Spending Review 2015 – 3% increase on Stamp Duty for BTL and second homes

Does GO consider that all these extra taxes are going to help provide extra housing?

I notice another couple of sly things in there.
1. Purely by mentioning houses which enjoy PPR as not being affected, I think they may be thinking of changing that in the future - and getting everyone to pay some CGT on the sale of any homes. They will be once more 'leveling the playing field' (imagining a playing field up in the sky as it is always 'leveling up.).
2. They didn't let holiday homes off this time... so they may level that part of the playing field soon.
3. They did something that wasn't just related to mortgages - but included cash buyers, so they're spreading the net further.
4. They went on about caravans. Maybe caravans is the way of the future for landlords - we can then start using that great American expression, but this time about our tenants - 'trailer trash' (only joking - as I may move into that category at some point).
I've never been a conspiracy theorist - I think people are generally too thick to think that far ahead; but nothing would surprise me now.

But we didn’t ease up - we took the fight straight to Conservative MPs on their doorsteps. 38 Degrees members posted powerful leaflets through half a million letterboxes across Conservative constituencies. We plastered our message on vans and sent them driving through towns and cities to expose the cuts and broken promises. [4]

Together, we chipped in for huge billboards outside Conservative MP's offices with their faces and phone numbers. We called our MPs, and met with them face to face to drive home the impact the cuts would have on hard-working families where we live. [5]

The pressure became too much. As Conservative MPs lined up, one by one, to speak out against tax credits cuts, we watched Osborne’s plans unravel around him. [6] We threw everything we had at this campaign - and a little more besides. And we won.

We should be the bill boards

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "27/11/2015 - 08:16":

Well, apparently, David, when we pay these extra taxes all over the country - 'even up in Merthyr Tydfil' as I like to say - they will go to London and Cornwall - places where houses cost a fortune (and where house price increases have made some people very rich).
And presumably they will build their 'affordable' £250,000 plus 'starter homes', by gifting corporations large handfuls of this cash that has come from many of the poorer areas of the country.

Mmmm, all of a sudden Osborne is a landlord’s worst enemy – almost desperate to lose their million odd votes.
But why the change?

Well, we think he has been got at from two sides.

On the one hand, pressure group (and Nationwide Building Society’s “Foundation” funded) Generation Rent (Google Generation Rent + Nationwide) have been increasingly supported by Conservative voting Mums and Dads, moaning that their offspring cannot buy a pad in South Kensington or Islington and were going to have to slum it by buying in and commuting from Sidcup or Isleworth instead. And it was all the fault of the pesky landlords.

On the other hand, the institutional investors such as Aviva, Legal & General as well as overseas banks and corporates have long eyed a piece of the private rented sector action. Unable to compete with the more efficient “buy to let Mom and Pop landlords” they have urged for a playing field where they get to kick downhill with the wind behind them. They have now got their wish. (It seems they won’t be affected by the SDLT change).

And, after all, it is hard to be cross with as amorphous and distant a landlord as Legal & General or Aviva or some foreign concern, probably registered in the Bahamas, perhaps.
(See also Richard Dyson's excellent piece today in the Daily Telegraph today on how it's easy to be envious of your successful neighbour's buy to let activity but not of Aviva or L&G or some faceless overseas property firm. And do comment!)

And with Jeremy Corbyn lurching ever more leftwards, where are oft-Conservative voting landlords to go anyway? So, he’s taken his chance to hit what for many people is an unpopular group lacking in support and funding.

At LettingFocus, we have always predicted that the regulatory and tax environment facing landlords would get tougher.

And though landlords outside the capital have long battled with struggling house prices and rents that have barely moved for years, it is inside the capital where things really count. The big increases in house prices and future capital gains for landlords in most of London in the last 5 years has led Mr Osborne to eel that he can act.

Landlords who have already built a portfolio may feel less depressed as there will certainly be less new entrant small landlords (though we think the institutional investors will now see the green light and will really ramp up their game).

But whichever way you look at it, this seems like an attack on small scale landlords.

Other Links:

See also this for my views on the ghastly flats being built by the institutional investors:

http://www.lettingfocus.com/blogs/2014/10/build-to-let-hype-or-fact/

…and google "Generation Rent + Nationwide Building Society"

David Lawrenson
LettingFocus.com

Reply to the comment left by "H B" at "27/11/2015 - 07:00":

There is also one more issue, like I had recently. I purchased my first property 4 years ago. I recently took some equity out of it and purchased a second one - now my main home. The first one (BTL) is valued at £380k for BTL mortgage purposes, the new flat is worth £493k. I am genuinely planning on living in it for another 4-5 years before moving to a larger house (again hopefully retaining the second flat).

So why would I be liable for a stamp duty on a higher priced home which is NOT for BTL purpose? If anything I could pay a stamp duty on the value of the BTL property (the flat which I am departing), but not my main residence. Then again I suppose they said that this higher stamp duty is also payable on someone's second home - this would imply that the actual intended purpose is irrelevant and this 3% surcharge is not only problematic for private landlords but anyone who likes to own a second home for their own use.

I have more sympathy with GO levying extra SDLT on 2nd or nth properties for personal use than on property to rent to others. I lived in 4 countries in over 20 addresses before I needed to buy a house. thank the [land]LORD[s] there were properties available to rent from private landlords who were flexible and cared. may heaven protect future tenants [the government won't] from corporate landlords who will stick it to you always. For example, my first rental in Sydney contained a clause that made me liable for any damage caused by the landlords workmen. When I crossed it out, I was told I was the only one ever to notice.

BTL does not take housing stock out of use, 2nd home owners do. Just come and see the villages of the South West that lose all life out of the holiday season.

Following a suggestion from Gareth Wilson, I have just written to Harvey Jones at the Express and Rosie Taylor (but she is out of the office until the 30th) and James Coney, asking them if they can put a link to the petition, if they are writing any articles on BTL in the near future. Although the petition may be of limited utility, it could be good in terms of consciousness-raising and obviously it is better to have 100,000 signatures and a possible parliamentary debate, than the current near 40,000 signatures. If anyone else wants to suggest this to journalists that would be good. We may have a little window of opportunity this week, with the heightened media coverage of BTL and landlords.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104880

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Brown" at "27/11/2015 - 12:44":

Quite Chris.

Also, as I suggested, many of the corporate landlords who are keen to play on our pitch will be overseas corporates. Good luck complaining to them.... and I expect they will be domiciled in a way to minimise tax too!

Thinking on this ....
Assuming that Ltd co is the way to go for new purchases ...
Set up new overall holding company...
Each new residential purchase is via a new limited co so no additional 3% SDLT.
Option then to transfer the property up to main co after appropriate time - no SDLT or CGT on transfer using corporate rules,
OR - sell ltd co with 1 property to other corporate landlord with only 1/2% SDLT on sale of shares.

Hmmm.... Just shooting the breeze here but any thoughts?

ATED should not be a problem as long as not lived in by owner or H Co shareholders.

Quite prepared to be shot down in flames if this does not work.