The Joseph Rowntree Foundation plan to kill off the PRS with private rental Right to Buy

I don’t agree with a scheme where landlords would be forced to sell to tenants. However, maybe a scheme could work where if a landlord wants to sell there should be some advantage for both parties if the landlord sells to the tenant. The tenant would have no moving expenses, no schools or doctors to find. They would not have the hassle of moving, setting up new accounts for gas, electric, water council tax and broadband as all this would already be set up. If a landlord sells up there will be capital gains tax to pay whoever they sell to. This just goes to HMRC, but what if it could be given to the tenant to fund a deposit and pay the landlords legal fees as well? Also many tenants pay rents in excess of the mortgage that they would not qualify for under normal rules. A well-established good rent payment record (say for two years) should be taken into consideration by the lender. Good rent payers will be good mortgage payers, especially as now they have an actual stake in things. It would not suit all tenants or landlords but such an arrangement would suit longer term landlords who now own a property that has increased in value over the years. These landlords make up a significant part of the PRS.

If all PRS rental properties were theoretically all sold to their tenants it would still not solve the housing crisis. The only thing that will do that is building more homes.

Reply to the comment left by northern landlord at 29/07/2022 – 13:15
When are all these “highly intellectual” super duper people going to understand that the only thing wrong with the housing market is a lack of houses. Supply and demand, basic economics, simples. When renters buy the homes they then have all the expenses of insurance, maintenance, etc. etc. on top of mortgages which is why a lot of people prefer to rent. Ease of job mobility and so on and so on. There is absolutely no way the PRS could be forced to sell their properties at below market value unless incentives are offered to make it worthwhile for both. But that’s to easy isn’t it, I would sell tomorrow with a fair to both deal. It’s the JRF and others that cause the problems with their ridiculous policy ideas and interference.

all a load of tosh.

1. ‘create mechanisms to allow landlords to receive funding to retrofit their home to high environmental standards, in return for leasing it to a housing provider … ‘ I will choose not to take such options it means I am not in control of my own property and can sell whenever and to whom I choose. Simple.

2. ‘Funding local councils or housing associations to buy existing homes, upgrade them, and then let them out at genuinely affordable rents’. If a LA wants to buy off me then great. Its market rate mate like everyone else!

‘Transition to a smaller PRS’….hahahahah! its the only thing at the mo that is keeping people off the streets. If HA & LA don’t build anything or convert empty stock they have then who are they to say I have to sell mine to tenants????

It won’t happen

The potential of reducing CGT for sale of property to tenants has been suggested by iHowz, the NRLA and more. If the Government really wanted to help
a) budding home owners
b) encourage smaller landlords to leave the market
then they would have put it in their pick’n’mix WP
Better they sit on their hands as every time they mess with the housing market – especially tax incentives – they screw it up MIRAS, Help to Buy, 3% SDLT surcharge, SDLT holiday.
If they want to do something to help buyers (and sellers) they should revisit the sales process to stop 1/3 of deals falling through.
For starters:
– Scottish/HK type contract with 30 days before contract becomes binding
– supported by HIP approach where purchaser gets key documents in place before listing (most of this could be on a portal, which is regularly updated – flood risk, local search, environmental, EPC, EICR, Gas, etc)

Buyer then has 30 days to arrange surveys and get mortgage offer confirmed. Completion at agreed date, subject to lawyer caveats.

All this would require fixing the other weak link – yes, solicitors, who currently have no SLA or other incentive to get the deal done in a timely manner.
Sorry, a bit off-topic but two sales and 3 lease extensions over the last year – all took excessive time to complete due to solicitors (including bridging company’s) – and I get to pay for this substandard service!

The government wants votes – there are more tenant voters than there are landlord voters – simple!

I don’t understand why can’t tenants simply go and buy a house like everybody else does ?

JRF just rehashing and regurgitating old hairbrained ideas (which they know will never cone to fruition) in order to make a few headlines to justify their existence.

Or is this just the Establishment distraction tactics to hide what is really going on?

Reply to the comment left by Gromit at 31/07/2022 – 08:22
During the Covid epidemic the Government came close to temporarily requistioning personal properties but I seriously doubt even the current bunch of incompetents would go so far as to abrogate the rights secured by the Magna Carta, which is what compelling property owners to cede possession to tenants would amount to.

Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 01/08/2022 – 07:52
I wouldn’t put anything past these morons tbh.