The mystery as to why so many MPs appear anti-landlord deepens with the news that at least 17 per cent of MPs are landlords themselves.
That 17 per cent adds up to 113 MPs who generate “significant” rental income of more than £10,000 annually, according to research from an anti-corruption campaign group Transparency International UK.
Researchers calculated the collective rental income would be £2.6m per year, based on what they called “conservative estimates” with the actual figure possibly being much higher.
Meanwhile, almost 40 percent of parliamentarians (212 MPs and 321 members of the House of Lords) have a registered interest in property, with 1,325 property interests registered in the UK, including at least 820 physical residential and commercial assets.
Transparency International UK defines such an interest as owning land assets, or working for or owning a property-related company.
The research also found that 43 MPs have some form of interest in property companies or business, such as shareholdings or directorships; 19 of these MPs are directly employed by a property-related business.
The figures suggest that MPs are three times more likely to own more than one residential property than the wider general public.
Daniel Bruce, chief executive of Transparency International UK, says this shows the “disproportionate presence of property interests” in domestic politics.
“With parliamentarians far more likely to own second homes than the general population, it’s reasonable to question how representative their experience is of the housing crisis and whether this has some bearing on the political appetite for change.”
Bruce also called for greater transparency over parliamentarians’ financial affairs, with an urgent need to make records available digitally.
Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
/SadiqKhan-4-400x310.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Because they're 'following orders' and they're total hypocrites
Yes George,
Unfortunately, ambition is blinding them to the big picture.
They earn enough to counteract any effects.
Does the wider public mean any adult old enough to vote?
MPs tend to be middle aged. They were around at the golden age of BTL when just about anyone could get a BTL mortgage. In the early 2000s huge numbers of self employed people bought BTLs and there was the middle class dinner party brigade. The fact they are MPs kind of demonstrates they've put themselves in the higher achievers catagory so would be more likely than the wider public to invest in property. It's mystifying why they come out with quite so many harmful policies regarding the whole housing market with their vast experience of property ownership.
Help to Buy - caused price rises.
Stamp Duty holiday - caused massive price rises and overwhelmed conveyancing system.
Section 24 - caused rent increases.
Extra 3% SDLT for additional properties - caused rent increases due to decreased supply of rental properties.
EPCs - will lose thousands of perfectly good, well located houses from the rental market and cause rent increases.
Eviction ban - terrified landlords and caused far more than usual to sell at the earliest opportunity.
83% are NOT landlords, and anti-landlord policies are popular with the majority of voters.
Mark - why do you think anti landlord policies are popular with the majority of voters? How are you quantifying MAJORITY? Do you really just mean a few hundred very loud activists?
Most people will rent accomodation at some point. While they are at university, when they move to a new city to start a new job, when they first live with a new partner, when their house needs major renovation, between selling one house and buying another, when their marriage breaks up, etc. Some will choose to rent because the benefit system supports tenants and not homeowners.
Access to rental property is vital for a flexible, mobile workforce.
On the whole the relationship between landlords and tenants is very positive. Haven't we recently seen surveys that shows close to 90% of tenants are happy with their landlord and home?
Surely it doesn't take a MENSA candidate to see that every time policies are introduced that increase taxes or expenses for landlords rents will increase at the earliest opportunity. Often in advance of the additional cost being incurred.
I guess that’s because the majority of the great British public have the intellectual capabilities of a bowl of custard
Minus the bowl
👍
Jo, well Summarised. George behave yourself.
Landlords have to accept we are the cash cows, easy pickings 5, 10, 30k penalty at the drop of a hat no problem.
Different for others like Brent Council have written off £400k un collected debts whether businesses rates, over payment of Benefits etc, last year written off £2m in historical debts not collected but not private Landlords we are hit wrongly with a sledgehammer.
With council tenants running up big debts l know no way to find out about it. They used to write it off and consequently did not pursue it after a year so the tenant appears to have a clean sheet, and can invoke the same thing again.
Yes this is exactly what happens with Norwich City Council, when I stuck my nose in a few years ago I was told '' it's not council policy to take council tenants to court for unpaid rent''.
Just looking at Auction list for later this month, 5 bed Semi Detached, well located for all amenities Central Chichester, guide Price £285k Regulated Tenancy, income £8’320 pa, take note removal of Section 21 is Regulated Tenancies going backwards to pre-Assured Shorthold Tenancies, time to wake up and lobby your Member of Parliament.
Come on Michael no amount of lobbying of MPs is going to make any difference, it's happening, we either live with it or we evict all tenants now and sell
Do we know if any of the candidates for Prime Minister would be likely to ditch the proposed rental reforms?
Alternatively, are the "reforms" going to be delayed because of the change of Prime Minister?
What about letting outside the proposed reforms? Company tenancies? Lets to local authorities? Serviced flats?
Andrew I know writing to MP is pretty much waste of time and have done plenty in the past but what options have we got.
They know selling is is not viable for higher rate tax payers, for a start they are going to take 28% C/gains + your costs, (+ they’ll have a pot of SDLT from buyer as well ) not withstanding you already paid tax on the money you purchase with, then what ? a third of your money has disappeared. What are you going to do now with the Balance, you are not allowed to give it away say to your children and definitely not to grand Children without further huge tax complications and liabilities. Leaving the rest in a Will they will take another 40% of the Balance IHT. The £325k threshold hasn’t risen in years and anyway those Schemes are not worth a carrot to a Portfolio holder. When your Estate goes over £2m for every £2. they take a £1. So you end up with no allowance.
Ellie I have used Company Let’s in the past before the 1988 Act, limited option not enough to go around if too many jump, it was ok at the time I had some strong Blue Chip Companies, wouldn’t put much hope on it now with Computerisation.
Inheritance tax can be very burdensome! You have to get such a large sum of money together.
You are right about the shortage of company lets.
Property comes back in a bad state when let to local authorities - ironic with all the licensing requirements being imposed on us.
My father let as serviced flats and holiday flats, but now there may be complications attached to doing that.
Please login to comment