Why is the government punishing landlords with long enforced voids?
Can anyone else get over the stupidity of forcing landlords to keep properties which fail to sell empty for in excess of 12 months?
I put 6 rental properties on the market this summer, and between them knocked up over 40 months of voids before one sold, and I re-let the others. The upshot has been that during the voids I lost over £40,000 rental income, entirely my choice as I was very keen to sell, but out of that lost income the government lost what would have been £16,000+ tax.
Broaden the figures to 12 months void for the 6 properties, and the lost revenue to the government would have been £28,800, just from me.
Multiply that by who knows how many thousands of landlords who evict tenants to try to sell, and it represents an astonishing loss of tax income to the Treasury.
The second utter stupidity in all this is forcing what is likely to be many thousands of rental properties to remain empty when there is such an urgent need for housing.
Sure, penalise landlords who try to exploit the system, but surely bring a bit of common sense into it. Three months enforced void would be a deterrent, six months would be punitive, twelve months hurts landlords, tenants and the Treasury alike.
Does it really make sense to punish landlords and leave homes empty during a housing crisis?
Thanks,
John
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
11:09 AM, 29th October 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by AnthonyJames at 29/10/2025 – 00:31
Whilst that might be the intention of some of the more left-wing Labour and Green Party members, before laws enabling that ever came in landlords would have already taken steps to avoid the problem.
The Telegraph just reported that housebuilding under Sadik Khan in London is stone-dead.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/28/khan-accused-killing-private-development-in-london/
That’s because housebuilders know that Sadik Khan’s ‘affordable’ house-building targets were unsustainable. The building industry couldn’t afford to build them, and especially not after labour increased the minimum wage, increased employers’ NI, and dropped the level at which employers’ NI was paid.
Angela Rayner said she was going to build 1.5 million new homes:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn074jzzrkjo
But Angela Rayner never was going to build 1.5 million new homes and even if she came close to it there would be an enormous environmental impact.
Steve Read has now said that he is going to build 1.5 million new homes:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn82xnze9l4o
But Steve Read is no more going to build 1.5 million new homes than he is going to make pigs fly, and everybody with any intelligence can see that, and knows that.
The problem with Sadik Khan, Angela Rayner, Steve Read and now the Green Party is that their targets and their policies are unsustainable.
The left-wing loonies in government, or in parties who aspire to be in government, don’t want to acknowledge that unless they involve the market in delivering the solution to providing sustainable housing, then they can’t deliver it.
Punishing landlords by stopping them from renting their houses out if they try to sell them doesn’t do anything for availability of housing. It always was a stupid policy. And it gives you a clue to what the real problem is…the real problem is a left-wing government that wants to punish business, entrepreneurs and people who have worked hard. It has nothing to do with sustainable housing policy.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3511 - Articles: 5
12:28 PM, 29th October 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jill Church at 28/10/2025 – 07:51
the irony.
Leave it vacant for 12 months and then watch the market rate increase over the period … all due to a lack of supply…..