BTL is in desperate need of reform

IveSeenTheLight

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Quite the opposite. It's about time ALL landlords were regulated (and charged for the pleasure). The problems caused by know nothing, "accidental" landlords are costing us all a fortune. The sooner they either wise-up or get out, the better!

As a registered (regulated) landlord and charged for the pleasure, the scheme in my opinion is little more than maintaining a registration of the landlords.

Maybe they go further if tenants register complaints (I wouldn't know), but certainly there is no compulsion to ensure you follow any guidelines / requirements.

The most I get from them is a few e-mails with links and an occasional invite to a seminar

As shown below, registration is already a requirement in Scotland and it looks like it's been dismissed by the coalition for England and Wales

ILW wrote: »

Strict licensing for landlords would be a good start.

There already is this requirement in some parts of the UK

Landlord Registration Scotland

It seems there were plans to develop a similar registration in England and Wales until the coalition ditched the plan in Jun 2010
http://www.lettingfocus.com/pages/myarticles7.html

chewmylegoff

StevieJ wrote: »

Why is it making you better off? I am merely proposing that (all things being equal) the rent that you pay out is equal to the rent you receive in. In actual fact I am proposing that you still lose out because of letting agent fees.

if you go from:

situation 1: paying the cost of property A

to

situation 2: paying the cost of property B as well as generating a profit (that's right, a profit) from renting out a property A.

you are better off if [cost of B - profit A] < cost of A

since you can control cost of B, you are only going to be worse off if you make a concious decision to rent someone more expensive. that's up to you.

what you want is to make profit A bigger (not just for this person, but for anyone renting out a property).

there is no need to do so, there is no problem here, the property market is not being damaged by the fact that people have to pay tax on income from property. what you propose would make the market worse, because many more people would choose not to sell their house, but to keep it and rent it out.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not trying to antagonise a situation here, but will probably do so anyway.

But I can't actually see any reasons AGAINST the reform outlined. Just people who are currently BTL landlords, who don't particularly want it to happen.....with the main empahsis trying to be thrown back to "it will be bad for people renting as costs will rise". Everything = costs rising it seems.

Is there actually any good reason for these sorts of proposals not to go through? Or do we have to continue down the "I'm a BTL landlord and I know what's best for you" while trying to push the regulation elsewhere and state it's not the issue.

I'm a registered landlord and while not exactly regulated, I am on a database that my tenants could complain to.
Indeed I'm also responsible for my tenants as a landlord.

So whilst I don't feel regulated, that probably occurs to LL / tenants with issues.

My point is that with this registration / regulation there is only a small fee, payable each three years to remain on the register and doesn't affect the rents in my opinion.

Your other point about making it harder for BTL's, it would just restrict the supply, meaning that there would be more competition from the demand of renters and because the supply is restricted, likely increase the rents.

DexterA

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Why? So the government can lapse on maintenance and sell off cheap to tenants.

No, that's what happened. I've said they should reverse it, nationalise the rental stock to avoid BTLs profiteering from non home owners situation.

Try to keep up.

StevieJ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

if you go from:

situation 1: paying the cost of property A

to

situation 2: paying the cost of property B as well as generating a profit (that's right, a profit) from renting out a property A.

you are better off if [cost of B - profit A] < cost of A

since you can control cost of B, you are only going to be worse off if you make a concious decision to rent someone more expensive. that's up to you.

what you want is to make profit A bigger (not just for this person, but for anyone renting out a property).

Easily solved by allowing your rent paid as a deduction against rental income from primary residence. If you rent a cheaper place then you would still have a taxable profit. I admit I can see why the people craving a house price crash wouldn't like it

chewmylegoff

StevieJ wrote: »

Easily solved by allowing your rent paid as a deduction against rental income from primary residence.

why should only people who have a BTL get to offset rent against income? why not anyone else? it's not a problem that needs to be solved by the tax system - don't rent somewhere you can't afford.

i just don't see a need to grant a special tax break to landlords. there just doesn't appear to be a need for the government to incentivise BTL further. the sector appears to be reasonably buoyant already - rents are probably going to go upwards from here.

in the current climate with not much money to spare, it would be rather odd for the govt to start chucking it at landlords.

Wee_Willy_Harris

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

As a registered (regulated) landlord and charged for the pleasure, the scheme in my opinion is little more than maintaining a registration of the landlords.

Maybe they go further if tenants register complaints (I wouldn't know), but certainly there is no compulsion to ensure you follow any guidelines / requirements.

The most I get from them is a few e-mails with links and an occasional invite to a seminar

As shown below, registration is already a requirement in Scotland and it looks like it's been dismissed by the coalition for England and Wales



There already is this requirement in some parts of the UK

Even in some parts of England. Whilst I appreciate your opinion on the practical impact of registration, that applies only to the system you have in Scotland. Your comments, whilst fair, don't devalue the argument for registration as such, merely the gentler regulation they have north of the border.

Wee_Willy_Harris

StevieJ wrote: »

Easily solved by allowing your rent paid as a deduction against rental income from primary residence. If you rent a cheaper place then you would still have a taxable profit. I admit I can see why the people craving a house price crash wouldn't like it

I don't think it's a house price crash they crave, just some sense of moral justice in the tax system.

StevieJ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

in the current climate with not much money to spare, it would be rather odd for the govt to start chucking it at landlords.

BTW when I propose that rent should be allowed to be claimed as a deduction against rental income, I suggest this as a substitution for mortgage interest and maintenance not as well as. My intention is to put the person who rents out and then rents somewhere else in a similar position to someone who had just stayed where they were.

StevieJ

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I don't think it's a house price crash they crave, just some sense of moral justice in the tax system.

Strange, because that is what I am looking for as well.