Two thirds of private rental landlords will leave sector if Labour win

jjlandlord

dori2o wrote: »

It may be the case for large investors that the ultimate aim is to produce a profit, but for the ordinary BTLer in most cases the properties are nothing more than pension pots.

Ah so "ordinary BTLers" are not in to make any profit. I think they missed that memo...

It's a bit like when your boss tells you (at the end of year review, usually) that you should not focus only on pay... Do you reply that of course you come to work for the shear pleasure of having such a nice boss?

dori2o wrote: »

This isn't an uncommon event, there are stories n this forum and many others of landlords increasing rents by stupid amounts.

You suggest that tenants pay these proposed increases... therefore they are not "stupid amounts".

chucknorris

dori2o wrote: »

We may see a reduction in the luxury apartments that are bought by big corporations, but for the ordinary BTL LL who has 5/10/15 properties their aim isn't to make a profit on their rentals it's to sell at retirement age and make a profit on the sales.

I bought my investment properties up to 24 years ago for the long term rental profit. Capital gain might be the icing on the cake, but the rental profit was and still is the essential bread and butter.

GunJack

Generali wrote: »

According to Lloyds/HBOS, house prices are higher than 3-4 years ago in every single region of the UK

they've obviously expanded the "regions" to include the rich bits then....prices on a par or less than 3-4 yrs ago round here....

cells

PasturesNew wrote: »

There will be no less houses/housing, so who owns it is pretty much irrelevant. If they give up, they won't knock it down and take it with them.

this is the type of simpleton thinking that keeps us in the mess we are in

privately rented homes are lived in more densely than both owner occupied homes and social occupied homes

what this means is, if you convert 1 million privately rented homes to owner occupied homes you may find that 500k people have nowhere to live as the 3 million renters have become 2.5 million owner occupiers and the 500k people left over need to fight over park benches to sleep at night

in short, the growth of private renting was the markets and the only real solution to what is a big undersupply of new homes

cells

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

The future is a squeeze on landlords.

You have all had a very lucrative ride so far.... and unsustainable gains by definition do not last....

It is all a matter of how quickly that tight squeeze will happen... a quick throttle will result in house price crash.... but the more likely slowly tightening grip will prevent any over reactions.

That grip could be in many different and combined forms....

..all you LL know that it is coming......

there is nothing that can be done that will both work and avoid mass homelessness

rent price increases are imo irrelevant as so few landlords increase the rent at all

additional taxes, unlikely as all businesses are treated equally it doesn't matter if you rent tools rent car or rent DVDs or rent homes.

capital taxes. This is a possibility but its not going to be a BTL only tax if it comes it will be a property tax

mandatory licencing. probably just a matter of time as lots of councils are forcing this anyone on HMOs which most renting is. not a big deal


the only big negative for LLs would be a max rent cap but that is imo extremely unlikely. And even if it comes in what would happen is very rapidly you would find homeless people filling every park in london. if a landlord can only chaarge eg £10k a year for a rental in london does he take A a couple or B a group of 5 friends?? a lot of landlords will refuse to take on all but the best tenants and the result will be literally that you cant find anywhere to rent as the old price mechanism was done away with

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Sounds a bit optimistic to me. Britain's awful landlords need booting to the backside.

Homes for humans not hedge funds!

but you cant mess with the percentages of owner-occupier and private rented without building homes else the result is mass homelessness


people seem to think its a simple matter of a home changing ownership from a landlord to their tenants but that not how it will work

imagine a let where 5 loosely connected friends rent a flat. they do this short term for maybe a year or two and move their separate ways. if the landlord sold the 5 tenants dont want to become co owners what would happen is one or two of them as a couple would buy and the other 4-5 be booted onto the streeets

putting it more accurately, private renters live at higher ocupancy rate than owners. thus to convert homes from PR to Owners you need to build additional homes for the "overspill" else the "overspill" needs to find park benches and tents to live in


in short the only solution to a shortgage of homes is to build more homes

cells

chucknorris wrote: »

The thing is though, the possible rent controls that labour are considering aren't like the rent controls of the past, where the tenancy can't be ended. Of course if labour did introduce something, it might only be the thin end of the wedge. But they would probably have to stay in power for a few more elections to get to a point where they totally destroyed the private rental market (again)

but last time there was a huge council stock and higher occupancy families,

they destroyed private renting because they wanted to take control of the industry into state hands just like they destroyed private coal mines pre ww2 to take the whole industry into state hands

how can they do it this time without greatly expanding the state housing stock?

and how would they do that over a 5 year election?

they cant build 5 million homes over 5 years thats for sure


maybe they could do what they did when they nationalised industries post ww2??

force sales of BTLs to the state? how and at what rate and what price?


overall its just plain stupid, the only solution is for the build rate to massively increase. any other talk is fluff

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

We didn't need a private rental market, we had council housing.

Now we have next to no council housing and a bunch of greedy investors chucking people out of their homes at the drop of a hat.

I know this may sound controversial after more years of neoliberalism than anyone can remember, but it actually isn't some pre-defined duty of the working class to have to make already wealthy people richer through property.

Ten million renters wont be silenced.

what exactly do you think can be done??

is the state going to force the sale of BTLs to state hands and hence convert BTLs into council homes ?????

How do you think that will work in practise?

Do they send in the army? the navy? the air force?
Do they Buy the homes off the BTLers?
What price do they pay?
Where does the state get the money to pay for the homes?


fantasy is always simpler than reality!

cells

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I've never seen bread prices change by the week. In response to market prices for grain.

Why hasn't every company cut their prices as production and delivery costs have all fallen significantly.

duhhhh

the price of grain to make a loaf of bread is a small portion of the price of bread in a shop shelf

likewise the price of delivery of milk is a small portion of the price of milk in a shop shelf


whereas the price of nat gas is a much larger portion of the final bill to get the gas into your boiler

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

The private sector isn't building enough due to the planning rules and regulation.

In the period when there was large council house building taking place the general situation was somewhat different. Much war damage, vast areas of slums etc
The council allocated vast amounts of land as suitable for redevelopment and didn't apply the current draconic planning rules.
If the councils zoned sufficient areas for redevelopment then the private sector would build.

afaik the council never built homes themselves they just tendered it out to private builders

so there are no council built homes

it is therefore very clear that the number of homes built, no matter the tittle you put on them, is simply dictated by quotas