Landlords are ‘being pushed out of’ the PRS

This “article” is just one of the regular sale pitches urging landlords to sell with tenants in place. We all know you won’t realise the full open market value of a property if you take this route. The implication is that if you don’t sell now at below market value property prices are going to drop so much that you will wish you had taken the low value on offer because your property will be worth even less than that in the future. It may be a last ditch solution for those in dire financial straits but, essentially they are being kicked by these “saviours” when they are already financially down.

Hi Northern Landlord,
I whole heartedly agree and have made similar comments previously. Usually, it is not possible to comment because of the lack of a “leave a reply” option.

This is just a short term side affect of the governments aim to return significant private housing stock back onto the market. Why else would they have introduced all those legislations that targeted private landlords specifically and not commercial.

Reply to the comment left by northern landlord at 03/11/2023 - 10:56
Personally, I’d be happy to sell at below market value.

The risks today don’t make it worthwhile.

The government consider it necessary to be seen as helping millions of potential voters, paradoxically knowing it will harm this massive basketful of tenants and landlords alike.

The thrift shown by the government in neither building new housing nor increasing Housing Allowance but instead creating a regulatory system that turns the PRS into social landlords is not an unusual policy strategy by English political parties. It works, after a fashion, but creates an underlying mistrust and anger in many sectors of society. If one travelled extensively abroad, one would notice how other countries are more at ease and cohesive. Many English social problems today derive from successive governments implementing what their citizens perceive as unfair policies. The result of this strategy will soon become apparent with public disorder. This will lead to even more political sadistic regulatory costs, fines and punishments, increasing pushback and disorder. For me, it is remarkable why governments seem incapable of listening to both sides of problematic social issues rather than this Victorian implementation of divide and rule - get the tenants to hate the landlords and when this hatred peaks, introduce draconian laws. This may seem a clever tactic to politically savvy charities and inexperienced politicians, but the end result inevitably loses the country billions of pounds in having to clear up the mess when that part of society affected breaks down completely.

Reply to the comment left by Mr Blueberry at 04/11/2023 - 06:22
You are looking too deep mate ,all landlords want to do in rent a property at a fair rate, the property kept in good condition by tenant pay what tax is due its has simple has that.

Reply to the comment left by Michael Booth at 04/11/2023 - 07:00
Yes, you are probably right, Michael, but I do believe the government, both parties, can not afford to house those in need - (see the staggering number of local authorities going bankrupt and issuing section 114 notices) -and, in their desperation the government using a clever PR trick , are putting the legal onus of social housing onto the private rental sector.

While you believe you want the government just to be fair - it won't as it has not got the funding to support the local council increases in housing allowance or the funding to build new houses - hence, we, as landlords, are unfairly given the task of subsidising the government's failure.

Reply to the comment left by Mr Blueberry at 04/11/2023 - 07:43
Perhaps some with long memory in the Tories are trying to safeguard the choice made by their beloved Baroness Thatcher. Right to buy but no Duty to Build was always going to have predictable consequence of reduced social housing supply.
Made the banks and agents happy along with the new owners but the long term was obviously broken without the Duty to Build on local government.