Straw Poll to combat further government attacks – Please help

1. 100%
2. 8
3. 0%
4. 8
All my tenants are on housing benefits, so not a chance of them ever buying their own home. Why doesn’t the govt start to think about these people rather than trying to help people to buy their homes. All the actions by the govt so far are harming lifetime renters because landlords have little option than to pass on tax cuts to them. I have not put rent up for several years as I have good tenants and want them to stay. But I am now planning to sell up so they will all ultimately lose their homes.

Hi,
1, 25%
2, 8
3, 1 possibly
4, 0

I don't believe any of my tenants would want, or be in a position to buy. Several older tenants have deliberately moved from their own property to take the worry of maintenance away, several others are not in a position to buy (and would not be able to afford any form of mortgage) and some are short term lets for work placements. Others are simply not interested

1) 25%
2) 1
3) 0
4) 0

At present my wife and I have three properties that qualify: -
1. Our flat, couple have been with us for four and a half years, prior to that 10 years in another flat, only leaving because owner wanted to live in property.
2. A house with a professional family from Spain, if they wanted to buy now the current Capital Gains Tax allowance would cover increase in property value.
3. The third property our original BTL and my parents’ home, we have now owned it for ten years. It is inside the M25 near Heathrow Airport and has increased about £100,000. Since reading the article I have been confused, which I know other readers will enjoy pointing out my ignorance. Currently if the Capital Gains part of the property is £100,000, we would get between us £22,000 allowance, leaving £78,000, CGT @ 28% £21,848, leaving £56,160, plus the relief of £22,000 equals £78,160! So why would we accept £50,000 as the proposal suggests and give our Tenants the same amount? Or have I got it totally wrong?

1) 12.5%,
2) 1 in 8.
3) None. They're students, Polish temporary workers and low income earners.
4) None. The other issue is that mine are flats in converted three storey Victorian terraces so selling a flat introduces various complications.
Of the nearly 50 tenancies I've had, only one tenant, to my knowledge, left to buy a house. This was with her partner, greatly aided by her father. My flats are in a medium sized, post-industrial high unemployment coastal town in the North East.

1. 85% (or v nearly 3 years)
2. 6
3. 0%
4. 0
2 x HB
1 lets his unencumbered house and lives in the difference between his rent and mine
1 wants a house rather than the flat
1 partner just made redundant and looking to downsize their rental - they are v glad they don’t have a mortgage
1 I think she wants to go back to her home country in a few years

1. 33%
2. two
3. 16.65%
4. One

Some of my tenants are in there fifties/sixties so if they haven't bought a house by now are unlikely to do so as a low mortgage term would make the payments unaffordable.. Others even if they could get a mortgage, the value of my houses would be valued at more than they could get a mortgage for so they would have to look in a cheaper area where they don't want to live. Others may be able to afford the mortgage but would not be able to afford the upkeep of the house ie maintenance, a new boiler, new bathroom etc

Thanks again everyone and keep the comments coming. Even if you have already posted, I am interested in your thoughts and expertise. One thing I would like the stats on is how many rentals in the UK are in negative equity/have not increased in value; how many have only increased to about the CGT threshold and how many would only be liable for a small amount of CGT. That would cut a whole swathe of properties immediately out of this - even before tenants' inability or lack of desire to purchase were brought into the equation. So the 'carrot' would be largely irrelevant and not taken up on whilst the stick would whack many landlords with one or two properties especially as they get out of the PRS.

Out of six properties only two would be eligible for Capital Gains Tax if sold today.

Ros, you've just touched open something I've been thinking about. Might the LL have some kind of liability to prove negative equity, i.e. would a survey be required simply to establish gross capital gain, or otherwise ( presumably at the LL' expense!)? My fear is that, if not properly explained, tenants might consider that there is an expectation of equity, meaning some kind of 'right' to a lump sum. Not explaining myself very well...sorry.

And unless I've totally misunderstood, this is effectively the use of funds that currently go to the Treasury, so essentially this is a lump sum kindly donated by the tax payer!