To wonder how Labour’s Right to Buy on privately rented houses would work?

[Bearbehind]

Just read something this morning about Labour proposing Right to Buy on privately rented properties - how would that actually work?

How can they force a private landlord to sell at a discounted rate?

Also, if one of the requirements is you have to have been renting the property for several years, that’s just going to lead to less secure tenancies because landlords will make sure tenants cannot qualify for this.

It seems like a bonkers idea to me

@Fucksandflowers

Really depends on where you are in the country.

My brother and SIL have three properties. They're renovating one to move into. Live in one,which they will let out and are renovating the third to let out.

But the total cost of all three properties is below £150k. Because they live in the south Wales valleys. Their current house cost £32k when they bought it four years ago.

@BlueDaBabaDee there is already a well established and well known method of calculating RTb discount, no need to create one. No need to fuck people over by screwing them out of a few grand either.

You do have to bear in mind it would be valued as a rental properly, which it is, not a residential property though. As I say it’s a business and landlords need to understand that.

Momentum- which, thank goodness, is now leading the Labour Party-just want to make a fairer society for everyone.

It simply means that if you have more than you will have a little less and if you have less, then you will have a little more.

Is there anything fundamentally wrong with that? Of course not.

Exactly it’s a very simple way of redistributing wealth

You do have to bear in mind it would be valued as a rental properly, which it is, not a residential property though.

So Capital Gains Tax will be taken. That's how it works in Ireland, anyway, if a house has been rented out. Can be up to 30%, so it doesn't matter what the market value is that you're given, you're losing in real terms.

Compulsory purchase land is bought at market value. The issue is often what market value is - I have dealt with the legal side on compulsory purchase and the issue is not that they are paid less than market value, but that the owner believes either their property is worth more, that to get what they would then buy they need more, or just that with the added aggravation, they want 'compensation'.

On RTB, the maximum discount is 70%. If you had been a tenant long enough to get that, the local Council would only get 30% of the property value. However, from that they have to give money back to central government, so they actually end up with much less, which is why they cannot afford to replace the housing from RTB sales.

It is a ridiculous idea from Labour. Not all Landlord are super wealthy - I was one as I both DH and I owned our own houses when we met and we rented one out for a time, whilst I still paid the mortgage. If I had to sell at a discount then I would have ended up potentially owing the bank. There are a number of people who are Landlords because they cannot sell the property or because they ended up in negative equity - being forced to sell at a discount would put them in debt they are trying to avoid.

It is just Labour's way of trying to re-distribute wealth from those who have slightly more than the poorest, but which will probably still not affect the super wealthy who will find their own loopholes.

I have rental properties, I doubt any of my tenants would wish, or be able to, buy them, even at a discount. So if I sell up now, to avoid this ‘law’ and no one else wants to take the risk of being a landlord, where will my tenants live?

@Juells no absolutely no connection to capital gains tax. I am
Referring to the market valuation the house would be sold for.

The government gains a lot by home ownership. Propping up the property market, SDLT revenue, job creation etc.

cherry you obviously think you understand this better than me and pretty much everyone else on here however you’re doing a very poor job of explaining it.

Where do the jobs come from by moving people from private renting into home ownership?

There is continued revenue from landlord taxation so one off SDLT isn’t a great earner

So where does the benefit come from that allows any government to fund this above say NHS?

What @bibijayne said. Property ownership is by and large a choice. I accept some people have been unfortunate but on the most part, you choose where you live, you choose when to have children a d you choose whether or not you are prepared to manage your lifestyle expectations so you can save for a house. So many other factors too I won't go into.

An ordinary family can own multiple properties and the PPs attacking this poster are clearly just jealous. But if you choose to live in the most expensive area, choose to drive fancy cars, meals out and are not prepared to do work to a house, and choose to have children before you've bought a house then these are your choices.

Granted luck comes into it but attacking people for being successful rather than looking at how you could improve your own life helps Noone.

Taking landlords properties they've worked hard to buy and maintain and giving to a tenant at a discount is nothing short of theft. I for one will sell up if this policy shows any sign of becoming a reality. Another family evicted. Well done!

Exactly it’s a very simple way of redistributing wealth

It is indeed theoretically very simple.

The issue of how it can be effected in practical terms is far from simple.

But this is typical of JC’s Labour Party: propose an admirable concept, but fail to provide a viable plan for putting it into practice.

OP they’re ALREADY funding it. You don’t seem to want to accept that. It’s not the NHS or nothing

Oh and estate agents, conveyancers, land registry staff, mortgage brokers and not to mention the banks...

We are an ordinary family living in the SE and can afford one house. If we sold up and moved back up north I would be able to buy a similar house to my own and at least 2 other properties, making me extraordinary.

Passthecherrycoke
no absolutely no connection to capital gains tax. I am
Referring to the market valuation the house would be sold for.

But the market valuation is irrelevant if a LL is forced to sell via RTB, then has to pay CGT. The only thing that's relevant to the ex-LL, whose house has been taken, is that he had a property that gave him an income, and now he's had to pay CGT and doesn't have enough to buy an equivalent property. That is if CGT is charged, and I can't see why it wouldn't be, compulsory sale or not.

Exactly it’s a very simple way of redistributing wealth

Theoretically it is simple but in reality you haven’t explained how it works with private, small landlords.

They would do what the PP said and just leave their property empty until their children can use them or they’d change tenants every time one got close to qualifying for the RTB

donotcovertheradiator who voted Momentum into power. Oh wait, I know. NO ONE. They are a group of unelected ultra left wing nutters with their hands up corbyns arse.

Momentum- which, thank goodness, is now leading the Labour Party

Seriously you believe this!!

Anyone else on here who thinks Labour are bonkers and wont get elected. How many other donotcovertheradiator people are out there do you think?

Exactly it’s a very simple way of redistributing wealth

Hilarious thing to say. "It's a very simple way of taking money from people who've worked for it and already paid tax on it, and giving it to someone else"

@Juells this has nothing to do with CGT. The Labour Party haven’t clarified whether it would still be due in a RTb situation so you can’t guess what might happen.

It has nothing to do with the market value of the house though.

What needs explaining OP? It works the same for a small landlord as a big one? The qualifying criteria hasn’t been clarified - because it’s a suggestion by an opposition party so why would it?- but everything else is the same

OP they’re ALREADY funding it. You don’t seem to want to accept that.

No, you don’t want to explain how they’re funding this with private landlords.

Corporate landlords who sell up and then invest in other properties are very different to private landlords who want to keep properties as an investment and wouldn’t want to be forced to sell.

Not least because the government doesn’t have the same gains with these private landlords

you can’t guess what might happen

But you could have a bloody good idea

Anyone got any suggestions where my tenants should move to?

I would have thought this just meant if you wanted to sell and had a tenant in situ that they get first refusal?

Presumably some legislation tightening the grounds for eviction would accompany this, along with an empty property tax. If they really wanted to do it, they’ll find ways of dealing with the loopholes.