Proposal to make BTL a time limited offer – Feedback request

1.No
2.none
4.No
6.No

1 No
2 None
3 Not applicable
4 Not a chance in hell
5 I am a landlord, letting property is how I make a living. Without the property I would be unemployed.
6 I think it is a great idea for the reasons given by Dino (9:38 AM, 17th October 2018) above.

1. No.
2. None.
3. n/a.
4. No, current tenants move around a lot and don't want to be tied down.
5. If I were to sell, I would put property onto the open market, to see what offers came in. If the tenant happened to be the best price they would get the sale. The 1/3 of CGT wouldn't be that much for me but in any case I would be wary of the tenant trying to pull price down because of the "massive CGT discount". I would also be distrustful of the govt clawing back any discount with small-print clauses.

6. The naivity defies belief.

"Alex and the rest of our research team have spent weeks crunching the numbers to ensure that they stack up – showing that this can be done with no actual loss to the Treasury, due to the fall in housing benefit as people transition from renting to owning"

So people ON HOUSING BENEFIT !!!! will simply buy their homes with a bit of a nudge from the government. I can't see any holes in Alex and the team's research at all 🙂

I simply can't understand why this kind of thing is taken seriously. Some comments on the article itself before the answers to Ros's questions.

First, it starts by saying that they are about to publish another proposal, being that second home owners be incentivised to sell. To my mind, this is simply not comparing like with like...a complete non sequitur. The PRS is not a bunch of people with second homes.

Next, I would argue that the single most important domestic challenges are the effects of climate change on migration patterns from the sub Saharan and surrounding countries, and the effect on society generally and specifically the economics of the effect of Next Gen and AI on the domestic workforce in the next two decades. I'm afraid the percentage of home ownership is about 97th on my list.

I would be interested to see the data behind the assertion that the swing to Labour of younger voters can be explained by falling home ownership in that same demographic.

I would be interested in the data re the 'boom in btl' being 'at the expense' of ftbs. Ditto the data around those 'elderly' (define?), being 'pushed'.......'at the expense of ftbs. I wonder, for example, whether the introduction of student loans, and the subsequent increases might, perhaps, have had an equal if not greater contribution, not only to the decline in home ownership because of the effect on both borrowing capacity and, when the time comes, cash flow but also to the increased frustration with the existing political scene?

If we all's have 'meagre portfolio's and are making 'limited returns' which are designed to provide income in retirement, then on what basis should we be 'persuaded' to sell up at all?

Unlike others, I read it as the property to go onto the open market, with tenant being given first refusal. Now, given how long it can take to get a mortgage ( and that presumably those on benefits will struggle to do so), this could mean a tenant saying yes in principle, then taking months to discover that they can't manage it before saying no. As a sale and purchase can easily take six months st the best of times, and as presumably the seller would a) have to regain vacant possession, which again can take months and b) have to refuse to entertain offers from anyone who they could discover might be an investor, I would suggest a time limit for the tenant to exchange, and a form of words that the purchaser must sign confirming they're not and do not intend to become a landlord. Ridiculous.

What, precisely, is this 'shared ownership scheme with reliable returns'? And will it be offered to any landlord who happens to sell, or only if the tenant buys?

How on earth can there be no loss to the Treasury? If a tenant on full benefits somehow manages to accumulate the remaining deposit, plus fees and disbursements, and is in a position to obtain a mortgage, then one wonders how they qualify for housing benefits in the first place. And what about the additional benefit that the landlord might have to claim as a result of the decline in income?

If, as is much more likely, the tenant does not wish to/ is not able to buy, then the chances are that the eventual purchaser will not be on benefits. A clear loss to the Treasury. In addition to which, if the outgoing tenant is unable to secure another tenancy, then the local council treasury will have the cost of another household to house.

What exactly does 'those tenants whose property whose properties have not appreciate (sic) in price' mean!? Might he mean landlord? And what exactly is the 'cross subsidy'?

How in the name of all that's holy can the new owner be required to stay in the same property for ten years? How can/ will that be policed, what would be the penalties and indeed, would they be permitted to let the property after a certain amount of time (lol!)?

This is a lazy, ill-concieved, badly edited load of absolute twaddle. IMHO!

1. Yes
2. One
3. 0 (negative equity)
4.No. post grad medical student on visa from Saudi
5. N/A
6. Deeply flawed in concept and design as outlined.

1. No
2. No
3. N/A
4. No chance
5. BTL is part of my retirement/pension strategy.
6. Another stupid idea. just build more homes and chase down rogue landlords!

Sorry! Right....I do appreciate that at least the idea behind this is meant to offer at least a small amount of benefit, rather than outright detriment, to the landlord, despite the impracticality of the proposal itself. Don't want to sound entirely one-sided!

However, it's a while since I applied for a mortgage, but it used to be the case that the property needed vacant possession on the date of completion, if it's not a btl mortgage. Therefore theoretically, the tenancy would have to end and the tenant vacate on the day before completion. What could possibly go wrong?

1. NO
2. None
3. N/A
4. NO
5. I invested for income
6. Absolute rubbish idea

1. yes
2. only 1 as would not get more than 1 Capital Gains Allowance per tax year
3. depends on which property is sold
4. No as none can afford to raise the required mortgage
5. i) a rebate of 33% is less attractive than what I thought was originally proposed of 50% & ii) the climate may not be right to sell.
6. I think they should allow 100% relief to the landlord if they sold their properties as long as it was sold to an owner occupier.

1. Yes
2. One
3. £840
4. No. He would want to buy a nice country cottage not an ex Council flat. However, his age and income make it highly unlikely he could fund buying anything unless he wins the lottery.
5. Assuming said tenant doesn't win the lottery I won't be selling as I have no intention to ever make him homeless.
6. The proposal is ridiculous as CGT is a very regional and time related concept. Gains are minimal in large parts of the country especially on recently bought properties. Negative equity still exists. Anything I've bought in the last 10 years doesn't have a big enough CGT liability to either worry me or give an attractive bonus to a purchasing tenant under the above scheme.
Properties I've owned longer (pre 2003) are a different matter. Eye watering CGT liability (so I'm not selling) but tenants are mainly students or young professionals so they're not looking to buy those properties.
Restoring taper relief would allow longer held properties to gently return to the market.
The last thing anyone needs is a one year window.