Profile incomplete
18:34 PM, 3rd August 2015, About 9 years ago 111
Text Size
As part of our campaign to reverse the Government’s Budget proposals restricting finance cost relief for individual landlords we are aiming to lobby all MPs in the UK – and as many times as possible.
We are asking that everyone who is against this proposal firstly signs this petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104880
Secondly, and as importantly, we are asking that you write to your MP and preferably follow this up with a visit to your MP’s surgery.
It will be the case for some that you may live in one constituency and have rental houses in other constituencies. Please send emails to all the MPs that are applicable to you.
In order to keep track and make sure we leave no-one out, can you please post in the comments section below the following details:
1. Name of MP contacted via email/letter.
2. Constituency of the MP.
3. Date(s) letters/emails sent.
4. Whether you have spoken to the MP face-to-face and/or made an appointment to see him/her in their surgery.
If you get any response other than an automated reply or acknowledgement, please paste the text in the comments section below, remembering to ensure the full name of the MP and Constituency is included.
Also, later on (bearing in mind MPs’ absences during the summer recess), please also report back on their attitude towards the Budget proposal.
I will be keeping a spreadsheet, to make sure we miss no-one out.
Contacting MPs and persuading them of our case is going to be key to our success in overturning this illogical, unjust and discriminatory proposal. You may be the only person who writes to your MP, so it is very important not to assume someone else will already have done so.
We should especially be looking out for MPs who might be willing to champion our cause as well as those who will be willing to vote against the Finance Bill. If you feel your MP falls into this category, please let us know in the comments section below.
The following is a link to a website with contact details of your MP >>> https://www.writetothem.com/
Below is a sample email/letter to MP’s you may wish to adapt, if you don’t have the time to write one from scratch:
Adjust as necessary, e.g. if you are not a constituent but own property in the constituency, or if you want to add something about the MP’s party’s stance on it etc.
Dear [Name of MP]
I am writing to you as one of your constituents, my address is [ add your address and postcode here]
I am writing with regard to the latest attack on landlords in the Budget, through the proposals to restrict ‘tax relief’ for landlords. Many landlords have been confused about the terminology “tax relief”, so many still don’t realise the effects this would have on their businesses and on the wider economy.
Aafter seeking clarification from HMRC, I have realised that what is really being proposed is that the cost of interest, which is our biggest cost in running our businesses, has been re-defined as ‘income,’ which can be taxed. Obviously, this makes no sense, and this is the verdict of the chief economists who reported to the Treasury Select Committee on the Summer Budget.
If this is to be a new principle of taxation, why aren’t all businesses in the UK facing this bizarre proposal?
Buy-to-let is not a simple, ‘hands-off investment’ as it is sometimes portrayed; it is a very labour-intensive business, often very stressful and for many of us constitutes a full-time job, whereby we work and are on call 7 days a week, including evenings.
Unfortunately, the failure to understand our business (ignorance, by another word), has led to the Government announcing this illogical and unjust proposal.
I am hoping you can use your influence and your vote to help quash this measure.
You will find more details of the proposal on this link to the Property118 landlords forum – LINK >>> http://www.property118.com/?p=76936
The information there will help you to be fully informed, but if you have any questions please let me know and I will endeavour to answer them.
I will be coming to meet you soon at one of your surgeries to discuss this in person.
Yours sincerely
[add your name here]
YOUR Money, YOUR future, YOUR choice.
Previous Article
Tax Efficient InvestmentNext Article
10% wear and tear loss affect on furnished?
Big Blue
21:14 PM, 3rd September 2015, About 9 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Nitzan Marinov" at "03/09/2015 - 21:02":
As per my post at 2106, it looks like she's not especially interested and certainly not willing to make an issue out of it.
I've just been in my own council meeting this evening, where only one Conservative there was interested. The Labour lot might offer more support if I put the housing crisis element to them.
Nitzan
21:16 PM, 3rd September 2015, About 9 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "James Fraser" at "03/09/2015 - 21:06":
I'm beginning to like this game. It almost looks like I know what I'm talking about 🙂
Thanks, James
Dr Rosalind Beck
21:23 PM, 3rd September 2015, About 9 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Nitzan Marinov" at "03/09/2015 - 21:16":
It could also be worth mentioning how the B and B will will escalate - how George is trying to get revenue in for the Treasury, but who will pay the B and B bill when vast numbers of tenants are evicted as we get vacant possession to prepare our houses for sale? I've just evicted two tenants - they were being evicted anyway for being non-payers/damaging the house/being abusive. But whereas I would now have advertised and housed others in these rentals, I am looking to spruce up and sell. This will probably the initial way that rental housing stock disappears - then we will have to turn more 'aggressive' - i.e. give notice to tenants who have been absolutely fine and will not be expecting to have to move - and it's going to be increasingly difficult to find somewhere with diminishing stock. Indeed, they may move only to be given their notice quite soon from the next place, for the same reason....
Nitzan
21:28 PM, 3rd September 2015, About 9 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "03/09/2015 - 21:23":
I've already responded to her. I'll see if she comes back to me.
In the meantime - what's 'B and B bill'?
Big Blue
22:06 PM, 3rd September 2015, About 9 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Nitzan Marinov" at "03/09/2015 - 21:28":
The bill (cost to taxpayers) for Bed & Breakfast accomodation.
Nitzan
22:29 PM, 3rd September 2015, About 9 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "James Fraser" at "03/09/2015 - 22:06":
Ah. B&B 🙂
Well, she has outdone herself by coming back with:
"No we don't. "
I then took the opportunity to respond with:
"I see. Well, in any case, please consider how the B&B council bill will escalate. We all know that George Osborn is trying to get revenue in for the Treasury, but who will pay the B&B bill when vast numbers of tenants are evicted as we get vacant possession to prepare our houses for sale?
One of my fellow investors just evicted two tenants – they were being evicted anyway for being non-payers/damaging the house/being abusive. But whereas he would now have advertised and housed others in these rentals, he is now looking to spruce up and sell. This will probably be the initial way that rental housing stock disappears – then we will have to turn more ‘aggressive’ – i.e. give notice to tenants who have been absolutely fine and will not be expecting to have to move – and it’s going to be increasingly difficult to find somewhere with diminishing stock. Indeed, they may move only to be given their notice quite soon from the next place, for the same reason….
I am not sure George Osborn considered these implications when he proposed this change to tax relief calculations."
Dr Rosalind Beck
22:48 PM, 3rd September 2015, About 9 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Nitzan Marinov" at "03/09/2015 - 22:29":
Ah, you're getting into a debate now Nitzan! Well done - it is actually very important to not accept people's replies if they don't make sense and/or are inaccurate and to 'put them straight' where possible. I have noticed some journalists not understanding the issue in one article but then gradually understanding more and recognising the seriousness of it. I even had to send a couple of emails to the head of a landlord body before they finally got it. And then, they sent out an article explaining it, linking it to the petition and so on. I think we have to be evangelical and as you have done, not give up at the first hurdle. We know we are right, so we just have to explain why to others.
Having said that, I wouldn't waste many more emails on this particular councilor - just see how it goes.
Nitzan
23:03 PM, 3rd September 2015, About 9 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "03/09/2015 - 22:48":
Thanks, Ros, I think she will probably stop responding to me. Mind you, we can hardly call this a debate, can we 🙂
It was fun for a little while but I'll probably stop now. She's not interested at all. I'm not sure why she responded to me in the first place. Anyway, so long as you and James have my back, I'm happy to carry on, within reason 🙂
Dr Rosalind Beck
23:13 PM, 3rd September 2015, About 9 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Nitzan Marinov" at "03/09/2015 - 23:03":
I'd only carry on if it amuses you. Otherwise I'd conserve my energy and think about writing to others. I've been sending emails off to the Daily Mirror the last few days. I find something vaguely relevant that someone has written and I hook a letter on to that. The more of us who do this the more likely the papers are to take up the story. But it depends what the individual wants to do. Some people are happy popping into local letting agents or emailing them and asking them to at least publicise the petition. It all goes into the pot.
Charmaine ******
14:03 PM, 4th September 2015, About 9 years ago
I have just finished a meeting with my MP James Brokenshire. (Immigration minister)
He was not familiar with the workings of Clause 24 of the Finance Bill and said he would find out what it was about. ( ! ). To assist him , I gave him a copy of the NLA appraisal of Clause 24 and the RLA letter to the Chancellor asking for a pause and consultation , and made it clear that this is taxing Landlords on turnover rather than profit, which in turn could lead to tax being payable on a loss and will definitely lead to rent increases.
The main point he picked up and seemed interested in was that if this is a business, and not simply an investment , as HMRC V Ramsey establishes, then it seems unfair that we cannot deduct mortgage interests costs. Also, if we were operating within a corporate structure we could. He raised an interesting point which is that if we all incorporate to avoid this , will the revenue see this as tax evasion if the main reason for holding property in a Limited company is to avoid Clause 24.
He said he would speak to David Gauke and come back to me .