Angela Rayner is not living in the real world?

https://youtu.be/03atACHEWMk?si=hGiNNkp3CEtJHZyk

1. Stop being a social worker
2. do not supply white goods – let unfurnished.
3. let your insurance deal with the damage from upstairs and seek recompense from flat owner above
4. Issue S13’s to all tenants now increasing the rent to market rate.
5. research if there is a way of adding in the service charge to the rents either in existing contracts or as amendments to the existing.
6 consider selling – letting is only going to become more difficult and stressful if you don’t have the appetite/ability to be more business focussed.

You dont have a viable business. I’d suggest you sell up.

I interpret Jacqueline’s post differently. While most of us have room to make some more efficiencies and others could perhaps be a little more ‘business focused’, Jacqueline’s approach and experience represents that of a great many of us in the PRS, I would argue. But this is a type of landlording that is fast being relegated to the history books, not because of the free market, but because of targeted government meddling.
I still don’t know if Rayner et al have a cunning grand plan for this upheaval or are genuinely as dum as they come across; I tend to assume the former but then I hear her latest soundbite and begin to wonder again…

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 16/07/2025 – 11:23
I think whether Jacqueline’s business is viable or not depends upon whether Jacqueline’s portfolio is leveraged or not, or possibly on her lender’s mortgage terms.

If Jacqueline isn’t leveraged, or if her lender allows it, Jacqueline could lease all the ‘problem properties’ to Serco and let Serco deal with the tenants.

She can do this with a clear conscience because as Andy just said it’s not her fault that her traditional business model isn’t viable; it is, in Andy’s words, the effect of targeted government meddling.

Reply to the comment left by Andy at 16/07/2025 – 11:27
Could be a bit of both – cunning plan and naivety – sold by the big corps that they will provide after govt have decimated the entire PRS – maybe didnt read the small print that they would want to rent for high income – high rent payments from tenants who can afford it and high rent payments for asylum seekers from whatever govt dept pays for them That leaves low income UK citizen tenants – oh they fall through the massive hole in current thinking and planning. Do Rayner and rest of current govt care? Seems not.

Didnt Rayner benefit from right to buy back in the day? Alleged that not only did she do right to buy but her then partner did as well and she let out her house to a family member (brother has been stated in the media) while she lived in the partner’s right to buy property. A right to buy property cannot be let out to anyone else! If she did then not fit to be housing secretary (the irony) let alone deputy PM.

May I respectfully suggest to Jaqueline that she pursues the £12000 debt against each and every person on the AST. They are likley to be jointly and severally liable. Over I think m, £4 or 5 K debt and a CCJ Bankruptcy is the final stop.
That does have a bigger effect than a CCJ.

Reply to the comment left by A Reader at 16/07/2025 – 13:52
Angela Rayner did allegedly benefit from right to buy and she has always lived in a little bubble that does not relate to the world other people live in. So do a lot of labour politicians. They came to power then gave train drivers £70K per annum for a 4 day week without agreeing to any increases in productivity. Junior doctors also got a very big pay rise and just came back for more.

Similarly, earlier on this year the chief executive of South Cambridgeshire consulted on giving his staff the option of doing all their work in a 4 day week, but for 100% of their pay.

https://www.scambs.gov.uk/news/councils-four-day-week-public-consultation-begins

In theory, stuff like this can help to fudge the productivity figures if you live in the public sector bubble. But in reality the chances are that a lot of staff weren’t working that hard on a Friday. This really is public-sector-bubble stuff.

In the real world somebody has to pay for things like POITS day and in the end politicians like Angela Rayner expect that business will pay. So they increase employers’ NI and the minimum wage pretending that this will fix the hole they caused by over-paying public sector workers, and sure enough, that hits the private sector, especially small business, and the economy declines. Labour politicians don’t understand this because they don’t understand the economy.

When it comes to housing, if people like Angela Rayner hit the PRS via the Renters Reform Bill in a way that disproportionately disadvantages small portfolio landlords then this reduces the supply of housing, pushes increasing incorporatisation of the private rental market and drives rents up. Labour politicians don’t understand this because they don’t understand the rental market either.

And then there is a bunch of labour politicians that might understand a bit of it, but they don’t care, because they are still living in a 1970s Denis Healey bubble.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 16/07/2025 – 11:32
Whether leveraged or not, the numbers are just not there. The margins on each property only add up to anything serious if you have a large number of properties, which then increases the management costs (and headaches). Why bother when you can get better returns with a high interest bank account.