And yes, rent controls.
That is where it is going wrong.
Yes, rent controls would leave lots of BTL LL's in negative equity. But when their homes got repossessed through a change in benefits policy, HOW is that worse than a family being left HOMELESS through a change in benefits policy, as is happening in this situation, with the 200 families being evicted through the changes in HB payments?
So, BTL LL's would lose money, maybe even have the BTL property repossessed. THEY WILL STILL HAVE A BLOODY HOME TO LIVE IN. They haven't 'lost everything', they will just have to make the same provision for their pensions as everyone else has to.
Sorry if I can't get too emotional about the idea of a BTL LL having their 'investment' repossessed, then put back in the market at current value, thus driving down the overall costs of housing for everyone. IT'S A HOME, NOT A 'COMMODITY' OR AN 'INVESTMENT'.
Another thing to bear in mind is that the "30% of market value" thing that governs the too rate of HB payable for property is disingenuous. Why? Because chances are that not ONE property in the cheapest 30% of Private Rentals in that whole town is actually EMPTY and available for bloody rent.
So it's not as easy as "if you can't afford the top up, find a cheaper property". It's more like "we will have to move our family of two adults and two teenage DC's into a one-bed flat as the HB just will not cover ANY empty 2-bed properties. Even if your teenagers are a girl and a boy, sharing a room with you now...
This LL is just bloody reprehensible. My Cousin's home in Ashford was a veritable fucking death trap (dodgy boiler this bastard refused to fix). If it wasn't for my Auntie replacing my cousin's bond money, she would have to have moved back home. Because the bastard wouldn't pay that back either as my cousin hadn't stayed for the 6 month contract.
LL's shouldn't be allowed to own this many BTL properties without being MADE to run them in the same way that Housing Associations do.
Rent controls, set at what the cost of a Housing Association manages to charge for a property of the same size, in the same area, at a reasonable standard of decoration should be the norm.
If my small, local HA can rent out a 4-bed, large lounge, dining room, small garden, ADAPTED property (rent is more as it's adapted) for £171 a week, whilst carrying out annual gas safety checks, contracting gardener to look after the shared outside spaces (in the car park), contract a repairs company to deal with any necessary repairs, then why do the private LL's locally see fit to charge over £340 a week for an equivalent property?!!
Why not cap the BTL LL's rent at, say, £200 max per week for this type of property, AND insist that they follow the same regulations as HA's have to, by completing repairs within set time frames or having to pay the Tenant compensation?
(As a note, it's VERY rare for a HA to end up having to pay compensation for a repair failing to be carried out on time where I live)
If they want more profit from their 'investment' than BTL with rent controls would allow them to make (I will NOT say 'earn', as earning implies working for), then they will have to find some other scheme to invest in.
May I suggest becoming an arms dealer or a drug dealer? They might actually be more ethical ways to make money off an 'investment' than the sort of profiteering that BTL LL's with multiple properties are trying to do.
Now, I personally have nothing major against those 'accidental' BTL LL's who have one property they are unable to sell, and are doing things in a decent way, but those that then continue to buy more and more properties? Those I DO have an issue with.
Council tax reductions for second homes needs to stop, if you choose to own a holiday home, you are preventing someone from having an ACTUAL home, and should be made to pay for that privilege.
Tenants don't 'have a right' to stay in a property after their notice period is up, most do so VERY reluctantly, due to Council Homelessness rules, they are not actually homeless until the actual eviction date.
If they need to get housed through the homelessness route, then they have absolutely NO choice, even if they hate doing that to their LL's.
That COULD be changed, but NOT by the Tenant. Who, I wonder, makes the policies governing applications for Social Housing that Local Government administer...?
If the Government so wished, to make things easier for BOTH LL's that give notice AND the Tenants becoming Homeless due to that notice, they could change the regulations to state that a LA has to accept the Notice date as the date from which the Tenant is 'officially' homeless and they have to help, rather than the actual Eviction date.
And as for HMO's, far too lax regulations abound on how many are allowed in each given area. If it was based on services etc, then the LA should be refusing far more planning applications for HMO certification.
And it IS obvious that after these Tenants in Kent are evicted, that due to this bastard's monopoly on the local rental market, he is going to relet these properties as 'emergency temporary accommodation' BACK to the very same families. If he's still sitting on other empty properties, he is deliberately slowing down the local rental market in order to charge a much inflated rent for the 'Emergency Temporary Accommodation' as there is just no way that that Council can find that many places in temp accommodation, without recourse to the local rental market...which is this reprehensible bastard.
Soooo...who is bailing him out? Not the fucking banks, but the taxpayers. The 'spare room subsidy / bedroom tax / your personal name for it' was just an underhanded way in which to transfer money from the public purse to multiple property LL's, via the ARTIFICIALLY CREATED need for 'emergency temporary accommodation'. Paying up to TWICE the level of standard HB...