Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Apologies guys. Trying to unsubscribe from the hundreds of email notifications before I go on holiday and although I untick the boxes at the bottom after adding a comment and then updating my profile it isn’t stopping.

Sorry but I think this is a mistake and I have asked Ruhal to retain his petition.

The proposed new wording is too emotive and if you try to garner support by relating it to tenants I think it will backfire even if it’s true.

We should not be ashamed to be landlords and to put our own cause forward. This tax change is wrong for many reasons and Ruhal’s petition stated a simple fact.

I’d also add its garnered nearly 1000 signatures and I’ve had loads of sign ups tonight and loads of Favebook shares.

Let’s not dilute this.

See the link at the bottom of your email notifications.

When you post another comment again you will start receiving comment notifications again and will need to repeat the process.

Hope that helps and have a good holiday.
.

Personally, I don’t think a few thousand signatures would even matter that much. This must be kept in perspective. We are aiming a lot higher than that. Ruhal is speaking to them tomorrow and has also emailed and so have I – but their office hours start at 10am and they are slow to respond.
We are bound to face obstacles all along this process. The challenge is to deal with these positively, keep our eye on the target, not be sidetracked and not compromise unnecessarily. I would hope that the negative comments will stop now. As I said I believe Mark is having some well-earned time off this evening. Can we stay positive and focused in his absence.

Reply to the comment left by “BTL INVESTOR SCOTLAND” at “29/07/2015 – 20:46“:

A few pages back you said …

“The Dave and Margaret example is not great as a 0.75% increase in interest rates wipes out their £50,000 profit. This suggests that their business is not sustainable anyway. I think the example needs to show Dave and Margaret having more profit and less mortgage debt for it to be credible. Can anyone help with that?”

The point I made earlier today is they may well have locked into a 10 year fixed rate to protect their cashflow and hence their clients homes.
.

Reply to the comment left by “Mark Alexander” at “29/07/2015 – 22:28“:

Mark reference has been made to 10 year fixed rate in the latest version posted earlier tonight. Good idea from you and now included.

Reply to the comment left by “Lisa Orme” at “29/07/2015 – 22:15“:

Lisa, that is really unhelpful. Have you not followed the process we have gone through on this site? You are muddying the waters. What is going to happen if we all argue amongst ourselves like this? We came to a consensus, a few people have panicked because of a thousand signatures. Can people please stick to the consensus we reached? This is all about teamwork and thinking positive and trying to get as many people on our side as possible – informing landlords who don’t yet realise what this means, tenants who will be massively affected, other businesses who will suffer adversely and could be targeted next by the Government, home owners who could go into negative equity. And we have to persuade MPs in particular and we have to get newspaper coverage of how awful this is. We have worked out our strategy on this site and do not want loose cannons upsetting it by going against this strategy, as you have just done. This is not about individual egos.
Personally, I have zero interest in having my name on the petition. I do not like public speaking for example and would be nervous about going to Parliament, if we get the 100,000 signatures (and we are more likely to get this and surpass it with our petition) and arguing these points in front of committees, but I will force myself to do this for the general cause, as it is quite likely that we will be invited to present our case in Parliament. It is very disappointing that people can’t stick together and get on with things in the spirit of teamwork. United we stand, divided we fall.

Reply to the comment left by “Mark Alexander” at “29/07/2015 – 22:15“:

Thanks Mark, much appreciated.

Reply to the comment left by “BTL INVESTOR SCOTLAND” at “29/07/2015 – 22:34“:

I’ve just managed to catch up so I had replied before reading the latest draft. I think it is great, well done.
.

Reply to the comment left by “James Tallis” at “29/07/2015 – 21:38“:

I can see that property is a long term investment, and I certainly am looking forward to a return even a fraction of that which you referred to. If I am even allowed to get to that stage. The bottom line is whether I will be allowed, or whether unfair obstacles will stop me.

However, as you say, in the meantime, there are real costs that diminish the return in terms of ongoing profit, depending on factors such as area, yield, etc, and realistically, the returns are not as good as some businesses. Granted. There are many costs; the profit for some is probably not worth the hassle. I am happy for having the opportunity to make a small profit, though. The aspirations promoted in this country do stem from property; all those property programmes fuelled enthusiasm, etc.

It is a real fear that because of this tax, many landlords will suffer. Some portfolios are such that an increase in costs, taxation, will not just wipe out profit but actually leave landlords in severe deficit. You may say that this is the business model at fault, and that borrowing was too much, etc, etc, but the point is that the properties, portfolios and businesses were built on the basis of current rules and now those rules will unfairly change. On that alone, this will place many landlords in a difficult situation. Property is such an asset that selling quickly will incur a loss in most cases. They cannot just get out quickly; as with all businesses, there is money tied up in the assets, not just money borrowed. There is also the time invested.

Remember, too, that we are providing a service and helping the economy, housing situation, mobility, employment.

My efforts to provide accommodation for two lodgers, one on minimum wage, is commended and awarded by the government. Why not my efforts to provide accommodation for others?

This is just an unfair tax, aimed at one sector of business and will ruin many individuals. I am not in it so deep that it will affect me to the extent that it will others, and I have various options. Thousands of other landlords do not. They have invested time and money. They should not be persecuted; rather, they should be commended for having the initiative.