Welcome To SingingPig.co.uk

Lisa:

Not my headline Rialto - copied from the email I recieved!!

However, should we return to effectively the old secured tenancy situation it would be the end of buy to let as we know it so not too far from reality IMHO.

Lisa

Nobody's saying anything about returning to the old secured tenancy situation, there's only a suggestion that bad landlords who are forced to upgrade their properties by environmental health wouldn't be able to revenge evict their properties. I still think that there are some people here who are resorting to hyperbole in order to pretend that their own problem is a problem for a much wider group of people.

Oh, and the old secured tenancy situation wouldn't kill off BTL, it would just adjust (down) the value of a property as a rental investment.
 

Billy, you are completely missing the point.

This is not about bad properties this is about creating more security of tenure.

The JRF, Shelter etc have made no secret of their desire for this since the L&T changed! Saying that they are seeking to protect tenants from dodgy landlords (which I agree with wholeheartedly) is a smoke screen to get people on board.

What they actually want to do is give tenants a much better security of tenure – watering down or removing the section 21 will do exactly this. If S21 goes then lenders will not lend in their current format for buy to let purposes. It will likely go back to the old days of repayment commercial loans at 60% LTV if you’re lucky!

Look at this way – if the headlines were ‘section 21 to be watered down’ who the heck would understand that except us lot! If the headline reads ‘protection from dodgy landlords and shitty properties on its way’ – do you think this would attract more support?

Sign it, don’t sign it, I care not a jot to quote Billy Connolly but do be aware that these bodies have been campaigning for near on 15 years to get S21 overturned – how long have we been campaigning to keep it?

Lisa

As a homeowner and small time landlord my POV is this...

It is vital that there is flexibility in the rental market.

It is disgraceful how little security of tenure tenants have (as a tent moving every 6 months to a year is common and this is wrong - ten times so if you have a kid)

I propose - quite simply - that the AST should remain but banks should have no right to break that AST. 

Further I suggest that tax rates on BTL should be 70% of profit UNLESS you offer the tenant security of tenure for 5 years (with easy repossession if they damage the property or fail to pay the rent) in which case you pay tax at current rates.

This would help ensure security of tenure for good tenant.  It would also punish property speculators (who rent out their property short term) and reward long term landlords.

As to this proposed law, surely any restriction on BTL will reduce competition and enable the well-informed, intelligent and efficient landlords to do well in comparison to others... what's the problem?

The problem is that it would be more interference from the nanny (bully?) state. As has already been described, such interference risks reducing the willingness of banks to lend mortgages and of landlords to enter the market. Interference, however well meaning, inevitably leads to unintended consequences.

If you really wanted to pursue such an idea, it would be better to let the rent relate to the length of tenure than to use the tax system for more social engineering.

It costs landlords money when tenants change (voids, fees, advertising). I much prefer long term tenants as would most landlords at a guess so I don’t think changing the rules to allow them is an issue. I have NEVER asked a tenant to leave voluntarily – in my experience it is nearly always THEM who asks to leave first.

The point is if I have to sell or wish to sell (or from the banks point of view they repo and have to sell) we should be allowed to ask the tenants to leave.

Lisa

I would argue that banks should be forced to honour ASTs, it is outrageous that they aren't.  If that makes it harder to borrow then less competition / lower prices.  That's what I call a WIN WIN.

In my experience as a landlord I never ask tenants to leave either.

In my (past) experience as an agent and a tenant I regard most landlords as idiots who can't come up with a 2 month plan let alone a 10 year one.  Regular moving is a massive problem for many tenants - maybe more so in London where I am.

Why do you want to force people to conduct their business in a way they don't want to? You seem to think it will reduce competition for you. If you want to offer tenants a longer tenancy, then fine - nobody is stopping you. I hope the tenant will reward you by paying you a higher rent than they would to one of the "idiot" landlords. But then again, if the landlords are idiots, how come you can't compete with them?

I am fairly left wing, and I have a lot of sympathy for tenants having been one for a few years when I was younger.

I don't want to force people to do anything... I want to increase taxes on BTL (say 50% flat rate on rental income after costs, with only 50% of interest able to be set against tax) which is reduced back to today's tax rate based on marginal rate of income tax if landlords are prepared to commit to 3 or 5 year agreements.  These agreements would still enable fairly easy possession if rent went unpaid, but good tenants would have security of tenure.

I really don't see the problem.