Get your question answered by Iain Duncan Smith

I am a natural Tory voter. My wife and I are retired police officers. After 60 combined years of public service we invested in buy to let property utilising BTL mortgages. We now have a portfolio of quality rental properties and often rent to disadvantaged and vulnerable people. We are rated as 5 star by our local council in Wolverhampton.
This IS A BUSINESS and is supported by BTL mortgages.
Our intention was to pass this onto our children- who by the way have all been to university and together with us are of no burden on the state. In fact we have opened a letting agency and employ 5 staff.
So how does a CONSERVATIVE government reward me????
It introduces the most unfair tax ever to be thought up. Clause 24, it prevents me off setting all my running costs against tax!
It is putting a total ban on tenant letting fees, instead of capping them and then interferes with how much deposit I can take after I have risk assessed a tenant!!!
A CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT!!!!
Well the result of the tenant fee ban is that extra costs will transfer to landlords who will want to increase rents. They may decide to manage themselves and I will make staff redundant.
However, the biggest issue is by far clause 24. I have had the rug pulled from under me by this government. I am being forced to sell properties so that I can pay down mortgages to move them into a limited company in the most cost effective way. A CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT is forcing me to reduce my stock and thereby reduce the number of rental properties available.
Unbelievable!!!
Tracey - I will be in the audience tomorrow
Lyndon Whitehouse
L&A Lettings

I’m sure you can phrase a question to IDS as a representative of this giver on behalf of many effective landlords and I am representative of
Lyndon

Reply to the comment left by Lyndon Whitehouse at 06/11/2017 - 12:28
Hi Lyndon,

Thank you for your reply and we look forward to welcoming you to the event tomorrow, come and say hi!

Kindest regards,

Tracey

Reply to the comment left by Tracey Hanbury at 06/11/2017 - 13:41
Lyndon - very well said!
Tracey - from what I am reading from these fantastic contributions and some other blogs, it looks as Section 24 is by all means the greatest threat. I would be really obliged if that was discussed in details with IDS. does he understand the consequences on tenants? Especially vulnerable ones? Why the government does not work together with the PRS and the banks in developing a strategy how to address the biggest housing crisis in a century? I have put a number of suggestions here, for example special types of mortgages, underwritten by Gov, for those who will lend to that most disadvantages part of the society. Some sort of rent guarantees?
I think that the main point to be addressed in such interview should be the consequences for the Tenants - evictions, higher rents, limited supply etc. Nobody cares about even the best landlords, but if the tenants suffer that will attract attention.
BTW out students wrote to our local MP (Anne Milton, Minister of State at the Department for Education) asking for reverse and she did not even bothered to reply... T
My husband will be in London Olympia tomorrow.
thank you

Hi Tracey,

You'll have lots of data regarding Clause 24, so here's something else for you.............................from what I can tell, there seems an increasing trend among local councils to introduce some type of licencing scheme for landlords. The benefit is advertised as reducing problem tenants. However, while the councils receive fees, there are few positive impacts for any other involved party. Landlords who pay the fees, for example, have not reported any support from councils for the problem tenants and associated actions.

Surely there must be more efficient ways to achieve the goal ?

For example, we already have a ARMA, ARLA, which should be professionally run agencies with a wealth of experience. Would it not be more efficient to merely ensure that any landlord who receives rents from vunerable tenants (ie where the tenants do not pay the rent themselves) also employs either ARLA or ARMA?

I'm sure that any experienced landlord would be able to come up with a number of excellent ideas of how to tackle this issue. The current trend of licencing, in my opinion, is ridiculous and almost any other idea generated would be an improvement for all interested parties.

Good luck!

Does IDS realise that on average there are just over 3,000 Landlords per constituency?
With a majority of just 2,440 at the last General Election, it would only take 1,220 Landlords (and their spouses/children) to vote against him for him to lose his seat! and how many other MPs are in a simialr or more precarious position, e.g. Amber Rudd maj. 346
So my question is what is he prepared to actually do to help Landlords to not vote against him and the Conservative Party next time round? (fine words are not enough)

Reply to the comment left by Barry Fitzpatrick at 06/11/2017 - 14:50
17 Conservative MP's have a majority of less than 1,000 votes, 30 with less than 2,000 votes, and 48 with less than 3,000 votes.

Reply to the comment left by Barry Fitzpatrick at 06/11/2017 - 15:34
I am sure some of our tenants who would normally vote Conservative did not do that during the last election. At least we had informed them well and objectively why they were served Section 13 last April and that their increase is immediately collected by the Government. I think assumptions that tenants will only vote Labour is a bit far reaching.

My question: Is it not long since time that renting out property should be in the criteria for business property relief given the sheer length and scope of regulations to adhere to these days? Especially as business property relief is given for those whom just own significant numbers of shares. If Given farmland fits the criteria yet the time consuming work farming can be also applies to running property.

Reply to the comment left by Tracey Hanbury at 06/11/2017 - 13:41
Hi Tracey and All,
my husband was in Olympia today. Apparently the atmosphere was rather on a gloomy side, as at the end there is no solution to the PRS extermination process the idiot Tories started. One of the main solution was to sell... Incorporation only for bigger landlords to make it financially viable. Generally the prospects are not good.
Anyone was there and can share some details? I only report what I heard.