Proposal to make BTL a time limited offer – Feedback request

1. I would sell as I am already about to start unloading due to ongoing merde from our polititians.
2. 5.
3. Capital gains would be very little as property prices have been stagnant for the last 5-6 years.
4. None of my tenants would buy as explained in last poll.
5. N/A
6. Although I am selling I agree with other comments that it could flood the market and put lots of people on the streets.

1. No.

2. 0

3. £17,000.

4. No.

5. Riding out the storm to reap the rewards, when the Govt & Councils have destroyed a lot of Landlords, then they can come begging.

6. Codswallop. Come & ask us WHAT WE THINK would work for tenant AND AND AND that usually ignored, but important person, yes you've guessed it, the Landlord. Him/her that's providing the ruddy house in the first place.

As with all these proposals they are not thought though. They tend to come with preconceived ideas from 'bogus' studies. And I include the Government in that sentence. I provide accommodation to students. I don't think they are in the buying market but I can ask. As for selling (!) the market I am located in has ceased to function and houses have dropped in value caused by stamp duty changes, additional taxes on landlords, and excessive regulation. And in a falling market a first time buyer is not likely to consider buying. A house next to one of ours - opposite the university - has been on the market for over two years. It remains unsold. The occupant died and it is now sort of lived in by relatives who are desperate to sell but not at any price. Another house again very near the university has sold after being on the market for 18 months 15% below market value two years ago. Another landlord has 3 properties empty very near the university but is not selling yet. So this is a segment of the market not even considered.
When I started in my career I had to move every 2-3 years. That is not long enough to justify buying and selling a house. It was and still is cheaper to rent for such periods (and less risky of loosing money). Another segment of the market ignored.
Then as others have stated those on benefits and renting - can afford to buy? seriously? Another segment of the market ignored.
The big problem here is people who do not understand the market getting publicity for silly ideas, and a government desperate to raise tax by ways which will distort the market in ways they (hopefully) never intended.
The real problem here is that if you allow uncontrolled immigration you end up with a million plus new residents (5 years at 200,000 pa), who need homes to live in. They may well be contributing in their taxes to the benefit of the country but their taxes do not pay for the additional city that is required. And by city I mean the houses, roads, trains, hospitals, schools etc. They did not bring their houses with them. Now you can accommodate this increase in other ways such as multiple occupancy, by extending existing housing stock and squeezing more pupils in existing schools etc, but there comes a point whether that is not possible.
As someone who had to move with work I can understand the need to move but when it becomes a very large migration over a relatively short time then the system cannot survive.
Any housing stock needs to provide for the mobile work force, the people who move around the country from project to project, indeed those who move from one country to another to work on the project. Most of those people do not want to buy and they would never get a council house or social housing.
I wonder whether those who seek solutions to the housing problem are not seeing the forest for the trees around them? or is it a too difficult subject to raise?

Reply to the comment left by Mike W at 17/10/2018 - 17:29
Thanks Mike W for your very eloquent post. You may see your words quoted elsewhere all being well.

1. Maybe at the right price.
2. Only 1 would qualify, so that would be it.
3. Probably about £4k.
4. Don't be silly, tenants would be on the streets as they wouldn't be able to afford to buy or even rent anywhere else.
5. The only reason I would sell 1 property would be to reap the benefits of this scheme. I would then hang on, wait for the inevitable drop in the market and use the gains to sweep up the cheap properties. Maybe then the tenants I kicked out would have a home again after a 9 month or so gap of living on the streets with 5 kids.
6. Couldn't be more ridiculous if I'd made it up myself! Another p*ss-take by Government.

1-4 N/A .
The only two properties we might consider selling show little or no capital gain over 12 and 13 years respectively, so real terms loss, but viable as rentals at current interest and taxation rates. Neither has tenants who would buy: one couple on long term benefits with no chance of ever buying; other separated man who hopes to be reconciled with wife.

1 no
2 0
3 0
4 none
5.the ones I would like to sellhave little or no capital gains
6 I am left wondering who all these people are that will be transferring from housing benefit to a mortgage! Really??? Why does the tenant get a massive handout? Very open to abuse.

1. Yes, but only because it fits into my exit-strategy timescales.

2. 1 (no taxable profit in the others)

3. £3000

4. No (unless they can get a mortgage at 7 times income)

5. n/a

6. It will make tenants homeless.
- Like all policy/proposals, it considers PRS to be homogeneous.
Government and wanabe government needs to understand and develop policy for the fact that there are at least 3 different PRS groups:
a) "normal": providing whole properties for families and individuals;
b) HMOs let by the room (separate tenancies);
c) Student lets;
d) HMOs let to a group (single joint tenancy); This may or may not be part of a).

- It will be net cost to public purse because those on benefits will be unlikely to be eligible for a mortgage and unlikely to be able to save the deposit (if they can, then why are they on benefits?), AND when those tenants are evicted for the sales , they will become responsibility of local authority (equals higher cost for B&B etc than housing benefit for their current home).

1 no
2 none
3 n/a
4 no
5 I live overseas to avoid a large CGT bill
6 free gift to a tenant? no way.

1. No
2. None
3. Were I to sell the average CGT liability would be less than £15,000
4. No
5. I’m in for the long haul. The financial benefit would not be sufficiently(at all) attractive. I would have to evict a lot of tenants who would have real issues securing alternative accommodation.
6. Another ridiculously ill-conceived idea. My bullet point responses to statements in the article….
- Everybody consulted supports the idea? Any landlords?
- Building more houses not sufficient – it would be if it were happening and not just being paid lip service
- Up to 6.66% of purchase price – where do they find the remainder plus legal and finance costs?
- I estimate that maybe 5% of my existing tenants would be in a position to go with this (but probably wouldn’t want to anyway). What happens to all those being evicted to enable a sale?
- Devil is in the detail. Can’t imagine any way in which they will be able to do all they claim they have been working on – particularly; to enable tenants whose landlords will not sell to still benefit; provide some benefit to people where house prices have fallen; and tying a property into owner occupation for minimum 10 years. It’ll be very interesting to see Mr Morton’s novel ideas on these and other issues.