renters should support their landlords against the government

[carmellas3]

The government are starting to tax landlords more (removal of interest tax relief and ware and tear rules). If nothing is done renters will just end up paying more for rent and landlords fees increase.

There are some bad landlords, but the vast majority just want a stable income and provide a good service for people to rent.

I think the time for landlord bashing has ended.

I don't see how it can raise rental costs as they are so high already and like others have said are greatly affected by HB limits. Instead the hit will hopefully be taken by the ll instead.

Like others have said hopefully it will put people off being a ll via btl.

We have saved a large amount of money but have been priced out of the market in our area partly due to btl. Yes there is the market for rentals but only because people like us haven't got the capital needed to buy and paying over the odds plus trying to save and pay for childcare is very difficult. Yes of course you need lls but I feel they should mostly be those with large portfolios who run it as a business. Too many people are becoming one off lls and it is greatly affecting the market and young people's ability to get on the housing ladder. Why should the rental market be set at morgage payments for a high ltv?

Anything that discourages others from owning more than one property when there aren't enough normal family homes around gets my backing

OP you describe rent controls as a bad idea which distorts the market but don't you see that the current tax arrangements also distort the market? I think that at present, the balance has gone too far towards landlords.

I am a bit bemused to hear of this vast group of people who want to rent. For about 3 years after I graduated I was happy to rent although I wouldhave much preferred to be able to buy. I wanted to settle in the area where I worked.

I know for some people it is inevitable that families need the flexibility to rent but I think that the vast majority want to buy a family home and stay there.

When I was growing up in the 1980s I didn't know anyone who rented from a private landlord. Families in my area either rented a council house or were owner occupiers.

For the most part, private landlords have brought up the existing housing stock. They haven't provided more housing.

If BTL landlords were investing in new high qualify housing I may have more sympathy with your plea.

For the record, my husband and I brought our home in the early 1990s and so have benefited from the housing market but I can see that my children will suffer and be priced out of owning a home unless something changes.

Hahahaha. What. YAB so so so U it hurts.

I won't reiterate all the good points already made here, but I would support the setting up of NOT ONLY a National Landlord's Register (vigorously enforced, would clear the slumlords and chancers who think their tenants are cash cows and never invest in their own properties or fix anything - they don't have to, it's a LL's market after all), BUT ALSO a National Tenant Register. It can't be right that people can trash properties then move to the next place and repeat the cycle. It would also probably kill the market for a great deal of letting agencies, who I would argue are even worse parasites for both LLs and tenants.

Whining over leveraged landlord/lady said:
"Rent controls would be a very bad idea, its interference with the free market"
Like having any form of tax relief on your BTL debt repayments isn't already interfering with the free market - LOL

"I think many people are unaware how much work is involved, it isn't just easy money!"
Like anyone gives a crap. If you're working too hard it's because your 'business model' is flawed and unsustainable. Give it up, go get a proper job and give someone else a chance who isn't daft enough to over-leverage like you have been.

You had a good run but it's over now. Get used to it.

landlords mostly have interest only mortgages and BTL mortgages are easier to get as they are based on 125% of rental income rather than the finances of the applicant
many 'accidental landlords' rent out their old houses with or without consent to let so they can buy another house and talk glibly about their 'portfolio'
houses should primarly be for those who wish to buy them for their family without being faced with having to move every 6 months

this should be a giggle...

outside London there ARE rent controls, they are called market forces. Overpriced properties stay empty.

I agree that the mortgage tax break should go - it hasn't. The 10% wear and tear allowance was only for fully furnished properties, not every rental. But also not fair.

BTL is being encouraged by minimal interest rates for savers. So you have some people with a lifetime of savings (from work) who have no alternative but to put it into property as it will vanish with inflation otherwise. Encouraged by Phil Space the journalist to think BTL returns 15%, they can get it badly wrong.

I would also like to see national registers for landlords and tenants, and proper agency regulation with REAL service standards for both.

BTW hair you won't get a mortgage on a major fixer-upper, bad risk. That's why it is cash only. Mortgages have become very difficult to get anyway.

Very sensible and measure post lazylou

There does need to be a joint charter as pp mentioned, which protects rights of tenants and landlords both.

We haven't rented in UK, thankfully, sounds a total nightmare. We have rented in Canada and we have a years lease, which we can renew easily. Most people rent long term. The landlord can only put up the rent by a certain % each year and must justify the increase, ie they have carried out works that benefit or are for the enjoyment of the tenant, new bathroom, kitchen, flooring etc... We didn't pay deposits, we paid the last month rent up front, and in fact that is illegal there anyway.

We are an accidental landlord, as we moved away for work, and no way were we going to step off the ladder. BTL mortgage increased our payments by 30%. Tenant pays the interest and we are paying the capital essentially as the rent does not cover the mortgage payment. We are ok with that. The house is rented at about 200quid below market rate, but our agent advised us to leave it, for the long term tenant who has been in the house for SEVEN years.

There should be a system where people can stay long term in a house and make it their home. Especially families who want their DC to grow up in the same area and attend the same school throughout. We leave our tenants alone, and they are now contacting us in case of repairs.

We had an agent, who was a rogue landlord/property manager. His views we found out recently were disgusting. For his personal rental portfolio, he took the view that when the fridge broke, or the oven didn't work, the tenant should replace it. There was a tiny hole in the stair carpet when we left, and I said I'd replace it, PM said no, if tenant doesn't like it, they can.... Almost as if he thinks, I'm renting you the shell of the house to live in, anything else is your problem. Leaks were not fixed, causing more damage. We did not want to be that kind of landlord and we fired him.

I don't think it's right to blame lack of affordability on landlords either. Extremely affordable housing in many parts of the country, but because of locations of jobs etc... people congregate in fewer places, leading to higher costs. I suppose it is hard to do, but governments need to look at spreading industry etc... throughout a country for a balance of work opportunities and availability of housing/schools/services etc... instead of putting pressure on a few major cities.

What they all said. My landlord is a earl. He has zillions of cottages on his estate, plus farms, plus businesses eg sawmills etc. I think he can cope with an increase in tax. Most of these properties have been owned by his family for generations and have never been bought or sold. If he were to sell some off it would increase the housing stock on the open market. As things are, he's raking in the rental income. He does keep getting expensive bills for eg replacing septic tanks, but that's a direct result of lack of investment in previous years.

We've made that list before, somewhere, Lorna.

17 year olds just leaving home
Students
People relocating for jobs, maybe on temp contracts
People whose relationships end
People who, for a wide range of reasons, will never earn enough/consistently to buy
People who for an equally wide range of reasons will never want to buy

There were many more on that list.

Council houses are a relatively new thing (first builds in about 1920). My grandparents always rented from private landlords, for over 60 years. My parents rented council houses for about 30 years. They were sold off before I could so I rented privately for about 25 years - from bedsits to 3 bedroom houses (until last year when we bought a house).

We don't need to ban btl landlords, we need to ensure that they do their job properly and are not ripped off by bad tenants. Making sure both sides are protected more will ensure that insurances and other on costs for the LL will reduce, will ensure a better standard of housing and then, when both sides are properly protected then it will be time to discuss rent caps etc.

Until that has been done there is little chance that there will be any unanimity in a call for it.

It really isn't a simple, one sided issue.

funny thing OP
I thought it was odd that the wear & tear rules were going as well
but in general, BTL landlords are doing very well out of our system

we need rent caps and possibly higher taxes on BTL profits in some cases

I know people become accidental landlords through circumstances but essentially we need to put people off BTL in order to get a sensible housing market again. At present, London is just a place where money is "stored" in properties and renters bear the brunt of the problems. It may be the case that London-specific legislation is needed.

so in general, I see the oddity of the wear and tear rule but I don't think that's a priority or a problem in terms of sorting out the housing market.

What a stupid OP.

Landlords should be taxed out of existence - load of bloody parasites. Then ordinary families could afford to buy as properties on the market wouldn't all be being snapped up by landlords.

Rents should be capped at affordable levels - tenants rights to have a secure roof over their heads should clearly trump a landlord's right to make a quick buck every single time in an even vaguely civilised society.

There should be a landlord register and any landlord who fails to maintain their property should be banned from renting further property and be jailed in any cases where there is a danger to their tenants' health - eg gas, electrical problems or damp and mould.

So you don't think that landlords being allowed to offset up to 45% of their mortgage interest against their income has distorted the property market at all HerRoyal?

Just goes to show the mindset of some landlords (not all, my first landlord was a gem, since then I've had dodgy ones pulling some stunts or breaking the law) by passing the costs off onto tenants so they don't have to put their hands in their pockets.

I hate this idea thrown about that landlords (BTL) are doing this for the greater good by providing a home for potentially homeless people.

No they are not. It's for their bloody retirement fund that is being paid for by other people.

You can dress it up anyway you want OP, the majority of renters are not stupid, you won't get much support for the petition.

I don't think you can point it as a sole cause of the housing 'bubble'

You wouldn't need a register if you taxed them all out of existence, stressed...

... but you would need some sort of hostel to cram all the newly homeless people into!

That was exactly my point specialsubject

interesting article here on house prices

^^ re this, where I come from, people can easily buy their own plot of land and self build. It's the norm. In the UK it seems extremely difficult to do so, the large building firms buy up acres and acres and build shitty identikit houses and sell them to the masses. And as pointed out in the article, they don't necessarily build where they should, the build for max. profit. Would be interested to know how much land these developers have 'banked'. Perhaps they should be forced to sell it if they haven't developed it after x number of years, or have their planning permission cancelled.

LazyLouLou

Yes, I acknowledged there are a small group of people that need the flexibility given by a 6 or 12 month tenancy but I think you will find that nearly all groups on your list would prefer to be able to buy their own home or if this is not financially viable, have a long term assured tenancy provided by a professionally run housing association.

By the way I'm not against sanctions for tenants who trash places or willfully refuse to pay their contractual rent.

The normal rule for business is that interest is a deductible expense in computing taxable profits, so people are wrong to say it's existence in the first place was a distortion of the market.

It is more accurate to call the new limits on tax relief the distortion/bodge.

Having said that, I don't mind this particular bodge to the tax system as much as I usually would. I think it's good for future landlords was well as general economic stability if landlords are discouraged from using too much borrowed money to fund their portfolios. And I don't mind that it might reduce competition for housing a little.

(I'm neither a landlord nor a renter.)

I disagree with the OP that this change is bad for tenants, I don't believe landlords will be able to increase prices. Landlords with large mortgages can only charge the same price as landlords with no mortgages. If those with large mortgages are forced to sell, availability for potential home-owners and landlords who don't need to borrow will increase.

Having said that, I like the idea that the general rule for interest should be that it is not allowed as an expense, and then for symmetry you don't tax it as income in the hands of the lender. Not sure how you introduce that without causing problems though.

Sorry but totally disagree OP. Landlords already have tax advantages way above owner occupiers and are one of the reasons we have such high house and rental prices (because they can outbid first time buyers who are now subject to the Mortgage Market Review, whereas landlords can still get interest only mortgages). This is just the first step in levelling the playing field. The last thing landlords need is sympathy or more help. In fact BTL landlordism should be discouraged as it is just going to lead to economic and social unrest. I would ban BTL if I could and in my opinion they should be subject to much higher taxes and much higher standards of provision. No sympathy from me!

Stop landlord bashing? My landlord had made and continues to make my life and my children's life an absolute misery. We now only communicate through solicitors while I'm paying full rent for a flat of which I can only use one room. One room for three of us. We eat, live and sleep in one room despite paying for a full two bed flat. It's all going through courts at the moment and I'm too upset about the whole thing to go into more detail.

But I've been so relieved this year that tenants have been making a stand and raising awareness about the absolute fucking misery that many shitty buy to let landlords cause. It's really time to keep that momentum going for all the poor sods and their children who are stuck in these hell holes.

Not RTFT

I think that removing incentives for people to put their savings / excess money etc in property will be a good think as it will become a less attractive incentive and lots of landlords will sell up in order to put their money into something else and thus more property on the market, hopefully prices will come down a bit and more people will be able to buy.

I also think they should bring rules in, in London, about who is allowed to buy property here like they have in some other cities. There's a lot of foreign investment in the middle and that has a ripple effect on all prices going out which is shit really. Apparently a lot of them let them stand empty

Anyway I say this as a higher rate tax payer who has a property I let out so will be on the raw end of this!