Profile incomplete
7:42 AM, 6th March 2016, About 8 years ago 31
Text Size
Dear Campbell Robb,
You may recall a letter you received from a landlord called David in October 2015. In fact, I wrote the letter upon his request and published it on-line; you can see it here, along with comments from others.
http://www.property118.com/campbell-robb-ceo-shelter-open-letter/81625/
Time has moved on and it has now become clear to many others that the Chancellor’s attack on private landlords is going to greatly damage the private rented sector and the economy as a whole (as we, at Property118 predicted months ago). In addition to numerous economists (including Paul Johnson at the independent IFS), the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Council of Mortgage Lenders and so on, the Treasury Select Committee has now also voiced its concern, as has the Bank of England, at this assault on private landlords.
Yet still you continue to attack us in your public statements, making the common mistake of thinking that by attacking private landlords you assist private tenants. In the Daily Mirror on the 3rd of March you are quoted as saying that private tenants ‘pay through the nose for something they can never call their own.’ The figure of £40,000 being paid on average in rent every 5 years is given. I don’t know why 5 years was the period chosen; one could equally say that the average rent is £22 a day for a 2-bedroom house. That seems quite reasonable; however, I rent out several 2-bed houses for around £300 to £320 per month. I also rent a house for £500 a month, housing 3 working adults. Were they to want to buy, it would be eminently affordable. These tenants are also not paying through the nose.
Many landlords cater for this ‘lower end of the market,’ charging very similar rents to those charged by social housing providers; with the big difference however that we then have to return a portion of the rent received to the Government via taxation, meaning that in many instances we provide cheaper housing than Housing Associations. I notice that you don’t attack them for ‘taking’ £40,000 over 5 years, which ‘could have been a deposit.’ Can you explain this differentiation?
It is evident to me that there is a strange implication behind these anti-landlord comments, namely that you seem to imply that we should provide the housing for free as then the tenant would have the £40,000 in their pocket for a house deposit. Not even publicly-funded Housing Associations and councils do this, but you criticise us implicitly for accepting payment for the housing we have funded out of our own money; we have often worked hard at creating these homes and have taken great risks in the process. But in your world it is as though landlords have no associated costs with these rentals (in fact, landlords lost £9 billion last year through arrears and damages, in addition to much of the rent often going towards the mortgage).
Regrettably, you have also promoted and supported the removal of our right to offset the finance costs of our business. When are you going to realise that this is not only grossly unjust to landlords but is going to be extremely injurious to the tenants you purport to represent? It appears to me that you have in fact abandoned the millions of tenants in this country who do not want to become owner-occupiers at this stage in their lives or simply will never be able to afford it, as my parents couldn’t, having been reliant for many years on benefits.
When this levy on finance costs was introduced in Ireland, rents skyrocketed, as I have outlined in my article here:
http://www.property118.com/uk-rents-set-sky-rocket-osbornes-tax-grab/83275/
So, don’t blame us when this happens here (landlords are already upping rents in order to build a war chest for when we have to pay tax on ‘fictitious profit’). We won’t be benefiting from this money – we shall merely be collecting it for the Exchequer. This is why it is being called a ‘tenant tax.’ When are you going to stop supporting it?
It is clear that nobody is speaking up for tenants, except for private landlords. You are certainly not helping with your continued slurs against landlords, which is just feeding into the anti-landlord juggernaut and assisting the Government in its agenda of trying to tax private landlords into oblivion whilst promoting the institutional building of accommodation which will be expensive and Orwellian in its sameness (unsurprisingly, yet scandalously, there is evidence of links between these institutions and the funding of the Conservative Party). Not everyone wants to live in a box though; many people want to rent in their communities and have gardens and space – something many of us private landlords provide. Take a look at this article and you will see the extent of the danger ahead for tenants:
http://www.property118.com/new-landlord-tax-could-affect-tenants/83886/
Neither Shelter, nor Crisis, nor the Government, nor anyone seems to be taking this impact on tenants into account. Whether you loathe us or not (you certainly seem to), you need to wake up to the collateral damage of this ridiculous and evil onslaught on the private rental sector, before it is too late. I have pointed this out to several Labour Party politicians and told them to note, as I tell you, that these letters stand as public testament to the fact that you have all been told what the consequences of this unprecedented attack on the PRS will be; so none of you can plead ignorance later. The letters are here:
http://www.property118.com/rob-marris-mp-and-sir-roger-gale-same-party/82156/
I believe both you and many politicians have lost sight of the principles which should guide you all. Rather than criticise housing providers (but only one section it seems – private landlords; not institutions, not social housing providers and not councils) I believe you should start working constructively with them instead and/or start providing ‘shelter’ yourselves.
Private landlords’ confidence and trust has now been so damaged that we are effectively halting any expansion or development. You may have noticed this week that house-building has taken a nose-dive. As private landlords have often provided the seed finance for new-builds, this slump is not unexpected. Is this what you want?
I think it is time you clarified what the aims of Shelter now are as you have lost your way.
Yours sincerely
Dr Rosalind Beck
Previous Article
Average tenant pays £40,000 in rent over five yearsNext Article
Council Tax Compensation for uninhabitable flat?
Dr Rosalind Beck
17:42 PM, 11th March 2016, About 8 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Gareth Wilson" at "11/03/2016 - 17:27":
Very good letter. Let's see if they get a response. It is hard to believe that people fully understand it. I was in correspondence with a left-wing journalist who said they supported it and when I fully explained how it would work - with infinite tax on losses, fictitious income etc. - they did a bit of an about-turn. 'I didn't realise it was that bad,' they said.
Campbell Robb and Labour politicians like Rob Marris and John Healey need to be big enough to say they were wrong... or at least say they hadn't realised the 'unintended consequences.'
Ian Cowie, financial journalist at the Times, was cock-a-hoop at Clause 24 being introduced - he thought it was his idea and that GO had listened to him. Wrong, actually, as it was publicised as a Green Party policy months before Cowie decided to promote it and the awful Intergenerational Fund had also thought it was a good idea.
Cowie seems to have gone quiet now that he has had it fully explained to him.
Sometimes the most we can hope for at this stage is to at least shut people up over it. They are not going to like it when their words come back to haunt them when the policy is finally reversed - whether that is in the short or medium term and after it has done considerable damage to the PRS and caused a lot of human misery.
Miascot
10:03 AM, 12th March 2016, About 8 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Gareth Wilson" at "11/03/2016 - 17:27":
Great letter Gareth and perfect for every tabloid in the land (including the Scottish ones) if you have the time!
I have written to over 150 Scottish mps with very little response but hopefully I have planted a few seeds.
Every little helps
Dr Rosalind Beck
10:14 AM, 12th March 2016, About 8 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "mia scot" at "12/03/2016 - 10:03":
Well done, Mia. That is a brilliant effort and, as you say, I believe it does plant seeds.
Miascot
10:19 AM, 12th March 2016, About 8 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "12/03/2016 - 10:14":
Thanks Ros
Quick correction, over 100 not 150
typo!!!
John walker
12:10 PM, 12th March 2016, About 8 years ago
Is it possible for the 'tenant tax' to be implemented before the 118 judicial review has been heard and decided?
Gary Dully
22:40 PM, 14th March 2016, About 8 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "John Walker" at "12/03/2016 - 12:10":
It's already implemented and the law of the land.
It just won't be on this years tax return.
From April 6th the 10% wear and tear allowance is also gone.
Your tenants will have to find that money in higher rents also, or your tax bill will be going up if you previously were claiming the allowances.
Elisabeth Beckett
18:07 PM, 21st March 2016, About 8 years ago
What a great letter Ros. I have been pursuing this through my local MP Nick Boles, having had a meeting a few weeks ago through an appointment at his surgery. I am starting to put my rents up in readiness for this onerous tax. My point is that if we, as landlords, have to pay tax on turnover, so should all the plumbers, electricians, builders, roofers etc. My property portfolio is a self employment business like any of those so of course I should be paying on profit not turnover. If this is the case, I have no choice but to pass the cost on, like a business having VAT added to it's products for the first time. This is not a fair tax - we bought our properties having worked out the margins - it will stop me upgrading my properties on a regular basis. If MP's were told they had to pay 10% stamp duty on their property if they bought it in the last 10 years they would think that unfair. If the tax is to come in, it should be on new purchasers then landlords would have the ability to decide not to buy more BTL properties if the figures didn't stack up. My properties are HMO's mostly with four bedrooms and not one of my tenants either wants to or is able to purchase their own property. If there was a shortage of these sorts of properties on the market, there would be no estate agents. This tax should also be for Housing Association and council property and they should not be able to offset their costs/offices/pensions/etc against the income either. It would cripple them.
Keep up the good work, Ros - we need people like you pounding the drum for all of us. All landlords should be contacting their MP's - if there is enough noise about it, this might get quashed.
Dr Rosalind Beck
19:42 PM, 21st March 2016, About 8 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Elisabeth Beckett" at "21/03/2016 - 18:07":
Thanks Elisabeth and well done for getting onto Nick Boles. Hopefully if George Osborne gets ousted the Treasury can return to some normality. The man has lost the plot and doesn't understand economics, business or fairness in taxation (like him I've got an Oxbridge 2.1 degree in History/SPSS and I wouldn't dare presume that qualified me to run the country. In fact I've also got a Masters and PhD oh him and that also wouldn't qualify me as they are not in economics).
See my other brief article based on an email Professor Philip Booth sent to me:
http://www.property118.com/tax-neutrality-abandoned-budget-states-professor-philip-booth/85526/
Dr Rosalind Beck
18:44 PM, 12th April 2016, About 8 years ago
Shelter has now come up with a tube map of London showing affordable and unaffordable areas to rent. What's the point in that? As if people don't know. I lived in London years ago and of course I couldn't afford to live in Chelsea. The way Shelter has it, it's like criminal that you can't live in a really posh part of London.
'Speak out about renting' is the logo accompanying the map. They should turn it into 'words not deeds,' because they're all talk. And we can have 'deeds not words' because we actually do stuff rather than sit around slagging off those who do. I seem to remember they have a budget of about £50 million (I may be wrong) - and I believe they use zero on providing housing. In their annual budget they should have a category: 'Slagging off housing providers: 30 million pounds...' And their so-called 'service provision' would be like Siobhain McDonagh's 'working at the coal-face,' which involves telling tenants to sit tight until bailiffs come and then pleading with other landlords to house their clients - then when that goes wrong, advising them to sit tight and so on...
Big Blue
23:02 PM, 12th April 2016, About 8 years ago
The last time I looked this up they had gross incomes of £51m and running costs of £17m, leaving £34m for deliberately choosing not to assist in providing any housing for the homeless!
Since these figures have grown year on year since the 60s, you'd have thought they might have done a little more towards solving what they call the biggest crisis/scandal/injustice of our time.
But no. Better to moan at and bully those who actually DO try to stop homelessness by, er, actually housing people. Really, you couldn't make it up.