Landlords purchasing in 13% of the country will pay stamp duty for the first time

The added cost will definitely be proportionally larger for inexpensive dwellings with low rents. It seems that with the availability of multiple dwellings relief, the government is hoping that this end of the market will become solely catered for by large investors who buy in bulk.

Unfortunately this site is very clearly biased, and the use of words such as 'hike' and 'inflict' demonstrates a standard of journalism comparable to that of certain tabloid newspapers.
We all have to pay taxes, and do we complain that large corporations have to pay corporation tax, when ultimately it can be claimed that this does come from the consumer. And yet, when certain large companies do not pay tax, there is a public outcry.
The profit threshold for many buy to lets is precariously low anyhow, and all too many landlords do not invest in their properties as they should, especially with essential repairs that affect the fabric. As a surveyor, I have had several landlords recently pull out of planned purchases recently due to the condition of a property, and the need to invest in the property. I have inspected many rented properties where investment is needed in the fabric, and not new kitchens etc.
The system in The UK of an increasing level of renters is damaging to the economy, with increasing numbers of couples delaying the start of a family due to high rents. That is a fact that has been reported.
The fundamental issue is that the majority of the housing stock is not suited to be let as a business. After all, if there were genuine profits to be made, then why have not large investors such as pension funds, invested in ordinary residential housing. The rental market has been skewed, and The Government has started a logical approach to this market. As I have stated before, if we are to have a large scale private rental market, then we need to look at how some other countries do achieve this effectively. My personal opinion of landlords, having been served three s21s in three years...I have a very low opinion, and no business model can ever be sustainable with such an approach.

Reply to the comment left by "Neil HEWITT" at "01/04/2016 - 18:10":

Welcome to Property118 Neil

Of course this website is biased, it's members are predominantly landlords or associated professionals.

I could tear each and every one of your arguments to shreds and feed them back to you but I will leave that pleasure to our other members.

Meanwhile, please note that we are funded by donations and also when you click on the adverts. I'm sure you will want to help keep us in business 😉
.

Reply to the comment left by "Neil HEWITT" at "01/04/2016 - 18:10":

Is it really only landlords who pull out of planned purchases when defects are discovered which would end up costing them a lot of money?

Well I didn't know that!

Are you really a surveyor?

Reply to the comment left by "Neil HEWITT" at "01/04/2016 - 18:10":

We all have to pay taxes, and do we complain that large corporations have to pay corporation tax, when ultimately it can be claimed that this does come from the consumer. And yet, when certain large companies do not pay tax, there is a public outcry.

Corporation tax comes out of profits; SDLT is unrelated to profits.

Public outcry is when companies make profits here but use international accountancy jiggery-pokery to shift their tax liability from here to a country with lower tax.

The areas of Tunbridge Wells, Dartford and Romford are likely to have an increase of more than 300% versus 200% in Inner London for stamp duty

Can anyone tell me what this means?
It seems totally devoid of meaning to me.

Well Neil 3 s21 in 3 years you may just be unlucky or doing something wrong. Most LL want to keep tenants. , as I have not heard from your LL's is there a reason you have to move every year? If you rented from me and abided by the tenancy agreement, you would have been their for years. Average tenant with me is 3 years ( & left on their own accord), longest 10 years, 2nd longest 7 years with no rent increase in that time.

Treasury and government wanting to stabilise the market, prevent LL taken property from first time buyers, What a load of tosh, and spin. Osborn trying to raise taxes any way he can even taxing Granny annexes now. Thought the caring government without hospital bed and homes for the elderly wanted children to care for their elderly parents.

Fact; My average profit from a family house now is about £5k pa, less if the interest rates go up. My 1st property lost about £500 pa for about 3 years! I was paying more in mortgage and bills than I received. I have to pay tax on any profit, and if a tenant moves out the refub could be £3-4k, so profit for this greedy LL for that year is zero, and still have to pay council tax while doing up the devastation left behind.. I have to fit a new front door £750 (break in ), 2 new boilers £1500 each do this to often and profits are slim.

With all the new mortgage restrictions a first time buyer cannot get a mortgage without a large deposit, he may even have to cancel eating out, cable TV and holidays. The properties I brought were on the market for a long time before I brought them, they were so in need of work no 1st timer would have wanted them or got a mortgage on them.

But good new I along with many other landlords are now going to sell because we do not want or can afford to pay tax on the money we give to mortgage companies. Effectively renting and mankind a huge loss, no profit at all.

The first time buyers can now buy my properties ( yer right a 3 bed house) ,the tenants who I evict can live in B&B's as the councils have no properties.

Just hope I can find a large LL that can by my property with a 3% hike in Stamp duty, and rent out for no profit for 2-3 years.

Neil my S 21 letter goes out next week to a couple with 4 kids who have been with me nearly 3 years. A shame they can't buy it or find other accommodation as they DHSS.

Unless this LL tax is scraped my 4 properties will be (hopefully) sold off in 2 years time.

Reply to the comment left by "Recardo Knights" at "02/04/2016 - 15:48":

Personally, I love how Mr Hewitt knows that 'the majority of the housing stock isn't fit to be let as a business'.

1. How much of the national housing stock has he surveyed?

2. My speciality is taking old and unloved houses and spending £20-25k each time on their refurbishment to SUPERB standards. Many of the landlords I represent do the same and abhor poor standards. Check out any of my properties to evidence this.

3. Every tenant survey in the PRS for the last few years has consistently reported 83-87% of tenants 'satisfied' or 'extremely satisfied', no matter who carried out the survey. Ask Shelter if you can't take my word for it.

4. You clearly haven't understood clause 24. If your tax bill for large risk and even larger responsibility was over 100% of income, you'd probably have something to say about it and would likely not consider it a fair and reasonable government response.

5. Couples renting are not caused by landlords. We didn't ask or suggest or force them to rent.

6. I know plenty of people with kids who rent. What factual evidence can you supply to demonstrate a significant figure are held back from having a family because they are in rented accomodation?

7. No, I'm getting bored now.

Reply to the comment left by "Neil HEWITT" at "01/04/2016 - 18:10":

Why is "the majority of the housing stock not suited to be let as a business"?.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article-3520036/Tax-penalty-families-granny-flat.html

If this is true then the owners should be able to sell them as separate dwellings normally on planning there is a condition not to be sold separately.
Government cant have it both ways if its separate GCT then it should qualify as a separate house