Good news for tenants RENTS FALLING

The-Joker

Electrum wrote: »

It is what it is, if its because landlords are too frightened or not, the facts are rents are falling.

The excuse is that Landlords could put the rent up if they wanted to but they just don't want to :rotfl:

Or maybe it is because they are too frightened that they will lose tenants in this market of falling rents.

I wouldn't want to be a landlord in this environment, they are practically begging tenants not to move out and be tempted by all the cheaper properties with falling rents

buglawton

As an LL I recently re-let at a 5% rise over 2 years, from an already firm base. The first viewer took it. This is West London.

The tax rule change of no 10% furnished allowance applies from last April. Now taxman wants real costs & receipts. I am already collecting receipts and think I will easily exceed 10% anyway what with appliance repairs and furniture replacement etc. Silver lining.

chucknorris

buglawton wrote: »

As an LL I recently re-let at a 5% rise over 2 years, from an already firm base. The first viewer took it. This is West London.

The tax rule change of no 10% furnished allowance applies from last April. Now taxman wants real costs & receipts. I am already collecting receipts and think I will easily exceed 10% anyway what with appliance repairs and furniture replacement etc. Silver lining.

I'm surprised at that, in my experience the wear and tear allowance was extremely generous. I don't know why they simply didn't cut it to say 5% (and retain the option to claim costs on a renewals basis), rather than abolish it.

buglawton

I suspect that if you go back into history the 10% was set as a fair amount and a massive simplification compared to HMRC having to spot check or question hundreds of thousands of receipts.

Now we go backwards towards complication.

My policy will change as a result: Over time, put better quality white goods and furniture in, keep the BTL desirable (and saleable) and aim for higher rent with renewals. Also call in the repairman more often rather then taking the DIY option.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

buglawton wrote: »

I suspect that if you go back into history the 10% was set as a fair amount and a massive simplification compared to HMRC having to spot check or question hundreds of thousands of receipts.

Now we go backwards towards complication.

My policy will change as a result: Over time, put better quality white goods and furniture in, keep the BTL desirable (and saleable) and aim for higher rent with renewals. Also call in the repairman more often rather then taking the DIY option.

That's good news for tenants. It really is unfortunate that more people can't afford to buy, but that's supply and demand innit. Lots of people can't afford lots of things thats capitalism.

lisyloo

It's NOT good news for tenants - it's not free.
If you gave people the choice to pay more for better quality of less for lower quality then MOST people would go for the latter (see the success of uber, Ryanair etc.).

buglawton

Uber & Ryanair were able to generate a huge supply side of the equation via a mass market model. Not such opportunity with UK housing until the Planning Act is totally rewritten.

westernpromise

i think lisyloo's point is that if rents really were falling (which they're not, according to the ONS), then the response from landlords would be to offer lower quality property for the lower rent.

Electrum

Conrad wrote: »

Do we know whether HMO's are on the increase, as this could make rental figures appear lower?


And note there are plenty of non official HMO's out there, and often the Landlords insist on cash rentals only to avoid tax.

This is avery dangerous game, they will be found out eventually and have a huge tax bill to pay.

lisyloo

buglawton wrote: »

Uber & Ryanair were able to generate a huge supply side of the equation via a mass market model. Not such opportunity with UK housing until the Planning Act is totally rewritten.

I agree the supply side is not the same, that doesn't mean people don't have a choice.
I live in central London and I can tell you that I DO have choices. They may be constrained, but they exist.
The Ryanair/uber example shows you that if people have choices, in general most people prefer lower quality for a lower price.
You CAN choose lower price in London there are just compromises to be made elsewhere.

If landlord X put up his price with higher quality furnishings then renters can choose not to pay it. There will of course be a quid pro quo, but landlord X might have priced him/herself out of some tenants price range (and perhaps into others). That may be fine for the landlord but I can't see how it's good news for he tenants.