National Rent Rise Day 5 April 2017

National Rent Rise Day 5 April 2017

12:32 PM, 10th October 2016, About 8 years ago 94

Text Size

Unless the government confirms a U-turn on section 24, I suggest ALL LANDLORDS make it widely publicised that as of 5th April 2017 they will in unison apply a Tenant Tax to their passing rents. i.e. current rent plus X% tenant tax. (The actual % applied will probably be circa 8% but should be independently forecast by a respected national firm of accountants in conjunction with RLA and NLA)april 5th

A similar tax rise should also be applied in April 2018 and April 2019 depending on the forecast tax impact of prevailing interest rates.

Once the hard reality of THE TENANT TAX is nationally recognised especially by tenants, then the Government and Local Councils will have to make plans for the colossal impact in six months time.

I am not proposing to inflate rent for profit, but purely for my business to stand still. I suspect like many other landlords, I have never increased a rent to a sitting tenant, and only increase to the current market rent upon a natural change of tenant.

Likewise I am not proposing some form of price fixing, just merely to keep the status quo for the property business I started in 1989.

Once the NATIONAL RENT RISE DAY is widely publicised, one would hope that the Government can see the folly of their proposed tax grab, and realise the direct consequences of their actions on tenants.

Like the utility firms or any other business in the UK, when costs are rising the consequent impact has to be passed on to the consumer if the business is to remain viable.

My biggest bug bear is that as an industry with a national average yield of 5% we are portrayed as “greedy landlords” by the media and politicians. The country fails to realise that 5% yield is turnover not the profit margin, and that in reality the army of “cottage industry” landlords make a tiny rental profit and that is only because they are doing the work unpaid in their own time. Also that without the effect of some mortgage gearing or hope of long term capital growth the PRS business model is utterly futile.

Jason


Share This Article


Comments

AnthonyJames

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

12:41 PM, 13th October 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "terry sullivan" at "12/10/2016 - 16:51":

2-storey HMOs currently only need a compulsory licence in areas where the council has imposed blanket licensing. Otherwise the minimum threshold is three storeys or more and more than five tenants. The Government consulted last year on reducing this to two storeys and five tenants+. I haven't seen any firm proposals yet for a future Housing Bill. See https://news.rla.org.uk/hmos-in-government-sights-as-licensing-consultation-launched-and-minimum-room-size-proposed/

Monty Bodkin

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

14:02 PM, 13th October 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Jon Pipllman" at "13/10/2016 - 09:59":

There will be some spectacular cases involving many £, many properties, many displaced tenants and bankruptcies of the LL and their family. Moreover, PRA & Basel III will finish some more too.

Jon,

Hate to spoil your fun but the PRA standards on underwriting are already out;

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2016/073.aspx

Nothing like the Bogeyman the doomsters were hoping for. Just sensible prudent lending, taking into account likely forthcoming Basel standards.

The aim of this is to strengthen the market, not to crash it.

In fact, it is good news for existing landlords;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/buy-to-let-lenders-shelter-existing-borrowers-from-strict-lendin/

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

14:14 PM, 13th October 2016, About 8 years ago

Note to all

I don't think Jon Pipllman is one of the bad guys.

He just shares a slightly different opinion to many of us on s24.

Anybody who manages to get themselves banned from the HPC forum is a friend so far as I'm concerned, even if he does post a few comments which can easily be taken out of context.
.

Chris Clare

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

14:21 PM, 13th October 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "13/10/2016 - 14:14":

I think that this whole issue is emotive to all but for very different reasons.

It appears from reading the thread that everyone is essentially right but just from differing perspectives.

I am sure we still all respect each other for their particular views.

Chris Clare

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

14:28 PM, 13th October 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Jon Pipllman" at "13/10/2016 - 09:59":

Jon unlike Clause 24, I cannot see PRA & Basel III having any effect on existing borrowing.

These changes, that relate to banking resilience and security, tend to shape future lending and underwriting policy. There is very little they can do to existing borrowers regarding their debts, as it would not be considered Treating Customer Fairly (TCF). For example we have not be able to do self cert mortgages for many years now but there are still many borrowers who have historic SC loans that have remained unaffected by the policy update.

That being said it will no doubt effect future borrowers and will obviously shape the future of the BTL market, but considering every man and his dog have come into this market over the last decade a bit of prudent lending probably is no bad thing.

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

14:36 PM, 13th October 2016, About 8 years ago

At the risk of getting shot down in flames for saying this; I think the new PRA underwriting guidelines of 145% interest cover at 5.5% are sensible.

I have always advocated maximum gearing based on 125% interest cover at a notional rate of 7% which isn't too different. I also back that up be recommending liquidity of 20% of debt. LTV is irrelevant in my opinion. I'm only interested in net return on capital employed and serviceability.

I wouldn't invest unless I could get 20% net return on capital employed, i.e. assuming 2% capital growth average (BOE inflation target) plus annual cashflow net of all costs expressed as a percentage of cash deposit.

Since 2009 it has been much harder to make deals stack up on the above criteria without getting into multiple occupancy or low value properties up North. For that reason amongst others I stopped buying in 2009.
.

Chris Clare

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

14:42 PM, 13th October 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "13/10/2016 - 14:36":

You are correct and it is those lax rules in the past that has opened the market up to the less qualified and uninitiated. This has in turn created a class of landlord that can potential bring the industry into disrepute not because of deliberate negligence but more ignorance. IMHO

I have also always based my assumptions on the basis of profit after only 10 month let as this can sometimes happen. If I make money and have 2 months voids every year then I am half way there.

I know many landlords who barely break even and some make routine losses year in year out so good banking regulation will only protect them from themselves.

Jon Pipllman

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

14:51 PM, 13th October 2016, About 8 years ago

Generally I agree, PRA is eminently sensible. That it won't be applied to existing lending does protect existing borrowers' positions.

However, by reducing the amount that can be borrowed for additional purchases, it is clearly designed to work as a brake on BTL in one way or another.

Basel III is different again IMO. Depending on how it ends up being implemented, it could make the carrying costs for lenders of IO loans &/or BTL loans much higher. If that is the case, the cost of such borrowing can be expected to increase, relative to other types of debt.

I concur with Mark's view on the market since around about 2009ish

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

15:01 PM, 13th October 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Jon Pipllman" at "13/10/2016 - 14:51":

Whilst we are discussing the market Jon, what are your thoughts moving forwards?

Mine are that capital values will stagnate for a while and then creep up gently with inflation. In the short term I think the weak pound will increase overseas "lock up and leave" investment in London but that price rises will be negated by pressure of mortgage affordability issues and SDLT in the UK market.

The reason I have only sold enough property to restore my personal liquidity position, rather than selling the lot, is that I foresee a demand driven 50% increase on rental values over the next two to five years as a result of failures in Government policy making on both housing and population growth.
.

S.E. Landlord

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

15:02 PM, 13th October 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Rosalind Beck" at "13/10/2016 - 09:16":

To compare the effect of Section 24 with State seize of private property is completely inaccurate. Section 24 may result in some landlords reducing or selling their portfolio but the resultant sales proceeds are not being confiscated. If there is a gain, then subject to CGT, they are still left with at least 72% of the profit and original investment less any selling costs.

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Automated Assistant Read More