Tenants face dwindling supply of housing

'According to a survey of almost 3,000 landlords published today, 22 per cent plan to sell at least one of their properties over the next year, with just 18 per cent planning to buy additional properties to rent.'

I think this part of the argument is weak as it suggests that there is only a 4% gap between those selling and those buying... Obviously, it is also simplistic as we don't know how many properties will be sold and how many will be bought, just the proportion of landlords doing this.

Reply to the comment left by Dr Rosalind Beck at <a href="14/08/2017" rel="nofollow">https://www.property118.com/tenants-face-dwindling-supply-housing/#comment-93592">14/08/2017 - 13:25It is also, disappointingly, a very small representation of the total number of landlords (1.75 million) in England and Wales.

As usual, with any opinion poll I ever read about, nobody asked me!
I will be binning the last of my benefit tenants.
I won't be buying anything via a BTL mortgage and I intend to sell off my portfolio, leave the industry or raise my rents by 32%, whichever comes first.
That's 54 households looking for YOUR houses to rent!
Well done Terry, the fu**wit, Osborne.

Reply to the comment left by Gary Dully at 14/08/2017 - 23:18Terry Osborne? Who's he?

He is a "Terry Fuc*wit", is a northern phrase, which means he is one of academia, but has not the common sense to pull his pants down first, before he shoves out a brown torpedo between his rump cheeks!

That's Terry Fuc*wit, remember the phrase!

It's a bit like "Billie No Mates", which means he is of academia, but has not the common sense to wash and soap himself sufficiently to avoid his aquatencies from avoiding his 'whiffy' armpits, halitosis and bottom, that's a "Billie No Mates"!

Thank you for that invaluable contribution to my education, Gary. I do not move in circles where the first one is used and in my vocabulary "Billy no mates" is just a bloke with no friends.

What am I missing here??

A landlord wants to get rid of his portfoilio due to adverse tax.

It seems to me he has to sell it. (He cannot just leave it empty and walk away with no repercussions). Somebody buys that portfolio. They cannot just leave it empty and hope for price growth as they will still get taxed on a benefit in kind. So they can either live in or rent it. In either case the house has not vanished it is still in the housing stock. Perhaps someone has bought a home to live in for a little bit cheaper than was possible in the past. Is that bad? It will mean a reduction by one in rental demand. If he rents it then there is no change to demand/supply. The rent might go up a bit but only if the market will stand it.
I struggle to understand how portfolios being sold on mass is really going to effect demand and supply. These properties will not simply vanish.
This was the very point made in the radio interview with , I think Eddie Lester (or maybe Nester) The person being interviewed had no convincing answer.

I feel this is perhaps the real reason why the government feels no need to repeal s24.
Assuming I am missing the point somehow, could someone perhaps enlighten me.

Thanks.

Chris Unwin

Reply to the comment left by Chris Unwin at 19/08/2017 - 07:52
"Assuming I am missing the point somehow, could someone perhaps enlighten me."

Certainly Chris.

Landlords stop buying. The properties don't just 'vanish', they never get built/converted/brought back into use in the first place.

Demand already outstrips supply.

Added to which, for a landlord to get best price they need vacant possession, light refurb, viewings, negotiations, chains, buyers backing out, conveyancing process etc. 6-12 months vacant.
For a distressed repossession sale even longer.
Multiply that by a few thousands.

"They cannot just leave it empty and hope for price growth as they will still get taxed on a benefit in kind."
Eh? Do you mean council tax?
People can certainly leave them empty. Many hitherto accidental landlords will do just that. No point going through the hassle and risk of being a punitively taxed landlord when working away for a couple of years. May as well keep it for occasional use, family or holiday lets.

Impose unfair taxes and the market reacts and changes accordingly.

Reply to the comment left by Chris Unwin at 19/08/2017 - 07:52
It doesn't solve or improve the housing crisis though. And it has the greatest negative affect on the poorer members of society - those who can't afford to buy.