Labour Brings in excellent Renter's Rights - long overdue.

Whitewavemark2

No landlord rents property for purely altruistic reasons. There may be an element of wanting to be a good landlord. However the bottom line is profit.

If no profit can be made, then like other businesses the owners sell up and seek another way to make a profit.

The profit may not be huge, but one assumes that the mortgage on the property can be paid. The asset will need maintenance, similar to all assets owned by businesses. The difference however is that most assets used in the process of making a profit depreciate in value over time, whereas property appreciates in value whilst making a profit. When this value is recognised at the point of sale then it is right that capital gains or cooperation tax is applied.

I would argue that this is one area where the tax system can be used to tax wealth at a higher level than now, or at least reduce the reliefs that can be obtained to limit the tax burden.

Indeed.

Landlords are not a charity. Rentals should be at a fair price, be maintained well, mortgage and fees paid. There should be some small profit. Nobody would put money in a business and not expect profit.

Assuming LL has invested money, they should be able to at least match the rate of return on assets that could be achieved merely saving.

Our rentals are not a charitable endeavor, we are good LLs. We are not being given 'free money' - we have costs as any business.

Lets hope the sharp practices of ex sacked Homelessness Minister, who didn't understand her brief, thought it was her job to actually make people homeless and ejected her own tenants, to list a higher rent and Labour MP with the filthy 15 or so flats are not representative of the 40 odd other Labour MPs who are Landlords. A few who like Jas Athwal have multiple properties.

A total of 85 MPs are Landlords, Labour 44, Tories 28, LibDems 8, a few missing there, but they won't be among the Greens, because it's their intention to do away with private Landlords.

fancythat

I am not a landlord, so better if someone else replies rather than me.

But, as seems to have happened, many landlords have already stopped having tenants, then the delicate balance between renters and landlords seems to have tipped too far towards renters.

In an ideal world, that wouldnt happen.
But I think I have seen several posts and maybe threads on here in say the last 6 months, where landlord posters have complained a lot about the changes, with several of the landlord posters even actually doing something about the situation.

Thanks for replying. Are you talking about landlords selling up because they are worried about not being able to have bidding wars, or put the rent up more than annually and evict tenants without good reason? I would say that it's for the best that they sell, but I might be missing something.

If a lot of the less scrupulous ones sell, and legislation continues to crack down on sharp practice then renters will get a better deal, there will be more homes available for people to buy (so prices may steady or even drop) and good landlords will prosper. Isn't that a win/win situation?

I am not a landlord, so better if someone else replies rather than me.

But, as seems to have happened, many landlords have already stopped having tenants, then the delicate balance between renters and landlords seems to have tipped too far towards renters.

In an ideal world, that wouldnt happen.
But I think I have seen several posts and maybe threads on here in say the last 6 months, where landlord posters have complained a lot about the changes, with several of the landlord posters even actually doing something about the situation.

fancythat

It has not been thought through properly from all sides, and has backfired already. In my opinion.

People keep saying it (and posts) have not been thought through, but aren't saying why. Can anyone explain, please?

Allsorts

Downside, rental properties have been sold and so there are less on the market.

Who has bought them?

No landlord rents property for purely altruistic reasons. There may be an element of wanting to be a good landlord. However the bottom line is profit.

If no profit can be made, then like other businesses the owners sell up and seek another way to make a profit.

The profit may not be huge, but one assumes that the mortgage on the property can be paid. The asset will need maintenance, similar to all assets owned by businesses. The difference however is that most assets used in the process of making a profit depreciate in value over time, whereas property appreciates in value whilst making a profit. When this value is recognised at the point of sale then it is right that capital gains or cooperation tax is applied.

I would argue that this is one area where the tax system can be used to tax wealth at a higher level than now, or at least reduce the reliefs that can be obtained to limit the tax burden.

I feel that a lot more thought could have been put into this because it seems heavily weighted on the Renters side. If anybody has watched the programme about Rogue Landlords and Nightmare Tenants they will understand.

It has to be fair to BOTH sides. There are some dreadful landlords out there and some dreadful tenants but it seems to me that the dreadful tenants always come out on top. I know several Landlords who have been left thousands of pounds in debt through unpaid rent and the tenants just walk away having not paid a penny. They then become another Landlord’s problem! A friend of us spent £15,000 in repairs to his property as it was really trashed and a similar amount in lost rent and solicitors fees.

From watching scores of these programmes it is clear that the majority of rogue landlords who expect tenants to live in very sub standard accommodation are from overseas and they pack as many people in as they can with dangerous electricity, mould, broken equipment and poor sanitation. It is shocking and should not be happening.

fancythat

It has not been thought through properly from all sides, and has backfired already. In my opinion.

So what would the "proper thinking" have been fancythat?

It's all very well, all the criticism - typical, when Labour actually do something in the right direction, out come all the rubbishing, when any new law that benefits those really in need. I'm not saying it's perfect of course and really it depends on good success by doing what is necessary anyway, increasing the housing stock.

But I do agree with some level of rent control, for greedy individuals or big companies

Casdon

In Wales, the majority of new affordable housing is being built by housing associations, supported by government grants. More council houses are being built too. The target is 20,000 additional affordable homes by the end of 2026.
There will still be a shortfall, but that doesn’t mean that the initiative is wasted, and hopefully will continue under the next government here.
The housing market has been going badly for renters for many years, I don’t think there is a magic bullet, but in the longer term I think all these moves will be beneficial to renters and people who want to buy an affordable home.

That sounds like a move in the right direction but I agree, there isn't a single magic bullet.

It has not been thought through properly from all sides, and has backfired already. In my opinion.

Remember the change in the law does not affect the right of Landlords still to remove tenants who destroy their property or act in an extremely unsociable manner or do not pay their rent

We seem to have forgotten that in some posts above.

How are the naysayers going to protect good decent tenants if this law is not enacted

The move towards bigger companies buying up rental properties will happen anyway.

Check out the fund that pays you your pension if it's not a state pension. They invest in these larger companies and soon might be paying you your pension.

Ethical investment funds will have to distinguish between good and bad companies.

I ask again

how will we protect good renters without this legislation

Naysaying the new laws will not deal with this currently appalling situation

The trouble is that too big a percentage of people's income is going out in rent.

We urgently need rents caps.

An example from just up the road. A former 3 bedroomed council house was sold recently for £220,000 and is now to let for £2,000 a month.

Who can afford £24,000 year in rent without needing to claim housing benefit?

With a 5% deposit and a 30 year mortgage, a family could have bought that to live in themselves and would be paying around £1,170 a month, doable for a couple both working.

We need rents capped to (say) what a family needing a 95% mortgage would pay so that landlords can’t profiteer in this way.

American companies, BlackRock and Blackstone are heavily invested in the UK property rental markets, being asset management companies I can't think they're doing it for ultruistic reasons. Whilst we live in a global world, selling off infrastructure to foreign conglomerates hasn't particularly worked well, as far as utilities are concerned. In fact why should we expect to such bodies to give a damn about the by product on their investment, they're only interested in the bottom line. Look no further than some of our water companies, 70% in foreign ownership, that's gone well

Witzend

westendgirl

.Oh dear. It seems that whatever the Labour Party does there I are posters who are determined to dismiss the idea as no good .
Wonder why the Conservative party didn't build thousands of properties for social housing in their 14 year spell.

Why didn’t Labour during their 13 (?) year term, repeal or amend the Right to Buy law that they love to abhor? Could it possibly be because they thought it’d lose them votes?

I don’t think that can have been a major factor, the right to buy has been repealed years ago in both Scotland and Wales, and it hasn’t affected voting patterns to any visible degree?

keepcalmandcavachon

Another LL friend had over 200 responses after putting her property up for rental. Within a day!
A family I know are preparing to house hunt again for the forth time in 5 years as their rented home is to be sold. It's dire.
A 3 bed with parking around here will rent for £1600, and with the decreasing stock available surely it will become -
A- more difficult to rent.
B- then more difficult to save, whilst renting for a deposit.

The one I specifically know about, the estate agent took it off the market after one morning of viewings.

Personally, I think the new rules have already made things a whole heap lot worse for renters. Sadly.

westendgirl

.Oh dear. It seems that whatever the Labour Party does there I are posters who are determined to dismiss the idea as no good .
Wonder why the Conservative party didn't build thousands of properties for social housing in their 14 year spell.

Why didn’t Labour during their 13 (?) year term, repeal or amend the Right to Buy law that they love to abhor? Could it possibly be because they thought it’d lose them votes?

Grantanow

It's good to get the balance right between landlord and tenant.

But some small landlords will sell fearing problems, especially about evicting tenants who trash property, etc., given the legal costs, the slow progress of court hearings and the tendency of courts to allow time for tenants (even the worst ones) to find new accommodation.

I guess that downside has to be accepted in the interests of the majority.

I absolutely agree that there should be proper action taken against those who trash property. There is no excuse for that. I'm thinking aloud here, so this might be a daft idea, but would it work (or even be possible) to have rents paid direct to LLs from salary? That would mean that it would be impossible to default, and would also mean that LLs had to declare income for tax. I'm thinking on the lines of child maintenance payments, so the money goes out before it hits the tenants' bank accounts. I suppose that would work in large organisations with separate payroll departments, but in small companies it could be intrusive for employers to know that sort of information.

I do agree that there has to be a balance, and that good LLs shouldn't be faced with arrears and vandalism of their properties. Those things are a separate problem, but need to be dealt with too.

I think that people shouldn't be denied the right to keep pets, but also that they should be legally responsible for any damage (including smells) at the end of the tenancy.

The trouble is that too big a percentage of people's income is going out in rent because landlords see 'market rate' as equivalent to 'fair rent'. Perhaps a formula could be reached, where rents have to stay at a percentage of the average local property values? Or could there be centralised agencies, with tenants paying rent to them, and applying to them for repairs and maintenance, and the LL being paid direct and being unable to avoid keeping to their side of the bargain with repairs. The agencies could have the power to retain rent until repairs are done, or to manage maintenance themselves. So I suppose a bit like the old council house system, but with private landlords. The LLs would pay the agencies in the same way they do private agents, and if the system were compulsory the costs would (I assume) come down. Would that sort of thing make it fairer all round?

In Wales, the majority of new affordable housing is being built by housing associations, supported by government grants. More council houses are being built too. The target is 20,000 additional affordable homes by the end of 2026.
There will still be a shortfall, but that doesn’t mean that the initiative is wasted, and hopefully will continue under the next government here.
The housing market has been going badly for renters for many years, I don’t think there is a magic bullet, but in the longer term I think all these moves will be beneficial to renters and people who want to buy an affordable home.

Well, DAR, its worth looking at Scotland:

"Key details regarding the Scottish rental market:

Landlord Exodus: Increased regulations, higher costs, and a desire to avoid new rules are causing many small landlords to sell their properties, according to reports in and.

The Buyer Landscape: While many rental properties are being sold into owner-occupation, there is also a shift towards larger corporate entities and professional 'build-to-rent' schemes, as discussed in and.

Tenant Impact: While reforms aim to provide security, the decrease in private landlords is reducing overall rental stock, leading to higher rents and a potential rise in corporate ownership of rental properties.

Proposed Policy Changes: The Scottish National Party (SNP) has proposed giving tenants "first refusal" to purchase their homes when a landlord sells, aiming to tackle the issue of available housing, as reported by.

Despite the fears of a total buy-up by corporations, a significant portion of homes from selling landlords are being purchased by individuals for owner-occupation

So yes, there is now a move but not wholesale for big companies buying them up: but surely for the renter, what matters is not who the landlord is, but how they treat their clients.

And that means that investment in property will now become part of portfolios for firms who pay our work pensions, and the people working in big firms will get jobs:

it depends if the big companies are owned by individuals get rich quick or corporate firms.

And how, as I have said, properties are managed.

There are plenty of small landlord who treat their tenants like *hit, making money quickly by not doing essential repairs. Possibly, as they have stretched resources to the limits and they cannot afford to do repairs, to make a quick buck

By the way, remember properties built to rent are being built, and it's not the small Landlord able to do this.

We clearly have to also build more social housing: every agrees with that in theory, except we hit the NIMBY's: and councils need more financial support to do so, when between 40 and 60% of their incomes go on Social Care

it could be possible for example, just as builders now are asked to build some low cost housing as part of a development, to demand the same of big corporations, ie they have to build more houses/flats as part of their enterprise.

But I can see no overriding reason to allow the current dire situation to remain for renters

It's good to get the balance right between landlord and tenant.

But some small landlords will sell fearing problems, especially about evicting tenants who trash property, etc., given the legal costs, the slow progress of court hearings and the tendency of courts to allow time for tenants (even the worst ones) to find new accommodation.

I guess that downside has to be accepted in the interests of the majority.

Another LL friend had over 200 responses after putting her property up for rental. Within a day!
A family I know are preparing to house hunt again for the forth time in 5 years as their rented home is to be sold. It's dire.
A 3 bed with parking around here will rent for £1600, and with the decreasing stock available surely it will become -
A- more difficult to rent.
B- then more difficult to save, whilst renting for a deposit.

So, do you think the rental market ending up in the hands of the very rich will improve things the way you want Willow? Good luck with that.

But we cant allow the appalling situation for some renters to continue, we have to keep their situation in mind.

This move is being taken protect people - families -being thrown out usually so the landlord can further put prices up in a racketeering manner, tho they have done nothing wrong:

desperate circumstances, losing their homes when good tenants.

Us with private homes talk about many issues, shall we do this or that on it, should we downsize, how we love our house

Imagine after years being told "you have to get put within X days"

I think we are rather missing this point, as it cant be allowed to continue.

keepcalmandcavachon

Five LLs I know have now sold (one with 2 houses and the others 1 each) in my town. So that's 6 good family homes not available to families who, for whatever reason are not buying a house.
ALL of the LLs told me they were 'wary' of the new reforms.
Their investment, their choice but it's so very sad.

The houses still exist; that isn't the problem. They will house someone. I would put it squarely with the lack of council housing. Sixty years ago the people living in council houses were nurses, teachers, lower-level management along with those just getting by or starting out. Now these people have to pay exorbitant rents. Some do manage to go on and buy there own homes but it is more and more difficult to do so. Slowly but surely the very wealthy are owning all the assets.