Early BTL investors are retiring and selling up

Reply to the comment left by MarkT at 17/04/2023 - 15:36
Good luck with serving Section 21s on the rest. My court case was heard 7 months after the two month notice period was served. It was then deferred by another 5 months. Then three days before the deferred hearing, it was again deferred by 1 year and 2 weeks. Currently rescheduled to Feb 2024. It seems, the old maxim 'Justice delayed is justice denied' no longer applies. More worrying, in my opinion, is the very real possibility of tenants knowing they can get free accommodation while landlords have to wait 2 years and more to get them up to court.

Reply to the comment left by Whiteskifreak Surrey at 17/04/2023 - 17:58
We fit into this profile - we bought our first three or four BTL properties before Buy-to-Let mortgages were 'born' (requiring some creative mortgage applications!) and our intention was always to sell off around half the properties so the remainder were unencumbered, so we could rely on our outgoings being fairly predictable. However, we are now thinking we may sell the whole portfolio while we are still able to make decisions about what to do with our own properties, i.e. while Section 21 is still in existence. We are totally sickened by the current attitude to landlords, who live in a symbiotic relationship with their tenants (most of ours have been with us for years and years, and many of whom would never be in a position to buy their own place). When did it become ok to be vilified for trying to make a living - and not rely on state benefits? If we ran local shops providing a service for a community, would we be regarded in the same light? Apart from the impending legislative changes, we are really concerned about the impact a change of government in around 18 months time may have on the PRS. The whole situation rather smacks of 'witch hunts' in previous centuries.

I started in BTL in 1996. I am now 50. I have completed on the sale of one property already this year and am working daily getting the next one ready to market.

I really wanted to be a landlord for another 20 years plus, but having just taken a year and a quarter to evict some non paying scum bags on a s21 when I did EVERYTHING right, and then seeing what's coming down the line in terms of tax and regulations I am going to get out and focus on something else. I have no motgages left but the return is no longer worth the effort. I have now sold over £3m of rentals since 2016 and will be selling my remaining 7 London rental houses asap.

Reply to the comment left by JamesB at 17/04/2023 - 20:03
See my comment above. Your eviction took 1 year and 3 months. My case has been deferred to Feb 24, so 2 years and 3 months, at the earliest. Seems to me the courts are deliberately refusing to evict bad tenants. Yet another reason to get out now.

I am one of the early retires from the CORPORATE (Rat race) world and whilst just a few years off 60 I love being a landlord (since 1999) and giving my customers (tenants) a quality service. However, the big buy to let corporates bods will be loving to hear their competition is being eliminated by government policies. Allowing them to gain significantly for the increasing rents for the years to come.
Let’s face it most of the landlords have probably accumulated 1-3 properties on average and if they sell, they will sell the whole lot now the CGT tax perk has been taken away to next to nothing so if 500,000 LLs leave. Then there are probably be up to 1.5 m properties less for the rental market in 5 years’ time. (Don’t forget net legal migration here has been 500,000 people recently).
Again, the build to let Corporates will be partying. They will have high rents in return and be super selective about the tenants they select (i.e., no social or UC tenants at all on any benefits). They will have the economies of scale to deal with a rogue tenant who won’t pay rent until evicted plus robust insurance cover.
The article refers to low rise building LLs selling so I assume it means converted houses /flats/ standard houses. I know this is a London centric point but every time a London LLs sells retires then the likehood of younger investor picking up the reigns and replacing it with a new build ‘high rise’ buy to let is very low. I.e. The Capital outlay is huge vs. other parts of the UK, so again the build to let bods win again as zero competition.
On top of that the article did not mention OTT regulation coming our way AND the Labour government in waiting with their ‘partners in crime’ -Generation Rent run by Labour-centric Chief Exec) who are able to push around Gove to their/Labour’s agenda.
Whilst the easiest thing for me to do is to give up what I enjoy and take the money and fully retire. I am pressing the pause button on selling. If the Labour government do arrive next year, they with be one-term wonder (disaster) which will make horrendous mess of PRS. For those that can ride that out it maybe it is worth it. Then again, I have never had to evict a tenant or had anyone in arrears so maybe I have been lucky so far.
However, the thing that would get me to press the trigger button to sell is licencing and overzealous penalty happy councils with their red tape regs (HHSRS regime) so again I await that experience and then decide if the stress is too much.

Reply to the comment left by TJP at 17/04/2023 - 20:12
I wonder if its possible to take a class action against the court system?

Reply to the comment left by TJP at 17/04/2023 - 18:35
deferred for what reasons exactly and at what stage?

As I understand it if you didn't serve correctly the judge would have thrown it out so you could have started again.

If it was issued correctly then the next step is accelerated procedure. The judge deferred before the accelerated procedure started or after?

Reply to the comment left by DSR at 18/04/2023 - 17:36
At the hearing, Sept 22, the judge had nothing to say about whether or not the Section 21 had been served correctly. What he did say was as follows. 1) I have 10 minutes to deal with this - he clearly had no interest in adjudicating. 2) He looked at the tenancy agreement and inquired as to whether the deposit had been protected. I pointed out that there was no deposit. Both I and my tenant had signed that this was the case. I had not taken a deposit. 3) He then stated that just because the agreement stated there was no deposit, that that was not conclusive. i.e., there might have been a deposit. 4) He deferred by one month, allowing me time to show there was no deposit, my tenant time to show there was.

I supplied evidence within two weeks that all monies were routinely banked. No deposit had been banked.

Two weeks later, in October 2022, a new hearing was scheduled for Feb 3 2023. On Jan 31st I received notification that my case had been deferred by 1 year and 2 weeks to February 16 2024.

Reply to the comment left by TJP at 18/04/2023 - 18:20
This is scandalous.

One of the expected proposals in the in the Renters Reform bill was that a dedicated housing court would be set up to deal with cases in a timely manner. This has now gone out of the window with the statement “The costs of introducing a new housing court would outweigh the benefits and there are more effective ways to increase the efficiency and timeliness of the court possession action process” It stated “Reforms to the possession process commenced in April 2022 and the project is expected to conclude in 2023”From what I can tell here the process takes longer than ever. It also states there will be “Better access to redress at an earlier stage through the new Ombudsman (that) will free up time for the courts to deal with the most serious cases”. The Ombudsman scheme will not have the power to evict tenants but it will have the power to fine landlords up to £30,000 for their transgressions with no sanctions for tenants apparently. What’s the betting that when Section 21 gets banned that any Section 21 action in process will be cancelled? Are the Court delays playing for time?