Right to buy on privately rented homes

MobileSaver

The-Joker wrote: »

How would you feel if the law says you are forced to sell these properties to your tenants for greatly reduced values and you have to take the loss yourself?

Since such a law would only exist in some alcohol induced fantasy world you'd probably feel pretty good overall.

Cakeguts

The-Joker wrote: »

How would you feel if the law says you are forced to sell these properties to your tenants for greatly reduced values and you have to take the loss yourself?

It won't because if Labour win an election I am going to cease to be a landlord. I am also going to cease to be a landlord if section 21 is removed and that is someone with long standing tenants and long tenancies and I won't be the only one. So in order to get the votes of a minority of people who get a section 21 without being told about the fault that they have made lots of other tenants are going to lose their homes.


There are a lot of tenants who will claim that they have been given a section 21 for no reason when in fact what they really mean is that they were not told the reason.



We have had tenants who were consistently late with the rent just after Christmas. So rent as normal up to December and then part payment in January and made up in February and March That is a fault.



Rent arrears is a fault


Moving in your wife who you have seperated from who is not on the tenancy agreement and who then tries to claim housing benefit is housing benefit fraud. (Luckily the local council realised what was going on and refused the claim)


Having loud parties and playing loud music so that it disturbs the neighbours is a fault.



Adding lights without permission and so adding wiring to the property is a fault.



Destroying a perfectly good garden shed without permission is a fault.



I am sure there are lots of other things that people do which are all faults and that can cause safety issues in the properties or pay rent late or try to change rent payment dates etc these are all faults.


If you sign a legal document to say that you will pay rent on a certain date you cannot then decide to change the date. Some landlords will allow you to. We do but they don't have to.

The-Joker

Cakeguts wrote: »

It won't because if Labour win an election I am going to cease to be a landlord. I am also going to cease to be a landlord if section 21 is removed and that is someone with long standing tenants and long tenancies and I won't be the only one. So in order to get the votes of a minority of people who get a section 21 without being told about the fault that they have made lots of other tenants are going to lose their homes.


There are a lot of tenants who will claim that they have been given a section 21 for no reason when in fact what they really mean is that they were not told the reason.



We have had tenants who were consistently late with the rent just after Christmas. So rent as normal up to December and then part payment in January and made up in February and March That is a fault.



Rent arrears is a fault


Moving in your wife who you have seperated from who is not on the tenancy agreement and who then tries to claim housing benefit is housing benefit fraud. (Luckily the local council realised what was going on and refused the claim)


Having loud parties and playing loud music so that it disturbs the neighbours is a fault.



Adding lights without permission and so adding wiring to the property is a fault.



Destroying a perfectly good garden shed without permission is a fault.



I am sure there are lots of other things that people do which are all faults and that can cause safety issues in the properties or pay rent late or try to change rent payment dates etc these are all faults.


If you sign a legal document to say that you will pay rent on a certain date you cannot then decide to change the date. Some landlords will allow you to. We do but they don't have to.

Everything you say should put off an new LLs or life:rotfl::rotfl:

Sailtheworld

Cakeguts wrote: »

It won't because if Labour win an election I am going to cease to be a landlord.

The Tories have hardly been landlord friendly over the last few years.

The number of renters has doubled in the last 20 years and their votes are valuable. BTL is on the hitlist whoever wins the next election.

chucknorris

Sailtheworld wrote: »

The Tories have hardly been landlord friendly over the last few years.

The number of renters has doubled in the last 20 years and their votes are valuable. BTL is on the hitlist whoever wins the next election.

He won't care, I have the impression that he has (like me) been a landlord for a long time, he has already made more than a decent profit. Some on here seem to think that landlords feel compelled to argue that investment property is always the best investment. It was, and now it probably isn't, which is why I now have more invested in equities.

Cakeguts

chucknorris wrote: »

He won't care, I have the impression that he has (like me) been a landlord for a long time, he has already made more than a decent profit. Some on here seem to think that landlords feel compelled to argue that investment property is always the best investment. It was, and now it probably isn't, which is why I now have more invested in equities.

Correct. I don't care. I have been a landlord since 1990 however I am getting too old now to bother with all these changes so that politicians can keep their jobs. They don't care about tenants or landlords they only care about their jobs and being elected again.



The job is being a landlord not a means to keep a policitian in their chosen profession. If they want to buy votes they can do it without causing me to have to give up something which I would have to do if I carried on being a landlord without the benefit of S21.



As a landlord you might only use S21 as we have on a very few occasions but having it available if needed takes a lot of the stress out of being a landlord because if you do get a problem tenant you can get evict them quite quickly. Without section 21 this is going to be a much more drawn out situation.



The point about section 21 is that the number of people who are evicted using this method who are not at fault in some way is so small that there are going to be far more people inconvenienced when it is removed than ever were with it in place. Plus someone who is at fault is never going to admit to it so no one actually knows how small the number of real no fault evictions there have been. The only reason to abolish section 21 is to buy votes at the expense of landlords and I really can't be bothered to work in a business where the regulations can be changed on a whim to suit one person who wants to keep their job and their income.


When I became aware of the section 21 situation I emailed our letting agents who manage a lot of property and they just said that in all the time, years and years they had been managing private rental property they had never had a no fault section 21 There had always been some sort of tenant fault. Of course the tenant may not have been told that they were being evicted because of what they had been doing that they shouldn't have been doing but that is different from no fault. Not being told why they are being evicted is not the same as no fault. But the politicians don't care anyway. They aren't doing this to help tenants and they aren't doing it to inconvenience landlords. They are doing it purely for selfish reasons to keep their jobs.



I find it hard to think of any other business where politicians can change the regulations of that business on a whim with no benefit to any of the parties involved except being to the benefit of the politician.



It is already possible to see which way the private rented market will go because rents are rising due to there already being a shortage of properties and I am sure that that will make no difference they will still abolish section 21 which will show that they are not doing this for the benefit of tenants.



I am still not sure that tenants realise that if section 21 is abolished it will become a lot more difficult for them to rent a well maintained property in a nice area. No one is going to let a nice property in an expensive area if they think that there is the least chance that someone will get security of tenure of it. People will leave their properties vacant instead or sell them.



Once a decent property in a nice area has been removed from the rental market it won't be returned to it because of section 24 and the mortgage interest relief. So once they have been sold off that will be it.




It will be interesting to see what happens when the whole situation backfires and rents rise. It won't bother me because I won't be a landlord in the UK anymore. Might hold onto the ones in an EU country because the politicians there don't interfere in this way and the return on capital is just as good as the UK.



I think the worst thing about the whole situation is that many good landlords will sell up and many tenants don't realise that this isn't going to make it easier for them to rent a nice property it is going to make it harder for them to find anything at all especially if they are relying on any kind of benefit to pay the rent. All tenants will find it more difficult to find somewhere to rent. However all the information from the politicians has implied that it will help tenants but I can't see how that can possibly be true if it reduces the number of rental properties available and increases rents. The only people it will help are the politicians who have decided to do this "because it seemed a good idea at the time."

Sailtheworld

chucknorris wrote: »

He won't care, I have the impression that he has (like me) been a landlord for a long time, he has already made more than a decent profit. Some on here seem to think that landlords feel compelled to argue that investment property is always the best investment. It was, and now it probably isn't, which is why I now have more invested in equities.

He sounds pretty cheesed off about it to be honest.

A long way from your more relaxed position of it's been a good run while it lasted.

Sailtheworld

Cakeguts wrote: »

I find it hard to think of any other business where politicians can change the regulations of that business on a whim with no benefit to any of the parties involved except being to the benefit of the politician.

Unless someone is mad enough to get into BTL right now your house(s) will soon be purchased by an owner occupier. They make better neighbours so society benefits. It's not as if some poor benefits claimant is going to be thrown out on the street because you sell up - you don't accept them as tenants.

There's a benefit to you too - owner occupiers are more likely to vote Tory.

Cakeguts

Sailtheworld wrote: »

He sounds pretty cheesed off about it to be honest.

A long way from your more relaxed position of it's been a good run while it lasted.

I am not cheesed off. When I post things on here I try to cover all the problems so that someone else can read it and have a bit of a think.


This morning when I got up I realised I had missed a bit out.



I seem to remember that along with abolishing section 21 there was mention of no rent controls. However if you are only allowed to raise the rent as much as the governments imaginary national inflation figure that doesn't take into account that costs might increase more in some areas than others after about 1 year you could be making a loss. So the rent controls are actually built into the new agreements. Bet the politicians didn't think people would notice that?


Anyone considering getting into Buy to Let at the moment will need to buy the cheapest house in the cheapest area for cash. There is no point in getting a Buy to Let mortgage because you are not going to be able to raise the rent in line with your costs so you don't want to risk an interest rate rise on your mortgage.



Rented housing in this area for example is going to be all these. https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-74212369.html



https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-74098909.html


Have a look at the kitchen. https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-36645805.html


How do I know that all the rental property will be these? It is because that is all there was available to rent in that area before 1988. Politicians have got short memories/ don't take any notice of anything that they are told that goes against their wish to keep their job at the expense of everyone else. I remember these rental properties because I became a landlord after 1988 when the assured shorthold tenancy was introduced. Before that you would have had to have been mad to buy a decent property in a nice area as a rental so they were all in bad run down areas and cheap.



There were none of these.



https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-63933972.html




https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-73927261.html


What will happen when the landlords of the better properties sell them is that people who want to live in that better area will move from somewhere else to buy them. So they will all be owner occupied and not available to rent.



The biggest problem will be in the South East because there is now a possibility that there will no longer be any family sized properties available to rent because of the cost of buying them and the rent control aspect. The market will probably only be 2 bed, 1bed and studios in the private rented market. Or Build to Rent properties that are also only marketed at young working people.



Where the big mistake in all of this has been made is assumption that landlords will want to continue to be landlords when they can't make a profit and when they lose control of their properties because of the lack of S21 and the longer time taking a tenant to court. Knowing what I know about the Rent Acts I can't cope with the stress that not being able to evict a tenant using S21 for a fault that they have decided they can get away with because it isn't covered by a mandatory ground in S8. There are many landlords who are retired and using the rents to top up their pensions. They will all remember the Rent Acts but those landlords that don't would be well advised to do some research so they are prepared for what is coming and can act accordingly.

Sailtheworld

Cakeguts wrote: »

Anyone considering getting into Buy to Let at the moment will need to buy the cheapest house in the cheapest area for cash.

Based on what you've been saying why would anyone be considering getting into BTL at the moment when this government (possibly inadvertently), or a Labour government (definitely on purpose) are intent on destroying it.