Rachel Reeves considering freeze of private rent?

Sorry meant to say the opposite, there will be NO RENT CONTROLS confirmed by Steve Reed on the media round this morning

Steve Reed confirmed this morning they are doing rent controls.
I think they have enough headache on their hands with section 21s, en masse, having been served in the last few months/year/some still following this week before the deadline.

Well yes - but if I had the power to raise it/no contractual constraint, I would. That's because Labour won't stop at one year - once they get a taste for interfering in private property, they don't stop. If LLs don't get in quick with a raise, they'll end up out of pocket fast as all the other costs rise.

They are absolutely atypical of corporate landlords who operate using a completely different model. I can't work out if you're being disingenuous or really can't understand the difference between a typical corporate landlords and a Housing Association. All this discussion of corporate landlords having WACC rise by only 1% was just bonkers. You must know that this isn't true for almost every other corporate landlord. You must also know that housing associations aren't going to snap up all the BTL properties or even fill a significant proportion of the gap left by small private landlords leaving the sector.

A lot of smaller landlords have subsidised tenants and the State with below market rents (when the capital could be in the bank at a higher rate) - a lot of the older generation just stashed their money in property. Will be interesting to see what happens now with the whole painting landlords as the bad guy. That was always very shortsighted. Hopefully a lot of small landlords will just continue and not chicken out. It will be the taxpayer picking up the bill for housing tenants at greater cost especially where they get top up for that element. It also affects the economy badly as less money to spend there affects everyone.

This won’t happen because when they did it in Scotland, landlords raised rents in anticipation and it distorted the market.
Also, plenty of buy to let is financed by banks on variable rates linked to interest rates so they cannot shaft the banks en masse, indirectly, either.
From what I heard, Labour are getting rid of right to buy new council housing for at least 35 years, which is a good thing. They should never have limited the pool of social housing by selling it off at big discounts. It also means nobody wants to invest in building social housing. Social housing needs to remain social housing primarily.

If tenants have signed a contract for a certain rent for a certain period, the LL can’t just increase it at will.

Slumlords with tenants who often pay cash will of course just ignore any rules, as usual.

Why would anyone go into the rental business? It's not an easy gig at the best of times, contrary to what some naive people think.

My sister has 2 rental properties. The tenants have lived there for years and pay a lot under the market rent because they are good, undemanding tenants. She regularly updates things: offers new carpets etc before being asked, re-decorates etc. I think, if the campaign against private landlords continues, she'll just sell the properties when these people leave and that will be 2 less rental properties available.

Landlords have sometimes invested large sums and lots of effort in their properties with the hope of having a pension or similar in old age. How can victimising these people help the demographic which needs a rental home?

That was my first thought.

I'm not suggesting they pass it all on, no. But if it's no longer profitable they'll sell up. If they sell up there are fewer houses in the rental market and supply and demand will push the prices up.

It's all very well saying they should all be housing association but what about those people renting for work ? The medical staff on rotation? The contractors on 6 month contracts? Where are they going to go?
The new bill says the rent can only be increased to market value from May so guess what's happened before May? The people who have been ticking along below market value for years are now seeing big increases.

In our area all it has done is push the price of rental up.

Long overdue. Mortgage market needs to be reformed too.

I agree, this would be fair. I often read of LLs putting in HUGE increases each year, makes my eyes water & I'm a LL myself.

That's not what I said now. I said: "I had planned to NOT raise any rents this year on my rentals, but due to this, I'm likely to raise them ASAP, as I don't trust Labour not to stick at a 1yr freeze."

No, I'm not going to do anything other than ponder my thoughts based on a rumour in the paper. What I meant by what I said was that IF this actually happens, I'll raise them ASAP beforehand (if we even get given a chance to), even though I hadn't planned any raises for this year. This is because I don't trust Labour to limit it to 1yr, and one of my properties is already well under market rates, AND I've had to foot a repair bill for over £1K due to the tenant's utter stupidity.

Anyway, I digress. By how much, you ask? I'm not sure what that's got to do with you and out of context it will mean very little to you but as it happens it would be by £25 per month.

This is absolutely true, I’m a banker looking after social housing associations. The reason they aren’t building anymore houses is because:

1. They are spending all their cash getting their existing stock up to the required EPC standards.

2. They are still dealing with the 7% rent increase cap imposed when inflation was in double digits.

3. They are not going to the capital markets to raise cash because gilt yields are too high and volatile.

4. Building costs (labour and materials) are astonishingly expensive.

Most of them have really scaled back their development plans and that’s not expected to change any time soon.

I don't think it will happen.

What I would like to see is maximum increases each year once you sign a tenancy.

I agree with this.

I don't know what conditions should be put in place, but landlords should be encouraged. Given that there isn't enough social housing due to the Tories selling it off. If housing association management of private rental was beneficial to landlords (took the management off their hands, paid a reasonable rent, ensured regular maintenance, guaranteed rent) many, many of us would snap it up. It would be safer for the tenant and the landlord. It would encourage investment. Because there will always be a section of the population who can't or don't want to buy.

6 years ago, when I moved out of my flat, I tried to contact my local council, because I'd heard there was some way I could pass it over to the management of the council (housing association I guess). I got a BIG run around, was told this wasn't feasible, they didn't offer it, my flat wasn't suitable (which was it?). They more or less told me to F Off. So I rented it via an agency who manage it. TWO years after my enquiries to the council, the SAME person who sent me away with a flea in my ear, wrote to me, offering to take the flat off my hands. As if it had been sitting empty for 2 years. Useless.

You know the Renter’s Rights Bill js much the same as what the previous government tried to implement? Ie Abolishing section 21 evictions, giving tenants more rights to challenge rent increases, rolling tenancies rather than fixed end dates.

I don't think she will either.

I heard an analysis today that RR had previously "floated" policy changes in the press to gauge reaction. If that is what is going on, I think the kickback might derail this.

However, the rumours alone are spooking the sector as witnessed by @Xiaoxiong parents.

I ran into a distressed colleague last week whose LL has evicted her and decided to sell up, because the renters' rights law (which I support). This on top will add to more, I think.

My colleague cannot afford to buy her current home and as PP said, there is hardly anywhere to rent.

Which is why there is an ever growing housing crisis . . .

If you're talking about mortgage repayments, buy to let is regarded as an investment activity, not a business, in tax law. That's why you don't pay NIC on the profits unlike a business where you would pay NIC. There's no relief for loan repayments/interest on other forms of investment, such as if someone borrows to finance a share portfolio, so really, buying a property, i.e. buying an investment, is the same.

If you're that aggrieved, you can convert your property into limited company ownership, in which case the interest would be fully allowed against the rental income as limited companies are taxed differently.

In no other business would you suggest that costs cannot be offset against income from the business. Do you know how ludicrous that sounds.

Why do you think a registered social housing provider means you’re not a corporate landlord ?

RSH just means you are on a register of landlords- L&G etc are also on the RSH

corporate landlord doesn’t have an official or agreed definition.

No, they are not. They are literally Registered Social Landlords which is completely different. We will have to agree to disagree.

As previously mentioned, institutional landlords ie pension funds are minimal players in the corporate rental market.

housing associations are commonly referred to as corporate landlords, yes. As in “in the business of being a landlord”