BTL is in desperate need of reform

Wee_Willy_Harris

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Is this referring to housing associations?

Which coucils in England have BTL registrations?

Middlesbrough
Manchester
Gateshead
Leeds
Neath Port Talbot
Bolton
Newcastle
Blackburn
Thanet
Stoke
Hundburn
Hartlepool
Durham
Salford
Newham
Southend
Burnley
Gravesham
Waltham Forest
Pendle
Oldham
Sunderland
Blaenau-Gwent
Rotherham

That should be enough to get you started. And it covers private rentals.

Wee_Willy_Harris

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Ok, goodnight, I look forward to the day when you can proove me wrong and we see the government re-nationalising ALL the rental stock.

It wasn't me that suggested it. I merely pointed out the potential LHA savings to be made.

Wee_Willy_Harris

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Sure I picked £150,000 as being just under the average house price as shown by the Land Registry, so it could be on average lower.

Of course I did also state that a number of properties are let that do not have a mortgage and thus the 1.3million is a lower number than actual rented properties.

P.S. Wow, just did a quick search for housing association properties for rent adn can see why they are returning a profit. £1,600 pcm for a 1 bed apartment and it's not even fully furnished

http://www.peabody.org.uk/finding-a-property/open-market-(rent-or-buy)/rent-on-the-open-market/open-market-rental-listing.aspx

There are areas in the country where social housing is more expensive than private.

IveSeenTheLight

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

It wasn't me that suggested it. I merely pointed out the potential LHA savings to be made.

You started debating for it in post 99, referencing the saavings in LHA to subsidise the procurement of all rental stock

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=43134048&postcount=99

IveSeenTheLight

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Middlesbrough
Manchester
Gateshead
Leeds
Neath Port Talbot
Bolton
Newcastle
Blackburn
Thanet
Stoke
Hundburn
Hartlepool
Durham
Salford
Newham
Southend
Burnley
Gravesham
Waltham Forest
Pendle
Oldham
Sunderland
Blaenau-Gwent
Rotherham

That should be enough to get you started. And it covers private rentals.

In these area's your saying it's a requirement to be registered.
Who's governing the fines for those not registered?

tartanterra

DexterA wrote: »

All rental stock should be nationalised and used for the good of the nation.

It may have escaped your notice but the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Communism is now so discredited, that even Cuba is backtracking.

Of course, I was all in favour of wealth distribution when I was younger, but then again, that's when I had nothing.
After a few years, when I had earned well and saved up a bit, I suddenly wasn't so keen on it.:D

Most of the LL's I know own their properties outright or have very small mortgages and have been renting out properties for years. Why should their pension (because most of them see their property as just that) be penalised by nationalisation?
Just because they have something that you covet??? How sad.

As for the government running all rental properties, are you serious??:(
A lot of my family live in ex-council houses. They bought them as soon as they could, not to make a profit, but because they were poorly maintained by the council.
The government administering all rental stock? For "the good of the nation"?? Is that the same government that regulated the banks for the good of the nation??
Cor blimey mate, you're a card!....:D

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Try taking this step by step and consider what the likely events would be.
If there's a reduction in rental stock, thus limitting the supply, what would be the likelyhood to rents?

If there was a drop in rental supply, there would be an increase in properties for sale, which would, most likely, see price falls.

You simply cannot get your head around anything but prices = up.

chewmylegoff

StevieJ wrote: »

Wrong, I don't see why someone should pay tax on income when they are having to pay rent elsewhere. Why do you keep saying that they gain by renting a more expensive house, my system would be neutral at best i.e. they couldn't claim more rent as a deduction than they are receiving in rent at most they could claim the same. I can only think that you are trying to wind me up

i didn't say they gain by renting a more expensive house, i said they wouldn't be worse off as long as they don't rent a more expensive house.

if there is a wind up merchant here, it's you - your idea is that you should be able to off-set the cost of two properties against the rental income from one property. in reality it is a policy which would only provide tangible benefit to people with significant equity in their home such that their rental income signifcantly exceeds their mortgage interest - not exactly the profile of people who need tax breaks.

you don't exactly strike me as a tax breaks for the rich kind of guy, but there you go.

StevieJ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i didn't say they gain by renting a more expensive house, i said they wouldn't be worse off as long as they don't rent a more expensive house.
.

Is that right?

i think it's rather odd than you think the tax system should be used to help someone to move to a more expensive house without having to pay the extra money that it costs.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If there was a drop in rental supply, there would be an increase in properties for sale, which would, most likely, see price falls.

You simply cannot get your head around anything but prices = up.

Graham,
Your getting confused again.
Were discussing and I asked about rental prices, not house prices.
It seems you cannot get the topic into your head and assume people are referring to other matters.

Sure house prices may temporarily go down, but I ask again, with limited rental supply, what's the likelyhood for rents?