Repeal S21.

AdrianC

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

However, for the professional LL, who relies upon the income from their tenants, the greater security, longer residency and reduced void periods, would be a cost reduction.

No, it wouldn't.

There will NEVER be a circumstance where removing s21 can reduce a landlord's costs. It really is that simple.

In the majority of tenancies, s21 is irrelevant - so removing it can't reduce costs - no matter how you view the landlord. Security, longevity of tenancy, voids - they aren't affected.

The ONLY time that removing s21 would have an effect on a landlord's costs is if that landlord needed to use it. And, then, those costs would increase massively.

Removing s21 can only add risk - small frequency, large magnitude - for no benefit. And there's only one way for a landlord to compensate for that - increase rent. If the market won't bear that rent, then sale of the property is the other alternative.

lighting_up_the_chalice

AdrianC wrote: »

No, it wouldn't.

There will NEVER be a circumstance where removing s21 can reduce a landlord's costs. It really is that simple.

In the majority of tenancies, s21 is irrelevant - so removing it can't reduce costs - no matter how you view the landlord. Security, longevity of tenancy, voids - they aren't affected.

The ONLY time that removing s21 would have an effect on a landlord's costs is if that landlord needed to use it. And, then, those costs would increase massively.

Removing s21 can only add risk - small frequency, large magnitude - for no benefit. And there's only one way for a landlord to compensate for that - increase rent. If the market won't bear that rent, then sale of the property is the other alternative.

Your viewing S21 from just the LLs point of view. For the average tenant, a greater security is likely to lead to longer tenancy duration, meaning less voids and reduced costs for the LL.

However, if hoards of LL wish to sell their properties to the hoards of tenants ready to buy them, that will just reduce the number of tenants available for the LL who remain, forcing more of them to rely on the vagaries of HB and, as a result, pushing rents down. As rents fall, so will the value of BTL properties, meaning even more FTB get on the ladder.

mrginge

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Now there's an interesting question. Overall, I would say C. No impact. However, as requested, that reply needs further detail.

For the "accidental" LL, ie, the LL who has inherited a property they wish to gain income from, or who is not prepared to sell a property at a realistic market price, the costs will increase as they are more likely to require the tenant to vacate at the LL convenience (ie when the property value reaches their desired level). However, for the professional LL, who relies upon the income from their tenants, the greater security, longer residency and reduced void periods, would be a cost reduction.

I guess the real question is, do tenants want professional landlords, or amateurs?

Why are you talking about income?
I asked about COST

So for example

Cost of finance (e.g. A mortgage)
Insurance costs
LA costs

lighting_up_the_chalice

mrginge wrote: »

Why are you talking about income?
I asked about COST

So for example

Cost of finance (e.g. A mortgage)
Insurance costs
LA costs

Because cost and income are related in a business. If you have costs of £10, but an income of £100, life is good. If you have costs of £100 and income of £10, life isn't so good.

AdrianC

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Your viewing S21 from just the LLs point of view.

Because they're the ones - the only ones - who are making the decision as to whether to continue in the rental business or sell their propert(y/ies) in and invest elsewhere.

lighting_up_the_chalice

AdrianC wrote: »

Because they're the ones - the only ones - who are making the decision as to whether to continue in the rental business or sell their propert(y/ies) in and invest elsewhere.

But that decision relies on tenants.

Rosemary7391

AdrianC wrote: »

No, it wouldn't.

There will NEVER be a circumstance where removing s21 can reduce a landlord's costs. It really is that simple.

In the majority of tenancies, s21 is irrelevant - so removing it can't reduce costs - no matter how you view the landlord. Security, longevity of tenancy, voids - they aren't affected.

The ONLY time that removing s21 would have an effect on a landlord's costs is if that landlord needed to use it. And, then, those costs would increase massively.

Removing s21 can only add risk - small frequency, large magnitude - for no benefit. And there's only one way for a landlord to compensate for that - increase rent. If the market won't bear that rent, then sale of the property is the other alternative.

What about fees/admin for new contracts? Without the possibility of being given an S21, I can't see why a tenant would want a new fixed term contract. Not needing to worry about that would be a reduced cost to the LL - easily quantifiable if they're using an agent who charges directly for such things.

mrginge

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Because cost and income are related in a business. If you have costs of £10, but an income of £100, life is good. If you have costs of £100 and income of £10, life isn't so good.

Can you just answer?
What do you think happens to the landlords COSTS.

Its not a trick question.

AdrianC

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

But that decision relies on tenants.

Umm, no, it doesn't. The decision I'm talking about is before tenants get involved. It's not tenant-specific in any way, it's purely about risk vs return-on-investment for an individual who - currently - happens to have a rental property or three.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mrginge wrote: »

Can you just answer?
What do you think happens to the landlords COSTS.

Its not a trick question.

Overall, they would reduce. The largest single cost is voids. With better security, LL will get longer term tenants and, as a direct result, fewer void periods. Those using agents will get "double bubble" savings on re-let admin charges.