NRLA wants Holiday Lets to be hammered the same way as BTL?

9:02 AM, 5th February 2021, About 4 years ago 55

Text Size

NRLA Clarification:

“Calling for long term-rental property to be taxed more favourably than short-term holiday lets is clearly not the same as saying they should be taxed the same. After all how could you favour one over the other if they were taxed the same?”

“A clear example is the proposal the NRLA put out in its press release- whilst the stamp duty levy would apply to the provision of new homes to rent adding to the overall supply of housing, it would continue to apply to those investing in new holiday lets. The NRLA also believes that the Chancellor should look at the way the sector is taxed in the round to ensure it has an advantage over short term holiday lets given the pressing need for long term rental properties. As Ben notes in his quote it is the impact of tax policies as a whole that are causing such supply problems. “

The NRLA press release says it: “Wants to ensure the tax system encourages the provision of longer-term rental property over short-term holiday lets. From April this year, the final phase of reducing mortgage interest relief for landlords to the basic rate of income tax will be completed. This measure does not apply though to furnished holiday lets. This has encouraged the removal of properties from the long-term market for use as short-term holiday lets.”

Ben Beadle, Chief Executive of the National Residential Landlords Association comments:

“To be taxing long term homes to rent less favourably than holiday lets is simply bizarre. It completely undermines efforts by the Government to encourage the provision of long term, secure housing.

“It is time for the Government to realise that its tax policies have created a shortage of rented housing. This can only mean higher rents and reduced choice for renters. This is not going to do much for the levelling up agenda.”

The National Residential Landlords Association is also calling on the Chancellor to scrap the 3% stamp duty levy on the purchase of homes to rent where landlords invest in properties that add to the net supply of housing. This would include developing new housing, converting large properties into affordable units, changing the use of a property from commercial to residential or bringing one of the almost 650,000 empty homes in England back into use.

This comes as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has concluded that rents will rise because of demand for properties increasing, whilst new instructions from landlords continue to “dwindle.”

Property website, Rightmove revealed that outside London asking rents increased in the fourth quarter for 2020 for the first time since 2011, leading to a record average of £972 a month. It warns that in the suburbs, towns and villages, available housing is lower than normal for this time of year, whilst demand is higher.

Ben Beadle said:

“To have a tax on developing new housing is completely nonsensical at a time when more is needed. Supporting growth in the private rental market, alongside all other housing types, would provide a significant boost to the economy in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Research published last year suggests that landlords inject over £3.5 billion into local businesses across the UK.”

Share This Article

Comments

Dr Rosalind Beck

9:27 AM, 5th February 2021, About 4 years ago

Yes, it is wrong to call for an unjust tax to be extended to others. The message must always be clear that Section 24 has to be abolished.

Report Comment Reply

john glynn

9:43 AM, 5th February 2021, About 4 years ago

Surely he can't be serious? The real injustice is Section 24 which is what the NRLA should be vigorously campaigning against. This idiotic piece of legislation is the sole reason for the shortage of long term rentals. Many landlords have had no option but to resort to short term lets in order to stay afloat yet this clown wants to drive them in to the ground as well. Ben Beadle is surely unfit for purpose and should be removed from his position now!

Report Comment Reply

Chris @ Possession Friend

10:02 AM, 5th February 2021, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by john glynn at 05/02/2021 - 09:43
Its not especially Beadle ( don't mistake this as sticking up for him ) - he's just a figure-head and mouthpiece for the board. Both RLA and NLA want, for some unknown bizarre reason, to run with the foxes and the hounds.
Their size and merger makes for lack of competition.

A 'fault' levelled at many, 90% + landlord's is lack of membership of some Landlord body.
Tenants are paying 10% of their monthly rent to belong to Tenant campaign groups but Landlords won't pay a fraction of that annually to belong to a Landlord Association.
Its no wonder the Govt think they can ride rough-shod over us.

Report Comment Reply

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

10:03 AM, 5th February 2021, About 4 years ago

Whose side are the NRLA on?

Have they completely lost the plot?

Soon enough, landlords will have no representation at all, because I cannot se many of them paying their subs to NRLA if they insist to continue on their current path!

Report Comment Reply

Seething Landlord

10:09 AM, 5th February 2021, About 4 years ago

I interpret the press release as a plea for long term rentals to be taxed on the same basis as FHLs, not the other way round. In other words, they are arguing for the removal of s24 rather than its extension.

Report Comment Reply

john glynn

10:19 AM, 5th February 2021, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Chris @ Possession Friend at 05/02/2021 - 10:02
What is the point in subscribing to an organisation that clearly isn't fighting your corner? The NRLA's has been ineffectual campaigning against Section 24 so is trying to divert the blame on to short term lets. Trying to run a property business is hard enough these days without clowns like Ben Beadle adding more fuel to the fire.

Report Comment Reply

JamesB

10:21 AM, 5th February 2021, About 4 years ago

Great to have a landlords body fighting for you .. not. Is the NRLA now part of government? It certainly seems so

Report Comment Reply

Dennis Forrest

10:47 AM, 5th February 2021, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by john glynn at 05/02/2021 - 10:19
I totally agree. That's why I have cancelled my direct debit and will not be renewing this May. I did give the reason for cancelling my subscription and I did get a reply. Just an acknowledgement of cancellation of direct debit, nothing more. They don't really care - as long as they can continue to earn money selling courses or getting commissions from intermediaries.
As also a owner of a holiday home which I rent, (started 3 years ago to diversify a bit), It is a lot more hands on than an AST. In the tax year 2019-20 we had 189 nights booked. With a usual maximum stay of 7 nights that's a lot of guests to deal with. If I had 6 or 7 of these it would be a full time job.
So rather than acting with some envy or jealousy regarding the tax treatment of holiday lets if they want another cause to fight then put pressure on the government to help out leaseholders with huge bills for cladding. Some landlords have deep pockets and these repairs costs will be tax deductible, but many other landlords will struggle to pay.

Report Comment Reply

amarni

10:57 AM, 5th February 2021, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by john glynn at 05/02/2021 - 10:19
And therein lies the problem. NRLA want more legislation and turn landlords into council charity body. Whose side are our representatives on?
It is clear and that is why since January, I am no longer a member⁹? At an NLA meeting which newly installed Ben Beadle introduced himself attended together with, I checked, a non-BTL owning government officer who was interested in finding out the mood of landlords and run by a very good regional NLA female delegate in south east England, possibly 9 months before lockdown and it was obvious that section 24 was not on their agenda. They are red brick university soldiers trained to work in, follow and implement left wing government policies.

Also, i was charged £100.00 on what appeared to be an annual recurring membership fee for the 3rd time in Oct/Nov 20 by the National Alliance,
no notice given and managed to have it refunded. Important to cancel charge by request with your bank. I was never sent updates on their progress.

Report Comment Reply

budd

10:58 AM, 5th February 2021, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Dr Rosalind Beck at 05/02/2021 - 09:27
You are correct. Unfortunately government got the will to kill the private landlords

Report Comment Reply

1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

Leave Comments

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

Continue with Facebook

Continue with Twitter

Username/Email Address

Password

Remember Me

Forgotten your password?

Don't have an account? Sign Up

“Account”	means an account required to access and/or use certain areas and features of Our Site;
“Cookie”	means a small text file placed on your computer or device by Our Site when you visit certain parts of Our Site and/or when you use certain features of Our Site. Details of the Cookies used by Our Site are set out in section 13, below;
“Cookie Law”	means the relevant parts of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003;
“personal data”	means any and all data that relates to an identifiable person who can be directly or indirectly identified from that data. In this case, it means personal data that you give to Us via Our Site. This definition shall, where applicable, incorporate the definitions provided in the EU Regulation 2016/679 – the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”); and
“We/Us/Our”	Means Property118 Ltd , a limited company registered in England under company number 10295964, whose registered address is 1st Floor, Woburn House, 84 St Benedicts Street, Norwich, NR2 4AB.

Name of Cookie	Purpose	Strictly Necessary
JSESSIONID	Used only to collect performance data, with any identifiable data obfuscated	No
__cfduid	This cookie is strictly necessary for Cloudflare's security features and cannot be turned off.	Yes

Name of Cookie	First / Third Party	Provider	Purpose
__utma, __utmb, __utmc, __utmt, __utmz	First	Google	Helps to understand how their visitors engage with our website
_fbp	First	Facebook	Helps to understand how their visitors engage with our website