Land for the Many – Not for Landlords

by Property 118

8:13 AM, 4th June 2019
About 8 months ago

Land for the Many – Not for Landlords

Make Text Bigger
Land for the Many – Not for Landlords

The Labour Party have commissioned an ‘independent’ report titled “Land for the Many” that proposes changes in the way land in the UK is used and governed.

Key proposal headlines include:

Tenancies should be open-ended, and landlords should lose their power to evict a tenant who has not broken the terms of the tenancy agreement for the first three years of the tenancy agreement, and should have to provide grounds for eviction after that point.

Cap on annual permissible rent increases, at no more than the rate of wage inflation or consumer price inflation (whichever is lower)

Replace the council tax with a progressive property tax. This should be payable by owners, not tenants.

Stamp Duty Land Tax should be phased out for those buying homes to live in themselves, and capital gains tax for second homes and investment properties should be increased

Buy to Let mortgages should be more firmly regulated and restricted.

Discourage land and housing from being treated as financial assets by encouraging banks to redirect lending into productive sectors, and encourage a more efficient use of the existing housing stock.

The guiding principle of the report:

“The pursuit of luxury has been a common theme among thinkers on both right and left. But it is evident that there is neither the physical nor the ecological space for everyone to enjoy private luxury. If we all sought to own our own tennis courts, swimming pools, playbarns and art collections, Newcastle would need to expand to the size of London, and London would cover much of England.

But there is enough physical and ecological space for everyone to enjoy public luxury. We have room, even on these crowded islands, for magnificent parks, playing fields, public swimming pools, urban nature reserves and allotments sufficient to meet the needs of all. The expansion of public wealth in land creates more space for everyone, while the expansion of private wealth in land reduces the space available for others, at the cost of most people’s quality of life. The guiding principle of this report is private sufficiency and public luxury.”

Click Here to download the full report.

James Brokenshire, Housing Secretary, said: “These proposals are extraordinary and deeply damaging in equal measure. Labour will stop at nothing to hammer families with more tax and make home ownership a pipe dream for future generations.

“Plans to seize land into public ownership also show Labour’s true colours of more and more state control. This tax bombshell for families would mean family homes with gardens paying far more and higher taxes on pensioners by abolishing the single person discount.”

Labour’s spokesman for the Cabinet Office, said: “For too long, people across the country have had little or no say over the decisions that affect their communities and the places in which they live.  So much of this can be traced back to the broken system of land ownership. Concentration of land in the hands of a few has led to unwanted developments, unaffordable house prices, financial crises and environmental degradation.

“Labour is committed to tackling these head on and delivering a fundamental shift in wealth and power from the few to the many.”


Kathy Evans

8:56 AM, 5th June 2019
About 8 months ago

Reply to the comment left by juliet bonnet at 04/06/2019 - 21:07
But people on benefits don't pay council tax anyway, and they get their rent paid for them. Seems it might actually appeal to those with one large property that they live in - no more band F G H council tax

Kathy Evans

8:59 AM, 5th June 2019
About 8 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Rbinscotland at 04/06/2019 - 11:28
"if a tenant doesn't break any terms of the tenancy " What that actually means (grammatically) is that a tenant could pay rent and abide by the tenancy agreement for 3 years, then refuse to pay rent in year 4 but could not be evicted as that would not be "within 3 years". I hope that's not what's intended.


9:48 AM, 5th June 2019
About 8 months ago

so the choice is sell now and take a hit on capital gains, or hang on and sell later (if you are allowed) and take a hit on possible house values, or new taxes on landlords exiting the sector.

My dream would be for a class action against Generation Rent, Shelter and Acorn in campaigning to make thousands homeless.

Luke P

9:55 AM, 5th June 2019
About 8 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Kathy Evans at 05/06/2019 - 08:59
It's a confusing statement because, in a post-S.21 era, the only way to evict will be via breach of tenancy, which surely can be at ANY point (inside or outside an initial suggested three years). I don't see what relevance three years has...are they suggesting that regardless of breach, if it is within a new mandatory fixed-term we cannot evict? Or is it as Kathy suggested above? Either way it's unworkable and I suspect Labour don't actually understand the (not-so subtle) intricacies of what they're on about!

Peter G

10:09 AM, 5th June 2019
About 8 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Rbinscotland at 04/06/2019 - 11:28No they are in breach if they do not pay their rent. However, I have not seen any mention of penalties for tenants who breach their AST, nor proposals to make eviction faster and cheaper/free for landlords when tenants breach their AST, including non-payment of rent. Did I miss it?


10:58 AM, 5th June 2019
About 8 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Peter G at 05/06/2019 - 10:09Hardly surprising just look at who the authors are!
For one: Beth Stratford is a PhD student, a fellow at the New Economics Foundation, a co-founder of the London Renters Union, and one of the authors of the “Land for the Many” report.

Chris Daniel

20:46 PM, 5th June 2019
About 8 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 05/06/2019 - 09:55
I think Labour have two plans for the PRS, in the following order.

1. Scrap evictions, and
2. Sequestration of property - rent controls that over time will bring PRS Down below market rent.

Michael Barnes

15:24 PM, 6th June 2019
About 8 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 05/06/2019 - 09:55
They appear to be saying
1. No "no fault" repossessions in first 3 years (e.g. wanting to sell; wanting to live there; LL dies).
2. Tenant fault repossessions at any time.
3. No fault repossessions after 3 years, but for specific grounds that have to be established to the satisfaction of a court (see examples in 1)

NW Landlord

15:33 PM, 6th June 2019
About 7 months ago

So u can’t sell evict and sell your property in the first 3 years can’t be right it’s your own asset.


15:46 PM, 6th June 2019
About 7 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Michael Barnes at 06/06/2019 - 15:24
Don't forget the three months rent compensation to the tenants

1 4 5 6 9

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?



Advanced tax planning benefits for incorporated landlords

The Landlords Union

Become a Member, it's FREE

Our mission is to facilitate the sharing of best practice amongst UK landlords, tenants and letting agents

Learn More