12:12 PM, 7th November 2024, About 4 weeks ago 39
Text Size
Nick Bano’s recent article in The Guardian, “The End of Landlords,” proposes the radical idea of driving private landlords out of the UK housing market to solve the housing crisis. It’s a bold claim, but one that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Bano’s arguments are based on outdated views and unrealistic ideas that would harm both renters and landlords, leading to higher rents and fewer options for tenants.
1. Nick Bano’s Misrepresentation: Are Landlords Really Driving Up Costs?
At the heart of Bano’s article is the argument that landlords are to blame for the high cost of housing. But the reality is that it’s the Government’s heavy-handed policies and excessive taxation that have driven up costs. Regulations like Section 24 and the SDLT surcharge don’t hurt corporate landlords; they hurt the smaller landlords who provide the majority of rental homes across the UK. Blaming landlords for the impact of policy decisions is a major flaw in Bano’s argument.
2. Ignoring the Realities of Supply and Demand
Nick Bano argues that there is enough housing to meet demand, claiming that landlords are hoarding properties. However, this oversimplification overlooks the need for suitable, quality housing in the right locations. Private landlords offer diverse housing options in areas where government social housing has long been insufficient. Bano’s “solution” would strip the market of these options, creating a gap that government intervention cannot realistically fill.
3. Bano’s Fantasy of “Municipalisation” Ignores Economic Realities
In calling for a return to municipalisation, Bano fails to recognise the massive financial and logistical barriers such a policy would create today. The Government would require billions in taxpayer funding to buy out properties and an administrative infrastructure to maintain them. Is Bano suggesting that we create a bureaucratic nightmare and force private landlords to surrender their investments? Municipalisation isn’t a solution; it’s a recipe for disaster.
4. Bano’s Villainisation of Private Landlords is Completely Baseless
Bano’s article paints all landlords as exploitative profiteers, yet this couldn’t be further from the truth. Most landlords are ordinary people who have invested responsibly, providing much-needed housing and contributing to the local economy. Bano’s “plan” would drive these responsible landlords out of the market, leaving corporate entities to dominate. Tenants are far more likely to benefit from renting with independent landlords who have a personal stake in maintaining their properties.
5. Excessive Regulation, Not Landlords, Is the True Culprit
Rather than focusing on the punitive measures landlords already face, Nick Bano proposes adding more controls to “end landlordism.” But it’s precisely these heavy regulations that have led to a market overwhelmed by high costs. Adding more restrictions won’t reduce rents or improve housing; it will further discourage independent landlords from participating in the PRS, leaving only corporate giants to dictate rents and housing terms.
6. Why Nick Bano’s Solution is a Fantasy That Will Hurt Tenants
Bano’s “vision” of a landlord-free Britain might sound good to some, but it’s an unworkable fantasy that would have disastrous consequences for tenants. By eliminating private landlords, the PRS would face a housing drought, skyrocketing prices, and limited availability. Bano’s proposal isn’t just impractical; it’s harmful. The solution to housing affordability lies in supporting responsible landlords, not demonising them.
Nick Bano’s Anti-Landlord Agenda Ignores Reality
Nick Bano’s call to abolish private landlords is based on flawed assumptions and an unrealistic nostalgia for policies that would devastate the UK’s rental market. Private landlords play a critical role in housing millions across the country, and the idea of eliminating them would cause chaos for tenants. Instead of tearing down landlords, we should be reforming policies to support them, ensuring housing options remain affordable and accessible for everyone.
At Property118, we advocate for fair and balanced policies that recognise the essential role of private landlords. It’s time to end the anti-landlord rhetoric and focus on meaningful reforms that protect both renters and landlords alike.
Previous Article
UK house prices hit new record high
David100
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:16 AM, 8th November 2024, About 4 weeks ago
Not everyone can afford, or even wants to own a house or apartment. So rented homes are required. The PRS provides those rental properties AT ZERO COST TO THE TAXPAYER, in fact they generate billions each year in tax revenue. The government, the public, and even idiot do-gooders like Bano should thank their lucky stars that they dont have to dip their hands into their own pockets to support people who need a roof over their head.
NewYorkie
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up12:03 PM, 8th November 2024, About 4 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by David100 at 08/11/2024 - 09:16
Idiot do-gooders like Bano don't work for free. Oh no! The taxpayer is stumping up for legal aid to pay their salaries.
Beaver
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up12:36 PM, 8th November 2024, About 4 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by David100 at 08/11/2024 - 09:16
Almost.
Yes, rental businesses rake in money in the form of tax that is levied at a higher rate than on other investments or forms of employment because of course we can't deduct finance costs. Rental businesses pay money in capital gains tax or corporation tax and it would seem going forward are set to pay an increasing amount of inheritance tax.
But when government policy drives out competition and drives up rents the effect of that it is that it increases the cost of housing benefit or other benefits and it increases the cost for councils of providing temporary accommodation. So whilst the PRS is socially-useful because it provides both choice for tenants and businesses, and competition in supply to the social housing sector, government policies that drive up rents will actually increase the cost to the taxpayer.
But it IS government policy that is driving up rents and it is not the fault of landlords.
The Competition and Markets Authority needs to take a look at this.
NewYorkie
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up14:27 PM, 8th November 2024, About 4 weeks ago
I've seen a number of 'larger' landlords say they have incorporated to avoid CGT and IHT when passing down their rental business to children.
We have seen how farms will now be affected by IHT. Will rental businesses be affected the same way?
Or, am I talking nonsense?
Happy Landlord
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up14:47 PM, 8th November 2024, About 4 weeks ago
Reply to NewYorkie
Quite right - it does help with IHT. If the properties were in our individual names the IHT could be very high which would mean having to sell the buy to let properties, by incorporating or running the company as a limited company our children would not have to find a large tax bill immediately which will allow our tenants to stay at the property - obviously if the properties have to be sold to pay IHT the tenants would in many, but not all cases, have to be given notice, however the reason some of us run the business as a limited company is that it makes it possible for our tenants to stay at the property when we pass on. My understanding is that CG tax is only due when the property is sold the same with IHT when the properties are in a limited company, and yes there is a similarity with the farmers which I think probably needs investigation further. This is only my interpretation and probably a much sharper brain than mine should advise.
Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up16:39 PM, 8th November 2024, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 08/11/2024 - 14:27
Incorpration doesn't "avoid" CGT. Instead it rolls capital gains up to the point of incorporation into the company shares. This can be particularly helpful if the company plans to sell some properties to reinvest elsewhere or to de-leverage. The CGT only falls due if the shares in the company are disposed of or if the company is liquidated prior to death.
Incorporation does not avoid IHT either, but it can make IHT planning far more manageable. For example, the value of the founders shares can be frozen at incorporation and the future growth can accrue to a separate class of shares owned by a Discretionary Trust for the bloodline of the founders, or indeed by the founders next generation.
The above is not to be regarded as comprehensive advice, but instead is intended to provides some further insight into what is achievable.
Beaver
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up16:42 PM, 8th November 2024, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118 at 08/11/2024 - 16:39
Shares can also be gifted.
Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up16:51 PM, 8th November 2024, About 3 weeks ago
Shares can indeed be gifted, just as properties can, but not without crystallising any CGT they might be pregnant with.
Martin Roberts
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:15 AM, 9th November 2024, About 3 weeks ago
A village somewhere is missing it’s idiot.
Frank William Milligan URQUHART
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:17 AM, 9th November 2024, About 3 weeks ago
"Bano explains how this environment set the conditions for the Grenfell Tower fire"
Except Grenfell was owned by a corporate landlord, not a private landlord. It was owned by Council, who did nothing about the tenants concerns.