Rents Frozen In Scotland From Today

MovingForwards

Getting_greyer said:

AJRBADGER said:

k12479 said:

AJRBADGER said:

My main issue, I'm wanting to sell my flat, and that this government decision may effectively force me to continue being a landlord until the eviction ban is lifted... 

Stick it into an auction. Let properties with existing tenants are commonplace.

In doing that you are excluding so much of the market. It's a perfect flat for a single first time buyer.

The flat is worth about £55k, and well..... I probably want about £55k for it. £55k is a good bit below the inflation adjusted number I paid for it (£44k in 2007, then £4k changing from storage to central heating + £4k modernising and insulating it + £2k flooring the attic/cladding and plastering the beams to make it a usable - albeit inhabitable - space).

Putting it up for auction, I might be voluntarily giving away £10-20k as I'd only expect it to make £35-45k being sold tenanted (you almost never see tenanted properties being sold in my area, and advised not to sell it tenanted by estate agent quoting those valuations). I don't think it is realistic to ask somebody to potentially take that hit.

I don't think it's an attractive proposition as the tenant pays £275 a month, so would undoubtedly sell low at auction.

I guess depends upon if they're working but could you not like offer the tenant to buy at say 60k but offer to gift them 5% deposit and maybe bit towards legals. £3-4k, bit might mean you're free of the flat quicker.

Most lenders will only accept a gift from immediate family eg parents, siblings and grandparents.

Sarah1Mitty2

MisterMotivated said:

Even a short term, half-year "emergency" period of unpaid rent is going to run into several thousand pounds per household.  The vast majority of landlords (ideally all) should be able to withstand that sort of loss, but my point is that they shouldn't be forced into having to withstand it due to the government's half-baked ideas.  There are no proposals for a ban on having to pay their mortgages or carry out any necessary repairs/regulatory checks.

Similar happened during Covid, most landlords should have been alert for things like this.

Waunakee

Sarah1Mitty2 

Similar happened during Covid, most landlords should have been alert for things like this.

Are you actually a landlord?

Edenbridge

Waunakee said:

Sarah1Mitty2 

Similar happened during Covid, most landlords should have been alert for things like this.

Are you actually a landlord?

Judging by the nonsensical responses I’d hazard a guess at possibly not!

MisterMotivated

Sarah1Mitty2 said:

MisterMotivated said:

Even a short term, half-year "emergency" period of unpaid rent is going to run into several thousand pounds per household.  The vast majority of landlords (ideally all) should be able to withstand that sort of loss, but my point is that they shouldn't be forced into having to withstand it due to the government's half-baked ideas.  There are no proposals for a ban on having to pay their mortgages or carry out any necessary repairs/regulatory checks.

Similar happened during Covid, most landlords should have been alert for things like this.

Being alert to the possibily is irrelevant.  If the government bans landlords from taking the necessary steps to protect their businesses from racking up further losses due to non-paying tenants, then they should be setting aside funds to compensate said landlords for such losses.  However, I still think it's a ridiculous idea in the first place.  People at risk of eviction for other reasons will probably still be at risk in 6 months, along with many others when some landlords decide property letting is no longer a worthwhile endeavour due to these hare-brained policies

Sarah1Mitty2

Edenbridge said:

Waunakee said:

Sarah1Mitty2 

Similar happened during Covid, most landlords should have been alert for things like this.

Are you actually a landlord?

Judging by the nonsensical responses I’d hazard a guess at possibly not!

I`m assuming you are but were not alert to the possibilities?

Sarah1Mitty2

MisterMotivated said:

Sarah1Mitty2 said:

MisterMotivated said:

Even a short term, half-year "emergency" period of unpaid rent is going to run into several thousand pounds per household.  The vast majority of landlords (ideally all) should be able to withstand that sort of loss, but my point is that they shouldn't be forced into having to withstand it due to the government's half-baked ideas.  There are no proposals for a ban on having to pay their mortgages or carry out any necessary repairs/regulatory checks.

Similar happened during Covid, most landlords should have been alert for things like this.

Being alert to the possibily is irrelevant.  If the government bans landlords from taking the necessary steps to protect their businesses from racking up further losses due to non-paying tenants, then they should be setting aside funds to compensate said landlords for such losses.  However, I still think it's a ridiculous idea in the first place.  People at risk of eviction for other reasons will probably still be at risk in 6 months, along with many others when some landlords decide property letting is no longer a worthwhile endeavour due to these hare-brained policies

The properties don`t disappear, they get sold to someone meaning less tenants, an empty property is just as big a money pit as one with a bad tenant. As you said, people at risk of eviction were probably already at risk of eviction so this makes little difference.

MisterMotivated

The group of tenants you've focused on will still be removed from their homes against their will due to something that's entirely unnecessary, and will then have to compete with all the other tenants being evicted when the ban is lifted next year, driving up rents further.

On that note, rent increases across the board next year will be a sensible way for landlords to build up reserve funds to mitigate the risk of losses due to similar future hare-brained policies.

ProDave

Yes these seemingly "good for tenants" measures will, by the law of unintended consequences result in fewer properties available to rent and higher rents for all.  And probably more evictions early next year as more landlords choose to quit than would have happened otherwise.

Be careful what you wish for.

MobileSaver

Sarah1Mitty2 said:

MisterMotivated said:

Sarah1Mitty2 said:

MisterMotivated said:

Even a short term, half-year "emergency" period of unpaid rent is going to run into several thousand pounds per household.  The vast majority of landlords (ideally all) should be able to withstand that sort of loss, but my point is that they shouldn't be forced into having to withstand it due to the government's half-baked ideas.  There are no proposals for a ban on having to pay their mortgages or carry out any necessary repairs/regulatory checks.

Similar happened during Covid, most landlords should have been alert for things like this.

 along with many others when some landlords decide property letting is no longer a worthwhile endeavour due to these hare-brained policies

The properties don`t disappear, they get sold to someone meaning less tenants,

I'm not sure if there's a typo there or just a naive and/or misguided understanding of the property market.

The property doesn't disappear but in many cases the rental property will disappear, either because it is sold to an owner-occupier or the current owner simply keeps it as a second home or switches to AirBnb or similar. Either way it is no longer available to long term renters.

Similarly, except in the limited cases where the renter becomes the buyer, the number of tenants looking for a property stays the same.

What this means, as pointed out by @MisterMotivated, is that this knee-jerk vote-winning policy pretty much guarantees that a year from now renters will find it even harder and more expensive to find a home unless the government steps in to incentivise landlords so that they don't get out of the private rental market.