Accidental landlord and new tax rules

FBaby

Accidental is a firm of speech and is logical. It refers to those LL who've become so for other reasons than as a mean to make money from an investment perspective. Nothing wrong with using that term to distinguish the two even if ultimately the rules and outcomes are the same.

OP there are other forums where you can get advice without judgment for being a Landlord.

cloo

Yeah, I do think people should stop being b*tches to people who use the term... they're not necessarilyy trying to make themselves look 'nice', they may just be trying to express that this wasn't a long-term plan, ergo they don't know much about what they're supposed to do. Yes, they have made a choice to be a LL rather than selling up, but a circumstance occured where they had to make that choice and if it was the choice between selling up when you may not be sure where you'll be for a few years and will lose the property's value, and keeping the asset to rent it out and hold open the possibility of returning to it, as well as benefiting from the increased value, what do people expect people to choose?

FBaby

I think many LL who well intended and again don't see becoming a LL as a money making machine truly believe that the arrangement is a win/win one where both parties can get what they want out of it.

westernpromise

booksurr wrote: »

LOL - RIGHT

everything you have written simply attests to what I said, people become accidental LL because it is about their perceptions of how to make money through remaining invested in property. Bear in mind "make money" means the same as not losing money, although you may struggle with that?

No it does not.

Avoiding a hit of £100k that you do not have is not making money, it is avoiding personal bankruptcy. If you think avoiding bankruptcy is somehow greedy and materialistic, pop along to the relevant board and share your perspective, why don't you.

Guest101

The term accidental landlord is often concurrent with one or several mistakes made by the landlord.


It suggests that they do not take seriously the implications or renting out property, are less likely to be up to date with the laws and regulations.


If someone gives away their most valuable asset with little or no preparation, I'd be concerned.


Using the term 'accidental' rather than 'landlord by need' suggests it's somehow not their fault.

AdrianC

westernpromise wrote: »

No it does not.

Avoiding a hit of £100k that you do not have is not making money, it is avoiding personal bankruptcy. If you think avoiding bankruptcy is somehow greedy and materialistic, pop along to the relevant board and share your perspective, why don't you.

My heart bleeds for those buying £1.5m properties without selling the previous main residence. I can see how the poor dears have absolutely no choice whatsoever but to be forced into accidentally renting their previous main residence...

FBaby

Concurrent or not doesn't make it a correlation though.I don't think accidental and by need is comparable at all. I would think 'by default' to be a more appropriate term in most cases.

cloo

Guest101 wrote: »

Using the term 'accidental' rather than 'landlord by need' suggests it's somehow not their fault.

Landlord by need is a good one, not heard that before. In my case it was because my partner (now husband) refused to live in that part of London, plus he was working outside the other side of London when we moved in and obviously I couldn't be sure if that was going to work out!

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

Concurrent or not doesn't make it a correlation though.I don't think accidental and by need is comparable at all. I would think 'by default' to be a more appropriate term in most cases.

Im sorry but 'by default' one isn't a landlord, one is a person with an empty house.

Crashy_Time

Looks like the government will make plenty of tax either way, and if it lowers house prices all good.