Landlords CAN raise rents to pay for EPC upgrades – Labour

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 30/05/2025 – 11:48
What I found most disingenuous about Osborne’s introduction of S24 restriction was he had already announce the MMR (mortgage market review) which effectively put a stop to the ability to continually raise funds on existing properties to buy more. My own circumstances meant I would have been strictly curtailed had I tried to do the same after NMR as I did in the 2003 to 2009 period when I took out all my B2L borrowing on existing and new property.

Reply to the comment left by Keith Wellburn at 30/05/2025 – 11:55
That’s right: The action was probably not a proportionate action, but one that was probably driven by appearing to do something that might appeal to the electorate. There’s not much to choose here between the behaviour of conservative politicians or labour.

I think that one of the difficulties with labour, other than that they are no less disingenuous than George Osborne (or other more prominent conservative politicians), is the lack of competence. How much of Ed Miliband’s current rhetoric is lack of competence and how much is dishonesty is very hard to say.

It’s difficult for an ordinary, house-and-pension-owning person to have enormous sympathy for protesting farmers in Westminster, when they are driving down the road in a New Holland tractor that could easily cost the best part of £100K to protest against inheritance tax at 20% when you yourself are subject to inheritance tax at 40%. Even more difficult if part of your ‘pension’ is in buy-to-let. But the trouble with labour policies is that because of a mix of dishonesty and incompetence they are poorly targeted and they involve a lot of collateral damage. If part of your 70 acres of farming land is a wetland, or has rights of way across it, or has ancient hedgerows around it, then the actual cost of servicing that acreage may result in you making a loss on that land. Unless you drain the wetland, grub out the hedgerows, and take steps to eliminate the right of way.

None of that ‘public benefit’ is allowed for in labour inheritance tax policy because their policies are blunt instruments with a lot of collateral damage.

The same is true of labour, conservative and SNP policy on the Private Rental Sector and sustainable energy,

Few labour politicians have ever run a business so might need to be forgiven for their incompetence, if not for their dishonesty,. Ed has an A-level in physics which would put him well above the average labour politician in a senior position; he should know better.

Congratulations to Sarah Jackman for calling Ed out. It takes courage to stick your head above the parapet and tell the truth.

Reply to the comment left by JeggNegg at 29/05/2025 – 10:48
It’s currently pointless investing to improve.
The EPC assessment methodology is going to change and doubtless will be incompatible with the current assessment ie a current C might be a D or a A or and E – who knows.
Investment is not tax deductible and there are no capital investment allowances. So that means all the expenditure if capital gains when the property is sold. Indexation relief was scrapped. So your investment is eroded by inflation and secondly if you havent got the receipts it’s not allowable….
Maybe Labour will capital reliefs but I doubt it.
Of course if you rent your non compliant property to the council it all becomes fine as they dont need to comply with any EPC…Two tier standards anyone?

Reply to the comment left by Suspicious Steve at 02/06/2025 – 15:25
Thanks Steve. I totally agree with you, until the EPC database has had a mighty shake up with new and possibly more efficient forms of energy being considered and hopefully included, it really is very difficult to take the requirements of government seriously as I think they are living in the past!

Reply to the comment left by Suspicious Steve at 02/06/2025 – 15:25
Well….the bottom line is that the government has been told that landlords CAN raise rent to pay for EPC upgrades. So if the government continues down the current track landlords WILL raise rents to cover them.

The Telegraph just reported that landlords will be on the hook for thousands because of a labour amendment to the Renters Reform Bill.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/landlords-pay-thousands-property-repair-bills-rent-reforms/

The article quotes Chris Norris from the NRLA saying that landlords will be on the hook for hundreds or thousands because deposits are capped at 5 weeks rent.

However, what labour doesn’t seem to understand (and in fact, labour doesn’t seem to understand very much) is that giving the option for the tenant to insure for a pet is an option that’s fair to both tenant and landlord and without that option the only option the landlord has, faced with the fact of a five-week-deposit, is to raise the rent.

Landlords can raise rent to pay for EPC upgrades, and will. Landlords can raise rents to cover the additional risk of pets and faced with no insurance option, they will.

Having said all that my own personal experience is that children cause more damage than pets. So I would be more likely to raise the rent for a family with children than I would for a family with pets.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 27/06/2025 – 15:53
Well….the bottom line is that the government has been told that landlords CAN raise rent to pay for EPC upgrades. So if the government continues down the current track landlords WILL raise rents to cover them.

If every LL does this then ‘market rent’ levels will rise..

The other scenario is that, presented with the cost of the rent increase for such upgrades, the tenant may want to sign a letter to say they do not want this and do not give permission for access to complete the works. LL can use this to gain exemption for 5 years….