Section 21 Notices….

[CuriouslyDifferent]

Saw on the bbc today that a landlord has had to fight the tenant for two years to get their property back.

Obviously an extreme case - but surely all this is going to do is discourage potential landlords from renting out a property.

When renting I always knew that one day I’d be asked to leave and yep it happened and agreed when and sorted out a new pad.

i do understand that buying is not always an option for many reasons and some people will always rent, as i always have.

But surely a landlord has a right to decide they no longer wish to rent out a property and possibly put it on the market empty.

And I know there are abuses which I’ve never suffered - a complaint causing a s31 isn’t fair - and if it goes on the market afterwards in same state for a price increase is an abuse. In my opinion.

But surely the sort of hate we are seeing against landlords who actually fill a very necessary need - shouldn’t have to go through anything more than a few months whilst a tenant moves on. It’s ultimately going to discourage a section of landlords.

I know myself, when I discuss investment options, I’d steer very clear of property as an investment. It’s potentially just to much grief.

You don't have to take the rent smart Wales course if an agent handles the property. Now they give you less slack than an amateur landlord. Short term contracts, annual rises. So it's swings and roundabouts

Not saying all our funds are tied up in property; they are not - that would be very unwise. They are spread over ISAs, savings, shares, premium bonds etc.

Also am not saying people should feel sorry for those owning properties (only reason we do is being made redundant 3 times gave us a deposit as parents divorced - meant 2 houses were needed and they couldn't afford it)

Just stating a fact that governments change goal posts which people have based their life-plan decisions on.
Not just this specific example - they are buggers for it in lots of areas affecting lots of people!

Another example is replacing DLA with PIP. Even if there was originally a lifetime award for DLA they can take it away

Well things change, unlike a lot of othe repnsion investmens the way you mange this investment has an immediate and material impact on people's lives. You are not just investing your pension, you are providing a life essential service to people - ie a roof over their heads. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate for governments to intervene if they think that the service provided is not meeting the needs of the people who are buying that service from you.

The government removing CGT for landlords has no effect or impact on the quality of service a landlord is or isn't providing

Except to put them off being a landlord and therefore reducing the number of rental properties available - which makes it worse for tenants!

I have no issue with the regulations on safety, electricals, gas, tenancy agreements etc.

We were LLs once. We didn't increase the rent during the first recession for 1 tenant as we felt they were good honest people. Another tenant advised they could no longer afford the rent and asked for a reduced rate to help them out. When things improved for them which I presume they did, they didn't advise us nor offer to go back to the original rent..we didn't put the rent back up either..stupidly...so yes we were stupidly benevolent.

It's not a question of empathy.
People need housing and right now, private LL's are the biggest providers. Making them sell up only reduces supply and drives rents up even higher, which is EXACTLY what's happening now.

The 'absentee' LL's (where houses are owned as parts of investment portfolios etc) are the worst, not individual owners IME.

Of course, the only real solution is for the government to provide quality social housing. But they don't want to do this and are happy to just blame LL's.

While Shelter has done a lot of good work it's extremely short-sighted of them to pile on to LL's.

I thought the problem with pets was the dander!
It can be very hard to get rid of. And if your next tenant happens to be allergic the costs to fully remove it can run into thousands. An ordinary deep clean might not do.

I was responding to a person talking about the government changes affecting their own retirement plans. They made a personal point which I was responding to. The changes to policy have been talked about for a long time hence many LLs getting out of the game by now.
If I was basing my retirement plans on a property portfolio I would have been selling off my properties since last year (or earlier if the writing was on the wall earlier?) & investing the money elsewhere. That they still have 6 left shows a certain reluctance to accept reality.
I agree that the changes are causing problems on a societal level but on a personal level, no I don’t feel sorry for people renting out multiple properties making less profit from them now or having to make alternative retirement plans.

It is as it is. The changes are absolutel vast ( we had two buy to "lose" flats in the 1980s which we managed just as well as now but without the myriad of new laws so I can certainly do a contrast) and as said above the changes have been coming so thick and fast in many areas there is nothing to let. As I said above that is fine - if the state choose to make landlords not want to let then it must lie in the bed it made of homelessness and no properties. I have never seen anything like the last letting of myk son's house - 13 couples over one weekend - yes it is a gorgeous little house of £1100 a month (with a very responsive good landlord) but the real reason is there is nothing else around to rent.

I just went online to check that area this morning - there is a £1300 and a £1600 to let if you search for a small house there, terraced. That's it. two only. In the past tere were many. That may well be that many first time buyers have bought what was previously let and that that was the state's aim in which case that may be no problem. It is simply market forces - if the state interferes to make letting not possible or not cost effective they won't be let. If one of the two almost identical houses my son's have which is D rating (other is C) is next empty and the state prohibits letting then it will have to be sold.

Landlords selling does not reduce supply of housing as presumably the person buying that property is either going to live in it themselves or rent it out. What it can do, if enough landlords sell up in an area is reduce supply of housing of a particular tenure.

@Twiglets1 - no issues with accepting reality; well aware of the issues and have been selling them off since 2020

However - you only get 1 CGT allowance a year, so only been selling 1 property a year. If I sell more than 1 a year, I get no allowance against the 2nd, 3rd etc

They are not our sole retirement plan, but the government's changes have made a difference to us which will result in a number of houses being taken out of the rental market

I don't think anyone is going to sympathise with a landlord who owns 6 properties and has to pay more CGT because of tax changes. The CGT rate is already considerably lower than the income/ NI rates.
Rules change all the time with incomes taxes being particularly badly affected for those who actually work for a living. Child benefit was removed for higher earners after they had children, tax rates have changed after buying a new home or having another child, pension age changed for many women, etc. That's what happens to most people.
I do agree that the government have entirely messed up every aspect of the residential housing market for decades. They encouraged buy to let landlords because they did not bother to build adequate social housing for decades. Now, they are discouraging them. Overall, if we don't have considerably more social housing, it would probably be better if the rental homes were owned by huge corporations rather than private landlords as it is far less likely that we will be suddenly selling on a whim or because of a change in their circumstance. The 2 month notice period is ridiculous and if Gove wanted to actually improve the life of tenants, rather than just posture a lot, this would have been a good to start.

CGT is 28% for most landlords (used to be 40% but when at 40% there was an allowance for inflration so if eg over 20 years inflation had increased the value that was all ignored so the 40% rate was less - it was called "indexation").

Pension funds and large landlords might well go into letting properties particularly at the higher end with fewer risks of default but only if they can make a higher profit than if the money were in shares etc.

I agree the state can change rules on a whim and often does. The rest of the changes - about 20 of them - against landlords is landlords are selling and there is little to rent - it is as it is and will make things easier for richer people who are first time buyers to buy a property of course.