Government wants stamp duty and tax cuts for buy to let.

dougs

Generali wrote: »

If you effectively ban BTL, who provides rented accomodation?

the people who used to before BTL was ever invented

stevetodd

dougs wrote: »

the people who used to before BTL was ever invented

But that would have been the council (who have now disposed of most of their decent properties) and regulated rents in the private sector (which didn't work because landlords stopped entering the market because it was no longer viable). In other words there is no real alternative

brit1234

tbs624 wrote: »

Owning up to getting your news from the DM Brit? There 's probably a support group somewhere to help you with that..;)

Only just picked up on this thread as I don't always trawl the House Prices sub board - if anyone's interested in seeing the actual report rather than Brit1234's rant and the Daily Mail version it's in a link I posted up earlier here:

I get my news from a vast range of sources, variety broadens the mind.

Sorry my post upset you, it was designed to stimulate debate from all sides. I hope your past goes well and number of reply posts increase as it is a bit of a ghost town at the moment.

Oh by the way I've pinched the link for this thread.

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/chp/publications/PDF/prsreviewweb.pdf

Generali

dougs wrote: »

the people who used to before BTL was ever invented

BTL is just a form of financing. Prior to the AST being introduced and shortly afterwards rental accomodation was lower quality and expensive. BTL has been a boon for renters.

Max_Headroom_3

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

They need very strong proposals to weed out the dross and from the letter I received from Labour MPs this morning, it is not going to be this government that is be doing that. Labour voters take note.

That is indeed part of the proposal.

Private residential landlords could face mandatory licensing as part of proposed wide-ranging reforms to the fast-growing rental sector that include tougher regulation.
The proposals are set out in a hard-hitting government-commissioned report by housing expert Julie Rugg, an academic at York University. Housing minister Margaret Beckett praised it as “comprehensive and authoritative”, but shrank from immediately endorsing its recommendations.
The report comes at a crucial time, with record numbers of people turning to the rental market because of difficulties in buying a property amid the credit crunch.
It accuses the market of sometimes failing to provide adequate levels of quality and service and highlights a number of problem areas, from so-called “slum landlords” to poor service from estate agents.
The report gives a boon to the buy-to-let market by saying the government should consider tax changes to encourage a growth in “good” landlords. This in-cludes changes to stamp duty and capital gains to encourage landlords to buy more properties. They would be kept well-behaved via obligatory but “light touch” licensing. Landlords that abuse their tenancy agreements could be removed from the sector. It also recommends mandatory regulation for letting agencies to increase protection for vulnerable tenants.
The report says the regulatory framework does not allow local authorities to target the small minority of wilfully bad landlords.
It also proposes the introduction of an independent complaints and redress procedure for consumers to help resolve disputes.
Although most tenants are generally satisfied, the report says market forces do not adequately ensure management quality because of an excess of demand for rental property at the bottom of the sector.
The report falls short of saying the professional rent- ed sector – rental offered by companies – should be en-couraged. This will disappoint industry campaigners such as the British Property Federation, that want great- er institutional investment.
The report also suggests the government should try to make the sector more accommodating towards households on lower in-comes. This includes financial support for landlords prepared to house vulnerable people.
Ms Beckett said: “Whilst the majority of people are satisfied with their experience of renting, there is still much more to do to protect the most vulnerable tenants from the minority of unscrupulous landlords”.

ad44downey

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I take you don't rent privately. If there was no market, BTL would disappear.

There are many wise people who prefer to rent and there are many who cannot afford to buy. Sadly, many of those who cannot afford to buy have done so. They will wish that they had rented rather believing the anti-BTL brigade.

GG

They'd be able to afford to buy if it were not for buy to let chancers pumping the prices up

chucky

Max_Headroom wrote: »

Private residential landlords could face mandatory licensing as part of proposed wide-ranging reforms to the fast-growing rental sector that include tougher regulation.
The proposals are set out in a hard-hitting government-commissioned report by housing expert Julie Rugg, an academic at York University. Housing minister Margaret Beckett praised it as “comprehensive and authoritative”, but shrank from immediately endorsing its recommendations.
The report comes at a crucial time, with record numbers of people turning to the rental market because of difficulties in buying a property amid the credit crunch. It accuses the market of sometimes failing to provide adequate levels of quality and service and highlights a number of problem areas, from so-called “slum landlords” to poor service from estate agents.
The report gives a boon to the buy-to-let market by saying the government should consider tax changes to encourage a growth in “good” landlords. This in-cludes changes to stamp duty and capital gains to encourage landlords to buy more properties. They would be kept well-behaved via obligatory but “light touch” licensing. Landlords that abuse their tenancy agreements could be removed from the sector. It also recommends mandatory regulation for letting agencies to increase protection for vulnerable tenants.
The report says the regulatory framework does not allow local authorities to target the small minority of wilfully bad landlords.
It also proposes the introduction of an independent complaints and redress procedure for consumers to help resolve disputes.
Although most tenants are generally satisfied, the report says market forces do not adequately ensure management quality because of an excess of demand for rental property at the bottom of the sector.
The report falls short of saying the professional rent- ed sector – rental offered by companies – should be en-couraged. This will disappoint industry campaigners such as the British Property Federation, that want great- er institutional investment.
The report also suggests the government should try to make the sector more accommodating towards households on lower in-comes. This includes financial support for landlords prepared to house vulnerable people.
Ms Beckett said: “Whilst the majority of people are satisfied with their experience of renting, there is still much more to do to protect the most vulnerable tenants from the minority of unscrupulous landlords”.

I've highlighted in Red some more important points that people seem to forget.
It seems that all the tenants to these slum landlords must be on this forum.

I agree with this legislation, I also think that the BTL/Tenant reltionship needs regulation and needs improving.

I would also add that those that complain about slum Landlords on this forum are probably slum Tenants.

and I've added a more respectable and appropriate version of the article so that some people don't get too angry and over-excited..

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/98f73ec6-a149-11dd-82fd-000077b07658.html

wymondham

Could it be that Councils thanked their lucky stars at the rise of BTL'ers - these filled a responsibility they no longer wanted or could fill. Without BTL'ers what would Councils do??

brit1234

wymondham wrote: »

Without BTL'ers what would Councils do??

Perhaps kick out criminal families in favour of hard working ones. Sorry I think council rented accomadation should be reserved for those who want to improve their lives and look after their children rather than in some cases the lodgings for drug dealers and lay abouts.

Call it social engineering but I believe a tax payer funded home should be for those who contribute (or show willing to) rather than destroy society.

Gorgeous_George

ad44downey wrote: »

They'd be able to afford to buy if it were not for buy to let chancers pumping the prices up

I thought that it was generally accepted that lax lending and cheap credit caused prices to rise

How many potential FTBers have been saved from themselves by BTL LLs pipping them to a house purchase?

How many tenants enjoy renting for less than the interest only repayment?

How many tenants have had relationships break down and avoided the hassle and cost of splitting a house/mortgage?

When a tenant chooses to move home, they give a month's notice and move relatively cheaply. My last move cost me:
£1,540 Stamp Duty
£2,200 Estate Agent
£1,200 Solicitor

That totals more than a year's rent for my tenant.

It's time for the BTL bashers to get over themselves and accept that BTL is here to stay, renting is optional and buying brings different but potentially more expensive problems.

GG