Tory plans for Rent Controls in seaside towns?

I only have 4 properties. I understand this would be costly for small landlords. My recent expenses have included almost £2k for fire safety, £1500 new boiler, £400 electric consumer box, and £2k now quoted for a rewire!

In addition, The Council will be licensing two of my properties at £500 each in their proposed areas. The continual onslaught aimed at landlords' income is not workable, along with harassment to upgrade safety as though tenants were mentally disabled or under 7 is ridiculous in a 4 bedroom house where only 4 tenants live!

I can't sell yet for various reasons but fed up with red tape!
Help!!!

Thanks

Reply to the comment left by "Ingrid Bacsa" at "03/05/2017 - 16:00":

You forgot the bill for Brexit.
That's apparently now £100 Billion.

We only have 25 million in the UK that pay any tax out of their earnings
(Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523707/Table_2.1.pdf ),

So lets see if my sums are right,
erm carry the 9, move the decimal point, put a new battery in, squeeze Dianne Abbots arse cheek... It's around about

£3 quid! - what a bargain! -

What's that you say? - "I mis-spoke",

You don't squeeze arses anymore, really? since 1983?,

No I'm not 'objectifying' woman,
Look we all need answers to this question, well what do you squeeze then?

My maths teacher obviously needs sacking, "Well they did it in the seventies", "I got it right in the last 6 bulletin boards I've been on"

Sorry folks, I got my figures wrong.....

£100,000,000,000 divided by 25,000,000 TAX PAYERS is ........

its just another £4000 each.

P.S. Whats the phone number for operation "YewTree"?

# Vote UKIP

Reply to the comment left by "Gary Dully" at "03/05/2017 - 19:10":

🙂

Landlords' Union, National Residential Landlords Association, NLA, whoever we join - no-one can stand up to the government and blast their Section 24 for us!!!

Completely agree with Ingrid. Government and Council jobsworths . Unfortunately all western governments are wedded to taxation and micro management. This is not simply an assault on landlords , it is an assault on civil liberties.

Today’s Times article on the subject includes this sentence: “Natalie Elphicke, chief executive of the institute, said: “A fair rents regime would speed up the renewal of the most deprived areas, drive a fairer deal for tenants and taxpayers and kick-start regeneration. Dysfunctional housing markets are fundamental to the spiral of decline in many coastal communities.””
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rent-caps-could-help-coastal-towns-all-at-sea-n63rs2qnf

This must have been in a press release, because it is not stated in the report, which can be downloaded from this site: http://thehfi.com/research-and-publications/turning-the-tide/

The Times article refers to rent caps, but it is wrong. The HFI report implies that fair rents would be lower than current levels.

On page 11 it states “In areas of low capital values and high housing benefit dependency, too often tenants and taxpayers alike overpay for housing which just isn’t worth the rent being charged. Too often rents are too high because they are underpinned by benefit rent allowances which are excessive for the location and quality of the property.

How to reform housing benefit so that it supports quality and affordability for tenants, while
incentivising and rewarding the provision of good quality property is very difficult. There are two potential approaches to consider: amending the Local Housing Allowance level (LHA) or implementing a time limited period of ‘fair rents’ to control the rent which can be charged within a specific renewal area.“

The report comments on Blackpool council’s request to the government to reduce the LHA by 30%, saying this should drive rent level reductions.but such an approach can discourage new investment.

It then goes on to recommend a fair rents regime.
“Applying a modern fair value rents regime reflecting quality of condition and management of property would be expected to have the economic effect for taxpayers and tenants of adjusting markets where rent levels are defective.”

I.e. adjusting rents downwards. It does not make clear how this will “kick-start regeneration”, as Mrs Elphicke is quoted to have said.

It goes on “At the same time it would reward landlords who invest in better quality properties and appropriate management standards.”

It does not make clear how they will be rewarded, unless the reward is not having their rent reduced. If it means being allowed to increase their rent, this may be academic if the tenant relies on housing benefit or LHA.

The report ends with success stories. Thanet council used selective licensing and a grant to “crack down” on rogue landlords, and offered interest-free loans to help fund renovation costs.

“Blackpool Borough Council established a new regeneration vehicle called Blackpool Housing Company Ltd as a commercial venture within the private rental sector to address social and economic issues or challenges.
Blackpool Housing Company is acquiring thousands of desolate and poor quality homes. The council is operating a full lettings and management service to residents.”

In Hastings “the council have been able to buy and improve poor quality housing and to combine this with other programmes of support to drive up standards, such as strict landlord licensing”

These successes have been achieved with existing legislation. The HFI has not made a case as to why rent reductions are also required, unless they are designed to force landlords to sell to their council.

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "03/05/2017 - 22:18":

Thanks for linking the 'report'.
What a load of pretentious, sycophantic, unrealistic codswallop!
It is upon nonsense like this that policies like section 24 are based.

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "03/05/2017 - 22:18":

Thanks for link. I am certainly not impressed by this report. For a start it needs a good proof reader as it mis-spells accommodation and refers to "TENANTS housing benefit claimants" when I assume it means either landlords or properties housing them rather than tenants taking in lodgers who are on benefits. Such carelessness epitomises the tenor and lack of rigour of the report. In the locality I am familiar with, low rents are the reason it is not worth landlords making expensive improvements to flats which are conversions of large old stone-built properties therefore cutting rents still further, on top of all the other recent burdens on landlords, will simply make them non-viable. The numbers barely stack up at present. And the reason these rents are low is low wages and a lack of employment opportunities locally, so the recommendation of building more accommodation is only going to make matters worse. As Monty sums up: "unrealistic codswallop!".

Reply to the comment left by "Monty Bodkin" at "03/05/2017 - 12:05":

Hopefully, but many Conservatives ARE suspicious of landlords and I believe, capitalism in general.

I regard myself as a left leaning Conservative, but for me this means left leaning in a social sense NOT an economic sense. For example, I vehemently oppose discrimination against protected characteristics that someone has no choice over and the right to follow alternative lifestyle choices provided these are legal and self supported, and those who practice them in turn respect their neighbours and the environment. However, I also believe the best way to ensure we have a fair and caring society with plenty of opportunities is to promote a healthy economy, which means encouraging business and free enterprise.

Until after the last general election, and clause 24 et al, I believed this was what the modern Conservative party stood for too. I still believe the vast majority of Conservatives in government share my beliefs, but we will have to wait till they win this election to find out for sure. I will be voting Conservative if only because they're the only party even remotely capable of running the country at present.

Having said that, there are many among their traditional supporters who are justifiably angry toward the last 2 governments - landlords in particular - who are going to vote against the Conservatives in protest, in the same way that many people voted Brexit to simply to protest against the EU, believing Remain would win (no doubt many voters in the US voted for Trump in a similar vein)...