Government’s second homes policy doesn’t address the housing crisis

At last! Somebody that understands the role that landlords play in providing homes.

Of course, if it was only holiday lets and SA that paid the additional rate of Stamp Duty, it wouldn’t raise as much money for government to squander on other things; nor would it be such a vote winner amongst the thickest members of society.

The housing crisis is primarily caused by too many people and too few houses. Labour have no plans to tackle net migration (other than encouraging wealthy people to move abroad). So, they need to build more homes.

They’ve promised that 1.5 million new homes will be built by 2029. Additional Rate SDLT will exclude many landlords from investing and, without buyers that can afford to buy the properties, builders will be reluctant to build. Time for ‘Right to Buy Rayner’ and 2TK to don their hard hats and retrain as bricklayers, perhaps.

Even the increases to employers NI contributions and the minimum wage will mean higher costs for the builders and higher prices for the houses.

Labour really are clueless.

it's not a housing crisis. It's an immigration crisis.
Houses & their plots don't dissapear. Our birthrate is roughly equal to our birthrate. Old people die & free up homes for the next generation. So we shouldn't need more houses.
Why do we?
Answer = More people.
Legal net migration 685,000 last year thats 6000 new homes needed a week mostly squashed into England 😮

There are many contributing factors to the housing crisis,

Of course, massive net migration is top of the list. Migration comes in three categories. 1.) Legal migration 2.) illegal migration and 3.) Faux legal migration (people that game the system and are coached on what to say. Some are here for a better life and some to destroy us.

There’s also the fact that people are living longer. When governments ban smoking in public places, they should consider the unintended consequences. Likewise for medical treatments that prolong lives.

Of course, we are choosing to live in smaller households too.

Second homes and holiday lets play a part too. Empty homes have always been around. Some just need demolishing and others need to be brought back in to use.

Probate can mean homes are left empty nor months if not years. It needs to be sped up.

If only net migration was zero, we’d have plenty of homes.

Why aren’t tenants questioning the clear discrimination shown against them by the SDLT premium (and specifically ratcheted up by Reeves in the budget) on what is their main home albeit bought for them to live in by a third party who would obviously need to charge sufficient rent to cover expenditure and enter the market in the first place.

Tenants will inevitably be paying higher rents with 5% SDLT surcharge than they otherwise would due to the natural churn of properties triggering the tax (on those that don’t fall out of the rental market due to the off putting up front cost that is, and which itself puts upward pressure on rents of the remaining stock).

How can this not be blatant discrimination where a tenant is seeking to use property for the same residential purpose as an owner occupier would but this policy actively encourages potential landlords not to invest and if they do, charge increased rent.

And incredibly, Shelter, GR et al seem to have no view on this discrimination. Just ridiculous when tenants are being lumped in with seemingly undesirable property use as holiday lets and actual second homes for use in addition to a primary residence.

The government’s recent decision to increase stamp duty on second homes has been slammed for not addressing the UK’s housing crisis.

That was never its intention - only to raise more tax. And it will do that so mission accomplished in their eyes....

Totally disagree.

"The government should focus on encouraging long-term rental properties to remain available and addressing the housing shortage, rather than penalising properties that provide accommodation"

Make no mistake about it... short term lets 'provide accommodation'... some to students, some to people new to an area that they're moving to, some to temporary housing - whether the usual house is out of use due to flooding etc., or the person is fleeing domestic violence situation and is being housed temporarily whilst a more long term option is sorted out.

At the end of the day, one could argue that if people didn't by 2nd, 7th, 20th or 50th houses... then prices would drop and would become affordable for more... its a tax on business, and I don't have a problem with a higher stamp duty. It's not where the focus should be...

The focus of anyone lobbying this government is that landlords are RUNNING A BUSINESS... BE IT THAT THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE TENANTS OR GUESTS... its still a business, and as such, interest that a business incurs i.e. mortgage interest should be fully deductable... just like any other business.

Trying to pit a short let accomodation proivider against a long let is futile. Those providing long term accomodation do deserve a medal because when you want to get someone out... all I read about it lengthy court battles and massive costs.... but they've allowed this divide and rule narrative, so now, from April 2025 short let operators can no longer claim 100% of the mortgage interest as a legitimate business expense!!! So dragging everyone down to the same level. But it still won't help the housing shortage.

You need more housing, preferably affordable social housing. And stop trying to nit pick at those already providing a service. If everyone sold up... god knows how anyone would afford to work in London! Rental houses are needed.

I think all these licenses... and having to jump through hoops is causing a lot of homelessness. If 4 people want to share a house, you need a HMO license, and all sorts... yet there is a lot of capacity in these bigger houses with single people rattling around in them because family sizes in 2024 are SMALLER... with less people having kids... yet you can't share a big house due to government red tape. One house with 4 beds could potentially take 4 renters out of the market.... but in most cases, its not possible, because the house is in an article 4 area, and /or no HMOs allowed! Its ridiculous.