in the past five years, rents in Wales have increased by just 3.1%, well below inflation, which stood at 1.2% in September.

In the past year alone, the increase in rent has been just 0.2%. This amounts to a real terms fall in rents.

This “would serve only to reduce investment in the sector at a time when it is most needed”.

At the heart of the debate, however, is the pressing need to boost the supply of homes, including those for renting in the private rented sector.

Given that the majority of landlords are individuals renting out just one or two properties, it should easier to develop on small plots of unused land that institutional investors would not find attractive.

The private rented sector is a success story. It is the only housing tenure that is growing and provides much-needed homes for many people. We need to be build on this with an open and honest debate that properly recognises the contribution the sector makes.

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Byways" at "24/12/2015 - 23:25":

Also current government policy ignores international research showing a strong correspondence between the availability of rented accommodation and high employment. Mobility is an essential ingredient for a robust economy.
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/news-Why_home_ownership_causes_unemployment-1741

Reply to the comment left by "Alison King" at "24/12/2015 - 23:52":

That's a very interesting article Alison. At first it's hard to understand why, but it does make some sense once you read it.

That makes purrfect sense!

Quote:
"The authors say that while “the data used in this paper are almost wholly from the United States... our conclusions may have wider implications.” They believe their ideas apply equally well to Europe where countries like Spain and Greece which have high home-ownership (80%+) also have high unemployment (20%+) and countries like Switzerland, Germany and Austria which have low home-ownership have correspondingly also low unemployment rates.

Countries which pursue policies to promote more home-ownership may unintentionally be adding to their unemployment problem. Providing incentives for investing in affordable rental property seems a good way to address the problem."

Another oft repeated myth is that BTL pushes house prices up. This is far too simplistic. Does it? Where's the proof, and by how much? I think it is equally arguably that for mobility it could actually suppress prices. End ossification is what I say.........

Reply to the comment left by "Alison King" at "24/12/2015 - 23:52":

Great find, Alison.
We should try and do something with this - get it to journalists. If I have time in the next few days I may turn it into an article for Property118 and take it from there. Well done. I've not seen this argument before.

To describe Private landlords as 'Parasites' indicates that this councillor is in fact possibly a trainee 'Fascist'

Define: fascist

1. Someone who believes in a totalitarian state rule by a supreme leader (dictator) who controls everything possible and treats people harshly -- to gain the leader's own success,* to foment an aggressive military nationalism, and to promote a Social Darwinist belief that hard life strengthens the state by weeding out the weak

(Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fascist)

A Fascist believes in the purity of his own prejudices and the 'annihilation' of anyone who disagrees with them.

Define: Snivelling
whiny, whining, sorry-for-yourself, self-pitying, sadsack
(Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snivelling )
Strange, I bet he didnt put that on his election leaflets.

He is supposed to represent ALL the people within his own constituancy.

So lets expand the consequences of his political prejudices.

So he thinks that any Black, Muslim, Jewish person renting property in his community is a 'parasite', does he?

But how many homes can he offer to replace them all?

Has he housed everyone in his patch yet?

If not, when will he be getting around to it?

How long has he been a councillor - why is he worth any money?

Is he being a Parasite on his tax payers?

Are all Jewish Landlords parasites?
Are all Muslim Landlords parasites?
Are all Black or Asian Landlords parasites?
Are Christian Landlords the type of Landlord that dont give a 'Fig'?

Well I would assume that his constituants would like to know, before approaching him for help in future, what his thoughts are on gays, Lesbian, Dentists, Roofers, Mechanics or anyone else.

I wonder if his children have similar thoughts?
My kids cringe at some of the things I say,

Comments on a Twitter Feed Please.

Merry Xmas! - Are we allowed to say that anymore in the UK?