x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Tax (not rental reform) is real reason why landlords quit - claim

Whoever forms the next government must put the private rental sector at the heart of its housing policy.

That’s the view of one industry boss who specifically has called on politicians of all parties to have an urgent re-think on tax policy for landlords.

Daniel Evans, chair of the Association of Independent Inventory Clerks, claims it is the major reason why landlords are leaving the Private Rented Sector.

Advertisement

And he called for a U-turn on the recent tax rule changes which have rendered many landlord businesses unprofitable.

He says: “Landlords have been singled out and are now being hammered for tax. Every landlord is hit by other rising charges, like the cost of maintenance and repairs and the extra expense of new energy efficiency regulations, but it is the landlord tax policy which hurts them the most – no other business is taxed in this way.”

He makes his comments just as Labour announces a new face to take on the Shadow Housing Secretary role - the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner - in a sign that the issue has become increasingly important to the main parties ahead next year’s election.

Evans says the tax issue is now critical for future rental supply - mostly because of the unfairness of fiscal policies.

When landlords buy a property to rent they have to accept that under the current tax arrangements, they will be paying tax at every stage during the life of that investment.

The tax measures include, in England and Northern Ireland, an extra three per cent of Stamp Duty on any buy to let, no mortgage interest relief, and declining Capital Gains Tax personal allowances. Similar measures exist Wales and Scotland too.

Evans says: “Our senior politicians have to understand that the PRS is in crisis right now and it is a special case.

“There is a chronic undersupply of homes all over the UK and landlords continue to sell up which will only serve to make the situation worse for tenants.

“All they’re asking for is a level playing field on which to conduct their business. That can’t be too much to ask, can it?”

Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.

  • Fed Up Landlord

    May as well ask for a place on the next trip to the moon. Neither two major parties are big landlord fans and to be perceived to be seen giving LLs a " tax" break by rescinding Section 24 is a vote loser.

  • James B

    They will do the opposite and give landlords a harder kicking to show them tenants who’s side they are on

    icon
    • A JR
    • 06 September 2023 07:25 AM

    Far fewer rental homes and rocketing rents , is clearly NOT what tenants will vote for.

     
    icon

    But most don't realise that's what they're voting for...... until it's too late.

    The penny hasn't even dropped yet in Scotland despite mutually beneficial fixed term tenancies being outlawed nearly 6 years ago and 3 years of rent freezes followed by ludicrously low rent increases limited to 3%.

    Despite families now finding it almost impossible to find good rental accommodation and many former student rentals now full time short term rentals, no one, other than landlords, is blaming the SNP "reforms".

     
  • icon

    Tax would not be the reason that I quit - it would be the loss of Section 21. I am paying a great deal of tax and it would be nice if it were a lower amount, but the ability to retain control of my property is definitely my top priority.

    icon
    • A JR
    • 06 September 2023 07:28 AM

    100% agree. It is the creeping control of the state we should fear most.
    I am getting out whilst I still can.

     
  • icon

    Picking one reason why we are selling up is akin to picking one reason why the Titanic sank 🚢. They are all reasonable arguments as to why landlords have decided to call it a day 🤷‍♂️🤔💰🎉

  • icon

    Won’t be changing I’m afraid.
    This corrupt government have squandered so much money they need to go after any soft target eg landlords.
    Plus they want landlords out, and to sell their places to ‘generation rent’ to make the tenants into Tory voters

  • icon

    No don’t agree THE RENTAL REGORM BILL is the real reason above all else.
    I agree tax is a massive unfair burden on Private Landlords especially when we are singled out and it don’t apply to others carrying out the very same Business.
    It’s so blatant, discriminatory and plain wrong to drive us out of the market for the big boy to take over.
    Look around you hundreds of thousands of Flats going up to replace us by people who were never in Business because internet technology destroyed their own Business and looking for alternative so grab ours with unfair competition.
    Even a Cabinet member was able to buy 7 Flats in Southampton no Section 24 for him, didn’t declare his interest to Parliament until pressure put on.
    That said without Section 21 it’s still not a Business, even if tax was 98% like the pop stars that had to leave in the 1960’s, not viable to purchase a property and hand over all rights to the Occupants.
    Of Course you couldn’t care less about the Tenants that clear enough you have driven up their Rents 20 / 30%., you are using them as pawns its corruption and a disgraceful to run Parliament.

    icon

    Spot on Michael! Very good summary of all the issues.

     
  • icon

    Don't forget EPC C. With the energy bill going through Parliament last night this may be about to rear its ugly head again!

    icon

    Very important point Tricia!

     
  • Peter  Roberts

    Whichever Government are in power over the next years. They are all, unless they change the way they are treating LLs, will have massive and I mean MASSIVE issues coming down the line and it’s well and truly started.
    We PRS LLs have been the ones who have kept rental markets alive.
    No longer though, we’ve had enough of the constant interference and ever increasing forms of taxation.
    Mainstream TV are all realising just what an issue is rolling headlong down the road at them with the housing crisis moving faster and faster.

    Government and Councils have not got anywhere near the amount of properties that are needed NOW and in the future.
    The amount of families that had a home for them and their children are now being left in single cheap hotel rooms.
    Social Housing is nothing but a joke. There is non.
    Government and Councils, you either make drastic changes to your draconian treatment of LLs NOW or you suffer the consequences of ever increasing homeless families camping out in the Council Offices demanding to be housed.
    It’s not the LLs fault, we looked after our tenants very well.
    Simple equation that even the thickest Government or Councils should be able to work out.
    PRS LLs selling up = Many Many fewer rental properties = More Accommodation that Gs & Cs need to find for Homeless Families.

    icon

    What they also fail to appreciate is the fix (reverse gear) will actually need to be a lot more extreme than the negative measures that have taken place so far. Let me elaborate.
    I buy a house in 2010 for £200k. I have a fairly conservative (60% LTV) BTL mortgage on it, but with the last 8 years of fiddling I'm now an artificial 40% taxpayer (thanks Osborne!) and the higher rate of interest, red tape, licencing etc has made it uneconomical so I sell it for £400k and cash out. So, if I can't make it work with my £200k house, can anyone make it work with a £400k house? Nope! Reverse S24 and all the red tape? Still struggling to make it work. It's taken 25 years for the PRS to get where it is and it's real strength lies in the underlying values that we all hold. Destroy that and it'll take a lot more than 25 years to rebuild.
    As Jo argues on a regular basis, the crazy punitive measures need to be reversed immediately AND we need to reintroduce taper relief back into the equation to really encourage landlords to stay in the business. They also need to make it easier to pass property down through the generations to encourage the next generation of private accommodation providers .... because that's what we really do!

     
    icon

    Grumpy Doug makes a good point about the next generation.
    I started buying jointly with one of my sons back in 2015 as he wanted to be a landlord and the horrific CGT meant I needed an alternative retirement plan. The idea was for him to gradually build his own portfolio initially by owning small bits of any new properties I bought. Then when I get too old and crumbly for him to take over more of the hands on stuff. Back in 2015 it seemed like a good idea. It was unlikely he would be a higher rate tax payer so the loss of Child Benefit didn't occur to us, the extra 3% SDLT hadn't been introduced and Section 24 hadn't been invented. Now he has been absolutely screwed with all the tax changes.

    His wife decided she wanted a divorce last year when he had a cardiac arrest a few hours after his COVID booster. That solved the Child Benefit hit but meant potential issues with the 3% SDLT surcharge. They had been renting one of my unencumbered houses, which I was part way through gifting to him as part of my IHT planning. In order for her to have an affordable home and him to be able to buy somewhere suitable for the kids to live with him half the week I finished up buying back the lump of house I had gifted to him (so he had sold his main residence and could qualify for standard SDLT on his new home). Part owning 4 of my properties made getting a mortgage incredibly difficult for him as lenders tended to look at 100% of the expenses and only his % of the income. Obviously it would have been more sensible for him to keep the family home and her to rent somewhere else but a lack of available rentals for part time nurses on UC anywhere within about a 50 mile radius made that a bit of a non starter.
    So my IHT planning has been decimated, my other two sons have missed out on the pre inheritance they were supposed to be getting, the government have received a small amount of CGT and SDLT (complete with 3% surcharge) on the gifted/bought back slice of house, the solicitors have done very nicely, the grandchildren have suitable homes with both parents, I have an ex daughter in law as a tenant.

    So basically a whole string of events that illustrate why owning BTLs has all sorts of potential unintended consequences for young landlords and how trying to help adult children can be very expensive and messy for older landlords. Obviously it's much easier for incorporated landlords to just hand out shares to the next generation.

     
    icon

    So sorry to hear about your son, Jo. I hope he received the vaccine damage payment if he were left with a disability.

     
    icon

    Ellie - thanks for your concern. He had a pacemaker fitted and then removed about 9 months later. Initially doctors were adamant there was no link to the booster, later they were less certain. Anyway he's fine now. He wasn't entitled to any compensation and as a self employed person only got the bare minimum £96 a week sick pay, which was pretty rubbish and meant he went back to work far too soon.

     
    icon

    So pleased that your son is better now, Jo - that is most important, of course. I just wondered if he might have been eligibie for the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) which provides a one-off tax free payment of £120,000 for people left with a disability. What happened to him was extremely serious. It is obviously difficult when medical personnel want to deny any link with the vaccine. The amount of money he received was tiny - most unfair!

     
  • icon

    No business is 100% hassle free and most businesses are legislated in some way. But also just like other businesses if there isn’t a profit at the end it tends not to be pursued. This ridiculous tax is the sole reason I’m leaving the sector, absolutely no doubt, and in the end I’m pretty certain that’s the case for most .. ultimately we all have our price.

  • icon

    It’s not just tax - for every landlord it comes down to risk vs reward. Taxation has significantly reduced the reward (made it negative in many cases). But you can’t ignore the other side of the equation - rental reform which attacks both sides of this. There will be added costs, and the risk will significantly increase as it becomes very difficult to evict bad tenants. Additionally the courts are going to get so badly clogged up with these cases the time taken to evict will only increase and it’s ludicrously drawn out as it is.

    The only thing that will save the sector is when the government realises it needs to attract more landlords and will start to ask - what do we need to do? At that point, reversing the tax changes won’t be enough. And should a competent politician come along that genuinely wants to improve things (it’s difficult to imagine I know) then they may try to reverse some of the renters reform bill but they’ll have the none stop bullying and harassment from the activists to deal with and probably wouldn’t stick the job out anyway.

    icon

    We already have the issues with rental reform here in Wales.
    I am having to spend out on wired linked wireless smoke alarms and upgrades to the existing electrics to make them compliant, even with the ones that I have electrical certificates for.
    Also, I have had to convert the AST's to these ludicrously overcomplicated contracts of over 40 pages in length.
    It is all adding considerably to my costs and coupled with the regulations allowing us to raise the rent only once a year, my tenants are going to get a shock when I have to put them up next year.

    I have tried to sell property without result due to the cost of living crisis and the government have greatly reduced our CGT allowance.
    So there 'you have it in nutshell'. Everywhere I turn I am well and truly shafted.

     
  • icon

    Dominic, no Business is hassle free and we have had so much hassle we are almost immune.
    Which other Business has two sets of rules for people carrying out the very same Business.

  • icon

    Another reason that landlords will quit is that the return from a savings account could well be significantly higher than the rent being received now. There is no hassle and no criminalisation attached to having a savings account.

    In the past, the fact that the capital value of properties would increase was a factor in favour of hanging on to rental property. However, with sitting tenants (and that is what we could well have in the future) the capital value will plummet - even money in a savings account, albeit depreciating in value, would be a better bet.

    icon

    Yes Ellie, the future is is very frightening.

     
  • icon

    Unfortunately, none of the politicians seem able to identify future issues and plan effectively.in advance! They all seem to adopt the "kneejerk reaction" technique! It's like Peter plugging the (am not allowed to use the water defence he stopped up, begins with a "d" and rhymes with "like" 🙄) with his finger, for goodness' sake...just look at all the national issues ..no, crises...on the news...with absolutely no plans in.place.
    The only plan they seem to come up.with is: tax them, fine them, punish them in order to fill their coffers, which,through their ineptidude, seem to resemble sieves!
    Landlords and drivers = easy pickings and I absolutely despair about not just our current situation, but the country and future generations in general. Sorry to be such doom and gloom folks!

    icon

    They have failed to realise, too, that the majority of landlords are elderly - and paying substantial tax. If we leave, then the money in the kitty for the state pension for everyone will be affected.

     
    icon

    Most landlords have a chronological age less than my 73 years, so I can't agree most landlords are elderly - perhaps late middle age but certainly not elderly.

     
    icon

    I suppose it depends on how you define "elderly" Robert. I am afraid most people think being elderly starts a long time before age 73.

    According to a 2020 survey of 2,000 Americans conducted by Let’s Get Checked, 57 is commonly thought of as “officially old.”

    According to a 2021 Harris Poll younger millennials consider median middle age to be between 35 and 50 years old. That’s a contrast to Generation X’s perception of middle age — 45 to 55 years old

    HuffPost reports on a study that says “the average person believes youth ends at 35 and old age begins at 58. Therefore, the years in between — all 23 of them — constitute middle age.

    It is probably more important to consider health. The degree of atherosclerosis is a determinant/risk factor for stroke and heart attack. After 45 men tend to have plaque build up. In women it occurs after the age of 55. The plaques can break off and stop blood flow to your heart, brain or legs.

    About two thirds of landlords are aged over 55 and are responsible for 68% of tenancies - more than half of those people are aged over 65.

     
  • icon

    The main reason that I'm quitting is the abolishment of Section 21. I would never serve a Section 21 on good, rent-paying tenants. Its the ones that don't pay their rent and wreck the property that need to go. Its my property and I decide who lives there.

    icon

    That would be a Section 8, which is supposedly getting strengthened.

     
    icon

    Sec 8 getting strengthened ?? I'll believe that one when I see it, can't see that happening, sec 21 was atleast a certain eviction which is why we used it over sac 8

     
  • icon

    I am scared to death of the Reform Bill. That's my Nr 1 reason by far. I can pay down my mortgage if I want. But I fear not getting the properties back so I won't even do that...

    icon

    Me too

     
  • icon

    When I rented my first house the rent didn't cover the interest payments but I accepted this as I was in it for the long run. My biggest issue is the steady increase in CGT. upto the 90s we had taper relief so your gain was only the true gain. Eg buy a £100k property and sell 10 years later for £200 k. Your tax liability was only for the increase over RPI/CPI. So if £100k was now worth £150k due to inflation your tax liability was for £50k. The demise of the CGT allowance has made this worse.

    With inflation touching double digits, you could find yourself in the situation that your £200k is worth less than the £100k 10 years ago but still have a £100k tax liability.

  • icon

    Try an extra 6% in Scotland when you buy a second property! Watch what you wish for

  • icon

    Absolutely correct. There is simply no reason to invest in property when you can, on an annual basis, get a better return on a savings account. There's tax to buy, and tax to sell and no rights to offset your business costs. Unless you are in it it for a very long time, where you would now set up a ltd company I guess it's almost pointless. Landlords like me are simply taking our capital out and putting it in banks which is exactly the opposite of what the country needs i.e. capital to be actively deployed to help inspire economic growth. The lack of joined up thinking by government is astounding. It almost feels like inverse politics of envy by those 'who already have and have had for a long time' against those who 'could have' or at least 'could do better' given a level playing field. That or corruption, I just don't know any more, just waiting for the next iteration of the wealth tax debate.

    icon

    You are so right Andy; all policies seem to promote liquidation of assets, and none promotes investment.

     
  • icon

    I agree the Tax is my biggest headache followed by Mortgage, my oldest investment property that I purchased back in 2007 has seen the mortgage repayment. My rental income is £525 pcm from a disabled tenant, he has been there for the last 10 years , mortgage now £550pcm so after agents fees, VAT and self assessment tax @ 40%, I am losing in the region of £200 per month. The governments have to realise we are business people, not charities. PS, I have a conscience so the tenant is remaining.

    icon

    Terry - those figures are horrendous.
    I fully understand looking after vulnerable tenants and was guilty of not increasing rents sensibly for a long time myself but running at a loss of that magnitude is unsustainable.
    Is the tenant working and self funding or benefit funded? Is he on straight UC or a higher disability rate? Straight UC for a single person is dire, some of the disability rates are somewhat better.
    Even Social rents increased 7% this year so in my opinion a benefit assisted tenant should be able to get a DHP for at least a 7% increase. Each Council will vary but my theory was that if they were increasing their rents by 7% they could hardly argue if we did the same, especially if we were only charging LHA levels in the first place.
    It may be worth a phone call to your Council to see what's on offer. What would happen to him if you decided to sell? Would suitable alternative housing be available? Are there any financial incentives or discretionary payments that would enable you to at least break even? You may find they are extremely keen to do whatever it takes for you not to sell, especially as he is already living in a building that is suitable for his disabilities. If you don't ask you won't get.

     
  • icon

    Thanks Jo,
    I will look into it, it would be great to cover costs, the rent has slowly increased over the years and luckily as it's a flat repairs have not been to bad. As you point out if he had to move, where would he go and how would it be paid for. Now on a positive note, he was awarded a heating grant about 5 years ago, so the flat now benefits from an air source heat pump, so he is doing his best to keep maintenance low. Unfortunately due to his health he cannot work, I have never enquired how his benefits are paid, but he does not have much disposable benefits.

    icon

    Worth checking LHA in your area (just google it). If LHA is £600 but your rent is £550 they will only pay the £550 so you may be able to put the rent up without hurting the tenant! Seeing as you are doing them such a favour, might be worth going through a benefits calculator with them to see how increasing the rent affects the benefits. You should not be subsidising a tenant!

     
  • icon

    Jo, So Sorry you had to cope with all this but I’m sure you don’t need my sympathy you are as tough as they come.
    It goes to show life throws up more than enough problems for us. I suspect everyone has their own issues from all walks of life. The Government is oblivious to all this and think we are living the high life, so we could do without them hassling us at every opportunity.

  • icon

    Being Self Employed makes you entitled to nothing.
    As I found from doing Jury Service on 3 different periods.
    A couple were significant cases taking days, anyway I only got about £60. for the lot, one explanation I was given was laughable they said because I was Self employed what I didn’t do because I was at Court I could do it next day. Hello are those people for real obviously if I loose a day the income is lost for that day. I suppose I could have got out of it and not go at all but curiosity got the better of me I wanted to to see how it all worked.

  • icon

    As with any investment, there is a tipping point where it is more profitable to transfer capital from the rental housing sector into more lucrative investments.

    The private landlord exodus has begun, be it less than 10% at present, but the sentiment indicates 70% or more landlords will sell should mortgage rates increase and the Reform Bill be enacted in its present form. A simple NS&I account at 6.2% give a good example of an alternative without strings.

    This puts the Government, which has frozen housing allowance, in a precarious position of being unable to force the private rental sector into subsidising their social housing programme and leaving their only option of introducing rental capping. Rent capping will, in turn, only increase the exodus of private landlords.

    The problem then arises is the legal obligation of Councils to house homelessness that financially they are increasingly unable to do. Homelessness will therefore increase relative to the the decline of PRS as will the Councils costs for abiding by their own strict regulative improvements of housing stock will only exacerbate what is already a dire situation for Mr Gove MP. An MP seen by many as providing multiple faces to housing stakeholders.

    Had the government staggered the introduction of their policies over, say ten years, it may not have caused this PRS exodus and impending homelessness and housing chaos.

    Yes, of course one can continue to regulate and regulate as per the housing charities wishes but the point comes, if it hasn't already, is landlords will not continue into the future anymore than the companies will buy into green wind farms auctions to make life cheaper for the government! To think that the PRS sector will sell on to other PRS landlords is also wishful thinking.

  • icon

    Just when you think it couldn't get any worse , the hate laws get even more vicious even when they have every demand met by the government it is still not enough for the gangs, what can we expect next well confiscation of our properties while landlords and their children are shipped off to cosy camps where we are concentrated together behind barbed wire fences
    I am accepting bets on how many months it will be before the housing charities demand this is done

icon

Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up