Ed pledges to cap rent rises, extend standard tenancies & scrap fees

P.S. You seem to say if landlords sell, THIS will result, if THIS happens, and THAT will result if THAT happens - but it is your wish, not the reality - look at the Shelter figures, if the poor had the options of cheaper social rented housing you think they have, they would not be in their figures unable to move to a larger property or a property at all.

HoopyViper …. Being a private landlord (especially a small one) is an investment, that provides a social service, not the other way around – that is what you and Mr Miliband have to get your head around.

Why can’t you see that legislating for 3-years when a landlord could have a personal /financial reason to sell at the end of a fixed term contract, never mind an economic one if homes prices start to crash and they wouldn’t be able get refinancing for their loans – and many will be nervous committing for 3-years when State controls are dictating commercial terms, that can change against them on a whim of an annual Chancellors Budget.

I GET IT a max 1-year plan is a constant concern of families, but many of them will want the flexibility of moving to smaller, larger, cheaper, properties within a three year period, they did not envisage at the beginning.

My point is, we have what rental stock we have, we need to encourage reforms, not State Controls that encourage landlord sales, as there is no back up plan – and Miliband’s policy is ALREADY discouraging the move to more professional, longer term rent supply.

HoopyViper ….. are you not contradicting yourself, as on the right hand you want to ‘encourage’ private renting, and then on your (far) left hand, you want to make private renting ‘unattractive’ to landlords – with that joined up policy thinking are you Ed Miliband in disguise?

Before I go on, let me remind you that this year was the first year that private rental accommodation has grown to become the largest provider of rented properties, and the numbers involved is around 4 million people.

So if say 5-10% do sell, it might help those who can buy, but NOT the poorer in society, who either may be renting now from the private sector or waiting for accommodation, and will find more competition for fewer rental properties, from better ‘heeled’ prospective tenants.

The problem is that Mr Miliband threats of legislation in 2015, making landlords offering a 3-year Tenancy compulsory, with all the rights to break the 3-year term on the tenants side (unless the tenant breaks certain covenants) will be a major discouragement to many not willing to take on a 3-year ‘risk’, and will come in years before government funds can take up any current rental demand, when private landlords sell up ahead of that legislation.

Such is the current private rental demand and government finances, professional institutions like pension funds building and renting out properties would seriously help solve the problem of more ‘professional’ landlords, and this has been planned for a few years now, as this link below pointed out.

“Pru plans foray into UK rented housing”

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a35a999e-9893-11e2-a853-00144feabdc0.html#axzz330iRnEwP

“The Prudential is to become the first UK institutional investor to enter the UK rented housing market in recent times, paving the way for the growth of a corporate-backed letting market at a time of acute housing shortage.”

But enter Mr Miliband in populist policy mode, offering the public Private Sector cheques his unfriendly to business government will not be able to cover.

“Labour to take on private landlords”

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/569d1966-d07c-11e3-9a81-00144feabdc0.html#axzz337DLijKE

“The move is the latest element of the opposition’s campaign on the “cost of living”, which has seen salvos against banks, energy companies, betting companies, pension providers, housebuilders and transport firms. But critics warn the move could undermine attempts to create a more professional private rented sector.”

It will also enforce new three-year contracts which landlords would not be able to break simply for the sake of getting a higher rent. Instead they would only be able to end the contract – with two months’ notice – if they had a good reason such as rent arrears, antisocial behaviour or breaches of the agreement.

Landlords and tenants would have to set initial rents based on market value, with a rent review no more frequently than once a year.

At that point landlords would be prevented from raising rents any higher than an “upper ceiling” set in place by legislation. That cap would be based on a benchmark such as average market rents.

But Marnix Elsenaar, head of planning, at law firm Addleshaw Goddard, said the move could make undermine attempts to attract institutional investors into the incipient “build-to-let sector”

Meanwhile, start-up Essential Living has vowed to shake up the capital’s lettings market, dominated by small amateur landlords. Martin Bellinger, its chief operating officer, said landlords needed to offer the “flexibility” of both short and long-term leases.

At a time when everyone is falling over themselves to support a professionalised rental sector, proposing rent caps would be absolute madness. It will kill off institutional investment in one fell swoop,” he said.

And it is not just potential professional renters dreading Miliband’s badly thought out populist policies, businesses are too, even now holding back investment/jobs until 2015, as this link explains.
'Reverting back to old-fashioned socialism is stupid': JCB boss Lord Bamford warns of Miliband threat

www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-2642017/Reverting-old-fashioned-socialism-stupid-JCB-boss-Lord-Bamford-warns-Miliband-threat.html

Huh - where would you recommend? Still quite new to London, any advice welcome!

I have looked as far as Southend, Southampton, Brighton, Reading, Luton and so on. It seemed like the London sphere of influence with regard to huge rents spreads quite far - certainly as far as Luton. And that's before the massive costs of the season tickets.

My old home town is actually only 1 hour from London by train, but costs £900 a for a monthly season ticket

On longer commutes in London zone 5 - I have cycled from there to the centre - bit of a long haul but is very good exercise. The tube in is about £200 a month but rents are cheaper.

…reviewing ways to ENCOURAGE existing private landlords to offer longer fixed term contracts, and ENCOURAGE institutional money in to fund the building of new homes and rent them out for 5-year plus fixed terms – and this will solve many of the costs and security issues, rather than reduce the availability of rental properties before the State raises it's game.

Isitmebut who is saying to reduce the availability of rental properties before the State raises it’s game? In fact we are agreeing on some aspects around this. I’ll repeat, it is not a case of either/or. I also agree that encouragement is better than force. I interpretted Vitaminz post of Wed 28-May-14 14:29:55 to mean just that, by encouraging investment elsewhere, and making letting more unattractive.

Please explain to me what is an “unstable way”, and why aren’t the tenants offered a 3-month, 6-month or 12-month Tenancy, like every other tenant in the private rental sector – unlike the somewhat longer ones via Housing Associations, or complete security of a Council Property?

Isitmebut, 3 month, 6 month and even 12 month tenancies are NOT stable situations for a family. That is an issue which seems to be spectacularly missed.

Someone who has difficulty in selling their home, or who wants ready access to their money for whatever reason should have no right IMO to pass on the vulnerability of THEIR situation to others. Perhaps the state could help in other ways, rather than pass the buck and ultimately foot the bill.

I appreciate you may see things differently.

Ok, personally I think you are both being rather impractical for those with few financial and rental options, but I’ve got your point, no matter how rubbish it is. lol

Isitmebut you may well rubbish and patronise my questioning around these issues but you appear to be missing the point I am trying to make (and Vitaminz, I believe). Perhaps I should underline the key bit. If "unfeasible" landlords sell up, leaving only those who can offer secure long-term lets (or can manage adequately with short gaps between tenants and any maintenance issues) ALONGSIDE an increase in housing supply, prices will come down and more people CURRENTLY RENTING will be able to afford to buy, therefore REDUCING the number left needing to blinking rent.

Those who do not want to buy (yet) could be adequately housed by effective landlords (and yes, potentially by the likes of serious and well equipped professional organisations, however I would prefer to see more socially minded and not profit-driven enterprises fill these shoes).

Those unlikely ever to be in a position to buy are way more likely to be better suited to social housing in any case.

I may well be barking up the wrong tree here, but I am not convinced the way we calculate our housing shortage really takes into consideration the number of actual residences in terms of the number of existing houses/rooms per person in our population; but rather is more based on the number on the number of homeless applications, from people priced out of the current market and existing housing. I question the fundamental ethos behind our view and approach to solving the housing crisis, not that I expect you to agree.

I had thought of that, but my wages won't cover rent and a long commute. If they did, I'd happily do so.

You could do what the rest of us do - live far out and commute in if you want somewhere better.

there are plenty of good properties for rent in this country. Renting a dump for a fortune because it is so damn essential to live in a particular area does not make sense.

You talk about moving for financial reasons, special, but that is EXACTLY the reason why many of us moved to London. I was unemployed in my home town. London is where the money is at the moment for me.

I do agree that the UK is way too Londoncentric, and I have no emotional attachment to the city. I would move tomorrow if a job came up. But in the meantime me, and thousands like me, do not have a choice but to pay a fortune for a shithole. I need a roof over my head while I earn my living.

Vitaminz ….. I covered your homes “puff of smoke” point, where you somehow think it is “good for tenants” when landlords sell to owner occupiers above. Hmmm.

Re your propaganda (below) straight out of Labour’s 1970’s ‘Class War Manual’ below, designed for the 2015 General Election; next you will be telling me that Labour’s unemployment, immigration and home build policies were because they were so ‘IN TOUCH’ with their working class roots.

“It is notable that just last week the Tories and Lib Dems voted against a ban on letting agents charging tenants. We all know that the Tories are the party of the rich and far more Tory MP's are multiple home owners and BTLers so have a vested interest in keeping housing supply squeezed, making sure the private rental sector is as insecure and unattractive to renters as possible so they will want rather take on the huge debt of a small new build than continue to rent (that is why they won't reform the private rental sector so that tenants have longer security of tenure or put a stop to things like retaliatory evictions).”

The Conservatives you call being “the party of the rich”, are in 1970’s parlance, the party of encouragement of a thriving Business/Private Sector (Labour pathetically calls ‘the few’) as they STILL don’t understand what PAYS for the Public Sector/Welfare – and that most of those 1.6 million that have work since 2010 are neither rich, or can thank Labour whose only policies pre 2010 for job ‘growf’ was to lower VAT for a year and INCREASE National Insurance.

Furthermore your accusation on why it is the Conservatives who want an “insecure and unattractive” rental market to drive home purchases might have held some water if UNDER LABOUR from 1997;

• Brown had not raised Home Stamp Duty from a Flat 1% to help pay for his massive increase in Public Sector Spending, financed by his looser bank lending regulations - so home transactions became his cash cow.

• Brown had not discouraged traditional pension saving, and encouraged Buy To Let investment to take up the slack of home provisions he was not prepared to finance via the State.

• Brown put Council Tax up over 110% in 13-years, again using homes to fund his fat State, draining renter’s discretionary income back when they did not give a hoot about ‘the cost of living’.

• Brown did not offer far more funds to Council/Social housing to try to compensate for their current needs, never mind Labour’s immigration policy, and the amount of those more secure homes FELL under Labour.

I reiterate, this country needs homes built to drive down prices/rents, all Labour offers is vote winning populist solutions, as practical as a chocolate tea pot, similar to reallocating cabins on the Titanic – as seriously, what GOOD is banning estate agents fees for managing properties in the practical home shortage scheme of things?

As far from providing more homes, as estate agents would no longer manage the credit checks, rent collection and day to day running of Landlords properties, all it would do is encourage those who can not do it themselves, to sell, lowering the amount of properties for rent.

Impractical populist policies for votes are Miliband’s theme for 2015; apart from locking landlords (Private Capital) into too long/financially risky fixed terms to paper over Labour’s past housing incompetence, ex Energy Minister Miliband proposes ‘energy freezes’ to an industry that he left us requiring $100 billion plus of Private Capital, otherwise our lights will go off.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/1983467-UK-Energy-Policy-Price-scandal-outages-due

Labour/Miliband says ‘he understands’ the Cost of Living crisis, which is just as well as you get one with EVERY recession, and his party left us with ‘the mother’ of all recessions since the 1930’s - with no practical solutions to date.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2044969--Cost-of-Living-a-cunning-plan

Labour cannot create a sustainable economy, or solve problems, they just like to ‘fiddle’ with them, make new laws (nearly 4,300 last time?) AND pretend someone else in the Private Sector will pick up the tab for their incompetence - when all it will do is drive that private capital away that HAS A CHOICE whether to put up with Miliband’s State Controls ‘vision’ for the next parliament, or vote with their financial feet.

The Solution; build 200k homes in 2015/6 and every year after, and ensure the Rental market continues to take up the slack, reviewing ways to ENCOURAGE existing private landlords to offer longer fixed term contracts, and ENCOURAGE institutional money in to fund the building of new homes and rent them out for 5-year plus fixed terms – and this will solve many of the costs and security issues, rather than reduce the availability of rental properties before the State raises it's game.

HoopyViper ….. Ok as both you and Vitiminz keep repeating the same thing, what you are both saying is that (despite the chronic lack of homes and properties to rent) you are not concerned that if Landlords sell, that it is guaranteed to reduce the amount of properties to rent – as unless another Landlord buys the property, it will be an owner occupier – which BY DEFINITION will put more accommodation available pressure on the poorer in society WHO HAVE NO OPTION TO BUY.

Ok, personally I think you are both being rather impractical for those with few financial and rental options, but I’ve got your point, no matter how rubbish it is. lol

Next re ‘the negative equity buck’, that lies with the owner of the property and the lender, until the property can be sold at a profit, should the owner wish to. Please explain to me what is an “unstable way”, and why aren’t the tenants offered a 3-momth, 6-month or 12-month Tenancy, like every other tenant in the private rental sector – unlike the somewhat longer ones via Housing Associations, or complete security of a Council Property?

If you are somehow questioning the morality of a private Landlord to sell their own property (for whatever personal/divorce/commercial/investment reason), then the answer is in the Private Sector Institutionalising of the private rented sector (as per the Prudential link I provided earlier), where those institutions e.g. Pension Funds, will be actively encouraging longer term contracts/security of tenure – to augment other more social landlords and Councils when they are able to fund many more homes than now.

Trying to micro manage the rental market cannot work for those putting their personal capital at risk and looking for an annual income, so encouraging mass institutional landlords, better able to cope with odorous socialist style red tape when leaders are looking for votes - and looking at their involvement over the long term.

Agreed vitaminz.

Isitmebut my post was clear that I am not assuming anything but querying whether we have scope to influence the outcome of sales of currently rented properties so as not to create further deficiency in affordable housing for those who need it.

You still haven't commented on where the buck should lie in terms of those in negative equity. At the moment it seems an "owners" right to let a property in an unstable way, trumps the right of a tenant to a stable home. I am questioning the morality of that, and whether we could do more to support ll and tenant in these cases.

Perhaps there should be tighter regulation on which properties can be used as lets, and what happens to them if a ll decides to sell, linked to evidence-based local housing needs in terms of actual numbers of short or longer term requirements. Rather than anyone who owns outright doing what the heck they like, or banks deciding purely on terms of the type of mortgage they hold.

Of course we need to build more homes but we also have to make sure that these are not just going to be bought up by landlords so that the situation goes full circle. The need for more houses is the symptom of the problem, not the cause. Addressing the cause (making being a landlord unattractive) would bring a lot more homes onto the market for people to own and live in. We can only do that by making other investments MORE attractive to potential landlords. The best way would be to reverse Brown's changes to pensions that created the beast that is BTL. Get people investing in companies that produce things, manufacturing, entrepreneurs, inventors, helping society and the economy as a whole, not the pseudo-business of BTL which is destroying lives and destroying the economy.

Isitmebut - I'm not just blaming the Tories, Labour were absolutely horrendous in their 13 years in power and most of the problems are Labour's fault including the introduction of BTL mortgages, not building any social homes during their tenure, not raising interest rates at the right time, allowing interest only and 120% mortgages, basically allowing houses to be assets rather than homes for people. However, as far as I can see it is Labour who are actually talking about the large percentage of people who are now forced to rent and although not perfect in any way, tenants now feel like they are getting some attention from a political party.

It is notable that just last week the Tories and Lib Dems voted against a ban on letting agents charging tenants. We all know that the Tories are the party of the rich and far more Tory MP's are multiple home owners and BTLers so have a vested interest in keeping housing supply squeezed, making sure the private rental sector is as insecure and unattractive to renters as possible so they will want rather take on the huge debt of a small new build than continue to rent (that is why they won't reform the private rental sector so that tenants have longer security of tenure or put a stop to things like retaliatory evictions).

Also, if landlords sell up because they no longer get the rent they want then that means more homes on the market for non-landlords to buy and presumably more homes for families to live in that just want a home rather than an investment. I don't think that's a bad thing. These houses won't be knocked down or disappear in a puff of smoke just because they don't belong to a landlord anymore, they will just change use, which, imo is a good thing for individual tenants and the economy as a whole.

What? Of course a sold house will be reoccupied, on what basis do you assume the rental stock won't fall when landlords sell and/or Social/Housing Associations can afford or will pick them up?

There is no problem with a better regulated rental market any ANY time and it should be ongoing, but that is not what is being proposed; so all you need understand is that State or any other penal controls on private capital sends it running - and anyone who sez they are running their own money, pension fund or otherwise, for the 'good of the inefficient state', should be viewed with suspicion. IMO.

If an annually bust UK wants to encourage mass building/renting with better practice and sustainable housing stock now and in the future, of which they can add to at any time - what a political party should not do is threaten the market place, although long tenancies might suit NEW PRIVATE SECTOR PROVIDERS.

“Pru plans foray into UK rented housing”

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a35a999e-9893-11e2-a853-00144feabdc0.html#axzz330iRnEwP

“The Prudential is to become the first UK institutional investor to enter the UK rented housing market in recent times, paving the way for the growth of a corporate-backed letting market at a time of acute housing shortage.”

“The UK’s insurers and pension funds were once among the largest owners of residential property in the UK, but sold off their estates in the years after the second world war due to the intensive management required.”

“Both Legal & General and Aviva are looking at entering the private rented sector; both are understood to have eyed various potential developments and tie-ups with housebuilders.”

Frankly if I was them, I'd but any building/renting plans on hold until after the 2015 General Election and wait to hear Miliband's details to a badly thought out plan, ONCE he's got the votes.

But you are assuming if private lls cut their losses by selling up, these properties no longer exist for those in need of housing, or are snapped up privately by those who can already buy. You've made no comment as to the liklihood of them being used instead as social housing, or whether we have power to influence that as an outcome. Or in terms of where the buck falls for those caught up in negative equity.

I don't see why we cannot build AND introduce a better regulated private rent system to weed out bad practice and which offers more security for tenants. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Anyhoo, I would love to spend more time reading and researching all the dm links you have been providing, but unfortunately I have boxes to pack. My views though pretty much remain unchanged.

HoopyViper ….. firstly, re home building, let us remember that Brown commissioned the Barker Report (for a homes shortage reason) in 2003, which reported a massive shortage in 2004 – and the financial crash began in late 2007, and didn’t really impact on our growth until early 2009, which is 12-years after Labour came to power.

As far as banks were concerned, they were not to blame for the unbalanced structure of the UK leading into the crash, which made our annual deficit (which was annually around £30 billion leading up to 2007) FAR WORSE.

If you read this link it explains, through the financial jargon, that Labour/Brown massively increased government spending (unprecedented in Europe in ‘real’ terms) by around 50% from 2001 to 2008, mainly due to the tax receipts from speculation i.e. City profits that produced between £60 to £100 bil a year in tax and several £billion on Stamp Tax due to the Housing boom,
www.economicshelp.org/blog/5509/economics/government-spending-under-labour/

BUT WHEN THE TAX RECEIPTS FELL AND THE EXPENSES STAYED THE SAME WITHOUT CUTS, we ended up (including the extra costs of any recession with less tax receipts and more unemployment benefits) with the £157 billion Labour passed on to the Coalition.

I therefore reiterate MY POINT, that the money was available, and whether in your opinion the Olympic project Labour started, or the Queen’s Jubilee, was less or more important than a small army of Quancicrats on £60k to £150k+ - or sending THIS army into war without decent military equipment, is here nor there – Labour were aware of the housing shortage before immigration added to the homes shortage, but it appears, did nothing about it – other than pass the problem over to the Private Sector, actively encourage bank lending and Buy To Let investments
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/costly-failures-wars-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-cost-uk-taxpayers-30bn-9442640.html

So on housing, we are where we are, with the Coalition looking to solve a huge social problem not of their making, with a honking great annual Budget Deficit to try and fix it.

Re Shelter; yes I do refer to them as they seem a reliable source on the SIZE of the problem of those on lower incomes mainly needing council/social homes, many not yet in rented housing, and will definitely not benefit by a drop in private rented properties tightening the rental market overall.

As to pushing for 5-year contracts, which I’d guess they are looking for in social housing, but even if they mean private landlord rentals, the funding and other uncertainties remain for landlords year after year, whether God Almighty himself is for 5-year contracts.

Re Accidental Landlords; whether we call them accidental, unplanned for, or even bastards, if you “REMOVE” landlords at any time without knowing if an owner occupier or new landlord will buy it – thereby potentially reducing the amount of available rental properties on the market for those who have options, and the poorer people in society who don’t – I cannot see any ‘positives’, only negatives.

Re any Landlords selling due to socialist head-up-bottom dictates; why are you confused that the amount of rental stock available will fall, whether it takes 1-year or 5-years, as landlords have the choice of waiting until their Fixed Mortgage ends, or paying an often large penalty to break it mid fixed term?

I can’t wait to see more unpractical ideas’ - with a net sum loss akin to re-arranging the cabin accommodation on the Titanic - RATHER THAN FIRM PLANS TO BUILD 200,000 HOMES A YEAR FROM 2015.

Or how about if shoddy landlords who are in breach of contract (but where really we know currently tenants have no leg to stand on) the ll is forced to sell or rent long term to the council or ha at reduced price. That'd learn 'em!

Wrote long reply and lost it in the ether. So here goes again. I am not for a minute suggesting labour did well last term, but they did coincide with a Global crash which does have to be taken into consideration. We may well have borrowed a lot - but surely we were only given it on the strength of our plans to pay it back - or was that more shoddy banking practice?

I just don't think this Government are really doing any better. Certainly it is the poor and vulnerable who are experiencing more hardship in real terms, in spite of "recovery". I have no idea who I am going to vote for.

I don't know how much the Queen ended up paying for the Jubilee. The sums seem to vary wildly and most describe anticipated costs before the event, rather than actual amounts afterwards, and all vary depending on their source. I am sure the real figures are out there somewhere.

My point though re: Olympics and Jubilee is more that the extravagance felt inappropriate to me, whoever paid for it. All those thousands upon thousands literally going up in smoke. I found it distasteful and reflective of wider values.

You refer a lot to Shelter - they are campaigning for 5 year rental contracts, AFAIK.

I am also slightly confused as you seem to being saying on one hand we need to be careful not to upset landlords or they will disappear, but then on the other saying there wouldn't be a mass sell up.

I do wonder if we could do more to remove accidental landlords from the equation - if something like 2.7 million precariously unstable rental homes were removed from the equation and put on the open market at their true value, alongside plans to build more appropriate social housing, I am certain that would have a real impact.

We could do more to acknowledge the plight of accidental landlords, particularly where due to the global crash and irresponsibility of our banking practices (yes, under a Labour government). Otherwise we're just shunting their problem onto the already vulnerable, as if they are second class citizens or something.

HoopyViper .... "who will they sell to" ... I guess that depends if people are looking to trade down or trading up, can still borrow to buy - and what percentage within the total UK housing stock, are rented out properties.

There would unlikely be mass sales, I'd suggest most landlords try and fix their mortgages for 2 to 5 year terms, so if too costly to break their Fixed Term mortgage, they'd wait several months before it came up for renewal to market it.

My point is, for those in the likes of Shelters figures, they do not have the OPTION to buy and the last thing they need is to compete with those with more money, in a home bun fight due to a reducing number of the private sector rented out homes stock.

The ONLY ways homes in this country will come down significantly, will be if we build shed loads more or another financial crash.

P.S. When did the Olympics Stadium start being built, and how much was the Jubilee on top of the Queens contribution - and why no comment on fat, inefficient government costing £170 bil, much of which still forms our annual budget deficit????

Isitmebut the Olympics and Jubilee were in this term. Imo there there was no justification to do/give the best most lavish celebrations around these. Yet these were the events this government prioritised.

The state can't stop them [LL] selling, yet.

What will happen if they do? Who will they sell to?

Perhaps it needs to happen. Mass sell up of houses currently let out which are not sustainable long-term lets and costing us more in benefits payout. Down come the price tags, either first time buyers will be able to afford to buy, or perhaps we'll see more housing associations swoop up these to provide as social housing.

vitaminz .... Re "They would rather have tenants living in insecure, shitty accommodation that they are paying high rents for than building 100,000s of homes that would make life better for so many people, reduce welfare costs, reduce medical costs (bad housing makes people ill) etc."

Have you read the links above e.g. Shelter, how can you blame the Tories for those figures in 2009; 1.7 million households, that is around 5 million people on waiting lists - nothing to do with Labour increasing the population by 2.5 million in the 2000, was it?

Brown encouraged Buy To Let, around the mid 2000's he seriously considered allowing pensions to buy homes via a SIPP, but pulled out at the last moment.

Brown had Capital Gains Tax at a tapered low of 10%, putting it up to 18% before leaving power - who was that for if not the likes of multi property landlords?

All Labour can do is scoff at Coalition emergency measures to try free up several hundred thousand empty Council/social bedrooms TO HELP THOSE SUFFERING from Labour's policies - and call it a bedroom tax for political capital.

So I' redefine who "they" are, if I was you, and now the money has all gone, apart from the extra borrowing power for councils I've linked above, IN THE REAL WORLD, where socialist policies to solve socialist government screw ups sends investment capital running - if I was Miliband I would not even read your idea, never mind repeat it.

vitaminz ... do you have 'the landlords' costs of funding their mortgage and other expenses - so we can work out how much the State can 'divert' without them getting totally pissed off and selling up, or before getting locked into a 3-year contract that assumes EVERY landlord is a long term landlord and/or their circumstances won't change?

Or shall we form a new Quango to individually sit down with each landlord and work out how much £££££ can individually be 'diverted' and keep them happy enough to hold on?

We are where we are because we are around 2 million homes short when we should not have been, with or without immigration, and as private landlords now this year for the first time are the biggest providers of accomodation - IMO we have to be very careful where the clunking fist of State lands, as the State can't stop them selling, YET.

Personally with the new private pension reforms, I'd see the writing on the wall, sell up, and save in more traditional 'shocks and scares' markets - that money came out of when Mr Brown took away stocks dividend tax relief in 1997 - as retain full control (via a SIPP) and more tax efficient, if nothing else.