Landlords response to Labour proposal

[Stellaris22]

Surely it’s becoming increasingly difficult to defend landlords.

In response to proposals to make renting fairer and better for tenants landlords have responded with typical ‘we’ll increase rents’.

Yes there are good and bad tenants just as there are good and bad landlords. LLs need to stop the saviour attitude of thinking they’re helping people who can’t afford to buy. They can’t afford to buy because of their high rents!

Good to see Labour (hopefully) tackling the private rental sector.

Landlords are going to hate me for saying this but are you glad the rents you are charging and also do you genuinely give a toss about tenants. I have a friend whose kitchen is diabolical, she won’t ask for a new one because she’s worried he will put the rent up and she will be homeless.

My tenants asked for an updated kitchen and we suggested they put together what they wanted from IKEA, we modified it to what we thought was more generally appealing to future tenants, and it was done with a few weeks. We took the opportunity of doing some extra things around the property while the work was being done, and we didn't put the rent up. It's in a landlord's interest to keep the house in good shape, and you can claim a new kitchen against an eventual capital gains tax if it's a big improvement, I think.

A national register with annual compulsory inspections and strong powers to shut down poor properties, would address slum landlords far more effectively without punishing the good ones

In theory yes, but this would probably have to be administered by useless local authorities, and round here the slum LLs have them in their pockets - not least because several of the worst ones just happen to be councillors

If you want to get rid of slum lords and get rents so people can afford to save and buy themselves and drive property prices down then I would get rid of all the legislation and laws that penalise landlords.

It might sound an odd thing to do but I think that if the market was flooded with landlords and rental properties then people would have a choice and people could choose which house they rent. Instead of grabbing the first place you see before anyone else beats you to it.

Subsequently the housing market would get cheaper (because would be landlords looking at a property wouldn’t be able to make the lower rental figures against the current sales market figures work)

It would get rid of most of the slumlords

Proper landlords would be forced to make their properties as good as possible to make them an attractive proposition in a flooded market.

A national register with annual compulsory inspections and strong powers to shut down poor properties, would address slum landlords far more effectively without punishing the good ones

How about a national register with photographs of the people who rent properties and trash them or just don’t intend to pay rent and rely on the fact the courts are full and live rent free leaving just before the court case and disappearing only for them to do the same thing again, over and over

The issue is:

a) Some of the areas with more empty homes have lack of jobs and/or high levels of crime. Not every job can be done from home either

b) Especially vulnerable people need to be near their support, family, and friends. That includes people from the SE (who don't choose where in the UK they're from.

This situation in the article below is appalling. As the local politicians say, bad for the already deprived areas having extra pressure on already overstretched services, and terrible for the vulnerable displaced individuals.

I know someone who was rehoused somewhere (not the areas below) where she knows nobody and a long way away from family and friends. We tried to help get her housed near me so I could be there for her but my LA gatekept and refused (probably illegally) to help her. Vulnerable DV victim. She's now very isolated and it's badly affected her mental health. She sometimes says she regrets leaving her ex husband.

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24565195.vulnerable-people-moved-london-county-durham/

The issue is:

a) Some of the areas with more empty homes have lack of jobs and/or high levels of crime. Not every job can be done from home either

b) Especially vulnerable people need to be near their support, family, and friends. That includes people from the SE (who don't choose where in the UK they're from.

This situation in the article below is appalling. As the local politicians say, bad for the already deprived areas having extra pressure on already overstretched services, and terrible for the vulnerable displaced individuals.

I know someone who was rehoused somewhere (not the areas below) where she knows nobody and a long way away from family and friends. We tried to help get her housed near me so I could be there for her but my LA gatekept and refused (probably illegally) to help her. Vulnerable DV victim. She's now very isolated and it's badly affected her mental health. She sometimes says she regrets leaving her ex husband.

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24565195.vulnerable-people-moved-london-county-durham/

I was listening to a report on this and a woman who had been asked to leave multiple times, 9 or higher I can't recall, was speaking

My question on this is will the new policy help her or not? If landlords increase prices and avoid risk how will she find a place to rent?

Apologies for my double post above. Don't know why it did that. I've reported the duplicate post to have to removed.

Re: national register with annual compulsory inspections and strong powers to shut down poor properties, would address slum landlords far more effectively without punishing the good ones

They won't help. The slum landlords get away with it because there aren't safer alternatives for the poorest and most vulnerable.

In theory yes, but this would probably have to be administered by useless local authorities, and round here the slum LLs have them in their pockets - not least because several of the worst ones just happen to be councillors

True. And some of the worst slum landlords are used by LAs for temporary accommodation. Substandard slums - and at great cost to taxpayers, because despite being slums temporary accommodation is often called "supported housing". This means they can then charge above market rent (often there's no support, and often the only support needed by many dumped in these slums is... housing).

The answer is either: More social housing. Or bringing back full housing benefit that covers market rents. The first option is cheaper than the second. It's also the better option for individuals and for society.

Obviously as well as more social housing, right to buy needs to end. Someone mentioned it upthread. What a disaster it's been. Especially because 40% of ex RTBs are now (expensive) private rentals.

Going back many years, but bring back the Rent Officers when Landlords had to have rent increases approved. Likewise invoke Town and County Planning regulations e.g. make landlords keep their fencing, gardens, hedging tidy and in keeping with the local environment, fit in with the local community instead of take, take take.

I am living in a flat I own atm and looked at renting it out, getting a btl mortgage on it and moving on but having looked at the figures they just don’t work out.

By the time I have paid the mortgage and paid 40% tax on the full amount of rent I receive then I can understand why rents have gone up

Just had a look at mortgages on offer and just the interest alone would barely cover the monthly mortgage repayments,
Even just covering current interest rates and 40% tax I would have to charge £1775 per month

Even on 20% tax it would be £1522 per month

Current rents for similar places are £1550

If you could put the mortgage interest rates against tax then rents would fall even in the current high interest rate to around the £1250 -£1300 per month

The figures don’t add up to becoming a landlord. The risk is too great.

Every time a government has tried to penalise landlords, rental properties become more scarce and rents for what is available go up

That is why landlords have left in droves, rental properties are scarce and expensive and slum landlords are booming.

All that happened was private rentals were few and far between

How can a private landlord keep gardens etc tidy? This is the responsibility of the tenant as I presume if landlords suddenly had to start going round to weed and tidy the gardens of their rental properties then this would go against the rental contract as it could be construed as not giving the tenant quiet enjoyment of their property

Thing is build more affordable housing. You all try, it's impossible.

I own an acre paddock at the end of nice street, I put in plans for 6-8 affordable homes, because I have young adults who would love to live close to where they grew up.

Rejected.

So we now have plans in for 2 massive 1m+ homes and the stuck up neighbours are happy.

Personally I rather the smaller affordable houses, but we simply can't as it's "not in keeping".

So even when people who are trying to help, the councils just won't let it though.

But these “unintended” consequences weren’t unintended. They wanted to drive out landlords and they got exactly what they intended

What did they think was going to happen?

Rents would stay the same?

Landlords would operate at a loss?

Landlords wouldn’t get rid of their tenants and look around at alternative uses for their properties?

Did they think there would be so many ex rentals in the estate agents windows the price of housing would go down and FTBs would be able to pick and choose which property they liked the best and take their sweet time getting a mortgage and buying their first home?

The lack of understanding that landlords are in business and they are not a charity is quite breathtakingly ignorant
If they had been able to operate a calculator and actually put themselves in the landlords shoes and played through the different scenarios all of this could have been avoided

What we have now could have been a range of good rental properties at much cheaper rents because those who over priced their properties or didn’t have a spotless well maintained property would have fallen by the wayside

As I've already said, my mum's death left me with a millstone of a rented property. I will get rid of it as soon as I can, but until then (and it will be a long time because of some legal complexities) I am an accidental landlord. And divesting myself of the thing will almost certainly make the long term tenant homeless. If I try to sell it with her in place, I'm unlikely to get far, because the new rules mean that no-one will want to be buying rental properties, and this tenant has defaulted on the rent multiple times and not looked after the place. No-one will want the place with her in it.

So I can't win. I remain a landlord, keep a roof over her head, and have people like you despise me, or I issue a section 21 before the new rules come in, and make her homeless at a time when there'll be a real shortage of rentals. And make people like you despise me.

So how do I come out of this not being seen as the bad guy?

No one can force you to accept an inheritance. If the inheritance is that much of a millstone then you can simply walk away. It's still a choice you have.

I do think though in the case of inheriting properties this is as likely a scenario as people are to get to be able to claim "accidental". It's not accidental. But it's pretty close to it.

Whether or not you are seen as the bad guy is irrelevent to whether you have agency over the decision to becoming a landlord. But in my experience it is not a profession where you should care too much about what other people think.

@saraclara I do sympathise with your position.
Obviously very stressful for you becoming a landlord without choosing it, especially at a time of bereavement so an already upsetting time.

However at least you're not losing money needed to pay a buy to let mortgage if the tenant isn't paying the rent. I assume as it's inherited, it's owned outright? (I realise some inherit whilst still mortgaged, but often it's already paid off by stage of inheritance).

And some landlords won't care about sitting tenants even less desirable ones. You'll just have to sell below market value - but you'll still be gaining money as it was an inheritance.

So if you really don't want to evict her, you can sell but just for less than perhaps you hoped to get.

You can also evict by other means instead of Section 21, i.e. there's Section 8 amongst others. For example if your tenant is, as you say, repeatedly not paying rent or trashing the place.

That will be the case after the new rules too. In fact I understand the plans include making Section 8 easier. Landlords will also still very easily evict simply by putting the rent up (which is why the real answer to the housing crisis is more social housing, not ending Section 21).

So you don't need to issue a Section 21 now if your only concern is the proposed changes. Obviously if you want to evict for other reasons or sell, that's a separate matter and you can do that.

Have you spoken to the tenant @saraclara ?

I'm wondering if she wants to be evicted, in the possibly mistaken belief she'll get council housing? Those days are gone in many parts of the UK. Even if she does eventually get it, she's facing a long time in substandard temporary accommodation first. And if she doesn't have children she's got no chance.

She could simply be a bad tenant. I'm sorry if that's the case. Your options then are to either evict (Section 8 or section 21) or sell below market value. There are landlords who will buy any property regardless of state of the place or type of tenant. Often cash buyer investors.

However another possibility is she's not intentionally defaulting on the rent. She might literally not have the money.

The disastrous consequences of the removal of housing benefit. The insufficient replacement rarely meets market rent in many areas. Terrible for tenants, terrible for landlords - and terrible cost to society (and I don't just mean the billions spent on substandard temporary accommodation).

Obviously it's not your fault various governments have failed to provide sufficient benefits safety net and affordable (social rented) housing.

To deal with your specific situation - if the problem isn't deliberate non payment, you could discuss a rent reduction with your tenant? Or if she's on benefits and is defaulting on rent, you can request direct payment of her housing benefit to you.

Really the problem is the need for more social housing. Private renting works when it's someone young and transient and relatively affluent. Or needing somewhere short-term (in-between house sales, working away, trying out a new area if relocating). It's not in any way an appropriate alternative to social housing for older people, settled in the community families, and those on low incomes (disabled, low wages, or carers).

The only alternative to more social housing is increased housing benefit. The former is cheaper and better for individuals and for society.

One final thought @saraclara Is it let out through an agency? It so, although it could be your tenant isn't looking after the place, it's also possible the lettings agency are to blame. I've heard of cases where tenants repeatedly report issues with repairs etc but the agency fails to pass on messages to the landlords. Also check the rent issue isn't down to the agent messing something up or even not passing the money on.

I’ve been a landlord for 30 years. I’ve only had to evict one person because she didn’t pay any rent for 6 months. Is that ok with you?
I had a tenant a week ago who needed a new washing machine so I got one the next day. I also had to replace a hob this month - again it was done in 24 hours. One of my flats has been let to the same family for 29 years.

So bore off with your crappy prejudice. I know my properties are really good and well looked after.

Or even just be allowed to take out a mortgage at a reasonable repayment rate. I've got a 190,000 deposit and wanted to borrow 40,000. Repayments would have been under £300 a month. Current rent 700 a month, paid on time for 5 years. Bank said they would lend max 9,000. It's totally stupid and means I am stuck paying over the odds on rent.

You can't decide an important financial decision for you like this. If you need to sell then sell.

@Firenzeflower are you replying to me? I never said anything bad about (decent) landlords. Slumlords, yes, I have contempt for, but that's not every landlord. When I was younger and renting I had generally decent landlords.

As I've said previously, private renting has its place. However it's inappropriate for some groups. Older people or families at a settling down in a community stage of life, and those on the lowest incomes (carers, disabled, low waged). That's when the need for more social housing comes in.

There is a societal problem with the increase in private renting. And the explosion of Buy to Let from the 90s has caused terrible harm to individuals and the economy - including but not only the financial, health, and other costs of temporary accommodation and homelessness. (It also priced out first time buyers).

However I don't aim the blame at individual landlords. The blame is successive governments terrible housing policy.

Also we can't change the past. What we do need to do now is rectify the situation. By providing more social housing. There'd still be a place for (decent) private landlords, because there's circumstances where it's useful. It's just not an appropriate alter to social housing.

Out of interest, the family you've let to for 29 years. Are they genuine sitting tenants? If the tenancy started before 1997, they likely are. That means they have an assured tenancy with rent control. That's not the case for the majority of private tenancies today.

Firstly, a bad landlord is a bad landlord. Landlords are not inherently bad. Some are letting due to unattractive alternatives, others because they see investment opportunity. Either is legitimate.

But, what I find warped is that landlords seem to feel entitled to certain tax breaks and protections not available to other types of investors. I mean, who in their right mind would suggest loan interest tax relief for a person who wanted £500k of shares in Glaxosmithklein? Why are landlords aggrieved when they see a negative return on their investment? Does anyone care if my Glaxo shares fail to pay a dividend or fall in value? Sorry, its investment risk. And the income is taxable, same as it would be in other investment vehicles, and gains are subject to CGT, as per other forms of investment. Why, because your investment happens to be a house, do you deserve any special treatment beyond someone who buys shares? There is a risk of a bad tenant, same as there is a risk of global developments being unfavourable for my Glaxo shares.

That’s not to say tenants who trash the place and deliberately not prioritising their rent are therefore blameless, clearly they’re doing the dirty.