Buy-to-let investors – is Landlord Ltd. the answer?

As far as buy-to-let landlords are concerned, April 2017 is not so much a red-letter date as a red ink one. That’s the date when a series of tax changes start to come into force which are going to decrease their profits and increase their tax liability.

Until now, landlords have been able to subtract mortgage interest from rental income, before calculating how much tax they owe. Not after April. Changes will be phased in from April onwards which by 2020, will result in landlords paying tax on the entire rental income their property earns. If the fat-cat landlord ever really existed, they are certainly a thing of the past.

Needless to say, given the world-beating complexity of the UK tax regime, the changes aren’t that simple. The landlord will be due a tax credit of 20% of the total interest they pay, but the entire rent will be taxable. Higher rate tax payers will be much harder hit because the rent will be taxable at the higher rate. And of course, a landlord who is paying 45% tax, will be worse off still.

The people at MoneySupermarket.com have been busy crunching the numbers and they reckon that if you are a higher-rate taxpayer and the mortgage interest is 75% or more of your income from the property, the tax changes will eliminate your return on the investment. For someone paying the additional rate of tax, this will happen when the interest is at 68% of the rent.

If you are a small landlord with just one property, you may be breathing a sigh of relief, if you are on the basic rate of tax. But wait a moment. Since your taxable income will go up as a result of the changes, you may well become a higher rate tax payer.

Is there any way to protect yourself from the changes?

Companies which own property and let it out are not affected by the rental tax changes. They can carry on paying corporation tax on the profits and paying dividends and salaries to the company directors. But before landlords rush to become limited companies, they need to be aware of the many tax complications and possible pitfalls in taking this step. They certainly need to take professional advice.

The company needs to be set up properly to buy the property, and this has to be achieved with the correct paperwork. So don’t necessarily assume the cheapest set-up that you find is the best choice. It is better to get an accountant to do this for you.
And although companies aren’t affected by the tax changes on rents and interest, they are affected by the stamp duty changes which mean that there’s 3% extra stamp duty payable by any person or company buying a second property when they already own one.

As for transferring properties you already own into a company, there are a host of tax complications.

Buy to let investments still competitive

The fact is that many people, not just those on very low incomes or on benefits, need to rent property and in Manchester lettings agents are as busy as ever. Tenants need landlords to provide a stable and active property rental market.

Professional landlords, holding large portfolios of property can probably look after themselves but the small landlord with one or two properties is going to be more adversely affected. One of the effects may be that the average age of landlords rises, as people in work are not going to want to be pushed into higher tax bands by the income from a rental property. They may wait until they retire to move into buy-to-let.

For retired people looking for additional income, even though the tax benefits of buy-to-let have been greatly reduced, given the woeful returns on savings, the income from owning rental properties looks very attractive and there is always the possibility of increases in property values.

Furthermore, mortgages for buy-to-let are becoming increasingly available for older people. For many retired people with lower outgoings and perhaps no mortgage left on their own home, the affordability criteria for these mortgages are not stumbling blocks to anything like the same degree as they are for younger borrowers.

The Chancellor has done his worst, but buy-to-let is still with us and while interest rates on savings are below 1%, landlords are unlikely to give up on their investments.

Why was s24 introduced?

This story was taken from the recent publication by Property 118 titled: “SECTION 24 of the Finance (no.2) Act 2015: “The unjust legislation that will make the UK housing crisis much worse”

When the former Chancellor, George Osborne announced in his Summer Budget speech of July 2015 that he would ‘restrict finance cost tax relief for ‘individual’ landlords,’ it wasn’t clear to most observers what this actually meant.

 

The method of describing the change was so opaque that only tax experts would have understood it initially. Landlords across the country had no idea what it meant. This was because to fully understand what ‘Section 24, of the Finance (no.2) Act, 2015’ signified, one would need to understand the concept of ‘sophistry.’

 

‘SOPHISTRY’.

The Oxford Dictionary definition: a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

The Cambridge Dictionary definition: the clever use of arguments that seem true but are really false, in order to deceive people

 

There are various theories regarding why the Government introduced this punitive tax regime for ‘private’ landlords (corporate landlords are exempt). It really was a bolt from the blue. As no-one outside of the Treasury was party to the discussions, we can only speculate on the motives. These may include:

 

  •  It’s a tax grab, pure and simple (and landlords are an easy target), and George Osborne was under a self-imposed pressure at the time to eliminate the budget deficit.
  •  It’s to help first time buyers or at least give them the illusion they were being helped (according to this, attacking one group helps another) and also to further favour owner-occupiers in the tax system, as increased owner-occupation levels are a Conservative Party goal (this group has been fiscally favoured for decades).
  •  It’s to eliminate the ‘small-time’ landlord, so that ‘institutions’ can take over the market. This is justified publicly as a move which will improve rental conditions, but institutions also happen to donate to the Conservative Party coffers.

 

One thing cannot be in doubt, however, and that is that it was a populist move, yet one which landlords were shocked to see a Conservative Government introduce, as it is such a ‘hard-left’ policy.

 

Logically, it will lead to the effective confiscation of assets in many cases. This is because landlords will be forced to sell at a time not of their choosing, possibly in a falling market and in many parts of the country properties are still in negative equity. It will therefore bankrupt many landlords who will not have the funds to repay the mortgages (they will have planned to keep the properties for many years and would not have priced in having to suddenly sell them because of retroactive legislation).

 

The groundwork for the measure was laid by anti-landlord organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent and fuelled by biased media coverage of ‘rogue landlords’ over several years. Because of this it passed through Parliament very smoothly. Indeed the Labour Party did not oppose it, as to do so would have placed them to the right of the Conservatives, politically. It therefore went unchallenged by the Opposition and other parties, with the Labour MP, Siobhain McDonagh, even suggesting that this extreme measure be made more extreme

 

It is worth mentioning how since then, the Labour Party has continued to attack the sector by distorting the truth. In Jeremy Corbyn’s keynote speech to close the Labour Party conference in Liverpool in September 2016, for example, he accused the Government of ‘subsidising’ private landlords by spending £9 billion of housing benefits in the sector, not mentioning that the total cost to taxpayers for Government social housing had been £15.2 billion. As one landlord commented:

 

‘The word ‘subsidise’ means to help by giving money, to pay part of the cost of something. It is not landlords who are being subsidised, it is the people who are given the welfare money.

They are being subsidised for not being able to command an income high enough to support their households.

The purpose of the subsidy is to prevent people becoming homeless and having to be housed by councils at greater cost than the private sector rents…

[Corbyn said:]“Instead of spending public money on building council housing, we’re subsidising private landlords.”

This suggests to his gullible audience that a government could stop paying housing benefit and divert the money instead towards building houses.

This is another example of either sophistry or economic illiteracy. Where would the people on housing benefit go once they had been evicted en masse for non-payment of rent? How much would it cost to put them in “temporary” accommodation – which might become permanent?’

 

 

 

 

You can read the full report here, please share this information

 

What landlords do, from the perspective of one landlord:

This story was taken from the recent publication by Property 118 titled: “SECTION 24 of the Finance (no.2) Act 2015: “The unjust legislation that will make the UK housing crisis much worse”

 

We often invest in old, sometimes decrepit housing and we restore it and bring it back into use. When we do this, it is a financial gamble as property values can go up or down.

If private landlords were not willing to take these business risks there would be a massive shortage of housing in this country, as the Government relies on private individuals to take these risks (having sold off council houses for example and then not replaced them).

We provide comfortable, safe housing for millions of people. This housing is safer than ordinary owner-occupied housing, as we have the gas safety checked every year and also ensure electrics and so on are safe. We then provide 24-hour help to our tenants, so any problem they experience at the house (a burst pipe, a leak etc.) becomes our problem and we sort it out. These tenants have complete mobility as they only need to give us one month’s notice and they can leave if they want to move away for a new job or whatever reason. This flexibility of the workforce also supports the economy.

We employ builders, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, painters and decorators…. the list goes on, including also buying supplies from DIY stores, furniture suppliers, locksmiths – we support all manner of businesses, who then pay taxes and keep the economy moving. We invest massive amounts of money in this way every month of every year. We also pay a considerable amount of tax ourselves.

We support estate agents, the financial services, through the massive amount of interest we pay to mortgage companies and banks over the years, brokers, and also through insurance policies, conveyancing lawyers and so on. We employ and pay large amounts to letting agencies also. This also keeps a substantial number of people in permanent employment.

Of late, through unnecessary and pointless licencing by councils and the massive fees that they charge, with a monopoly on this (they effectively write their own cheques and we sign them), we even prop up the finances of local councils.

We run the risk of getting tenants from hell – this can happen despite us taking all kinds of precautions, and the law gives us very few rights to recover the money owed to us. Sometimes we even take on tenants known to have alcohol or drug dependencies as we can be a bit soft. Often then, we get our houses wrecked in return for our charitable attitude. Councils and the Citizens Advice Bureaux then advise these tenants to stick it out for as long as possible whilst paying no rent, meaning we as landlords are even more out of pocket.

We get the finger pointed at us when we let to groups of students or professionals. For example, we may convert a Victorian house into a 6-bed, 2 bathroom house. This enables individuals to pay a low rent for a room plus communal facilities. This is often seen as some money-grabbing, cynical move by landlords. In fact, it is profitable for the landlord, great for the tenant (who only spends a small part of their disposable income on housing), and is a great use of space. How can it be seen as preferable for one person (an owner-occupier) to have use of a whole house for themselves? Heating and lighting a house for 6 people is a great, environmentally friendly use of housing and tenants often prefer it as they have ready-made friends and company. And yet we get criticised for this instead of being praised and encouraged.

Yes, landlords aim to make a profit from all of this work, but so do all businesses and indeed all people who go out to work.

Update on Landlords Fight Back #TenantTax

We have received an update from Chris Cooper and Steve Bolton on the ongoing fight to axe the tenant tax:

 

Following our meeting with the Housing Minister, Gavin Barwell, on Friday 9thSeptember, we wanted to share this detailed update with you.
We thank him for making the time to see us.
In attendance were:
– Gavin Barwell (MP and Housing Minister)
– Graham Lyon (Croydon resident and landlord)
– Steve Bolton (Axe the Tenant Tax and Platinum Property Partners)
– Gary Elliott (Corby based Landlord and Hunters Estate Agents)
– Martin Skinner (Croydon/London based developer/Inspired Assets)
Firstly a HUGE thanks to Graham Lyon for making this meeting happen and to Gary Elliot for contacting us and recommending that Axe the Tenant Tax were represented at the meeting. And thanks to Martin Skinner for providing the Croydon Developer angle and insights.
To start with, we were impressed by how Gavin handled the meeting. He took notes, listened intently and asked clarifying questions when he felt he needed to. At the end, he summarised well, asked us to rank in order of priority/concern all of the issues that we discussed and then he put his points across well. At times he agreed with us and when he disagreed, he explained his reasoning.
He also spoke off the record with views that cannot be shared but left us with the impression that he understood the situation and was ‘unofficially’ supportive of many of our points of view.
Judging him on this meeting alone, he has excellent communication skills, a good understanding of the issues, a smart brain and comes across as an impressive man. His offices were frugal (good that they are not overspending tax payers’ money) and his two staff were very helpful, polite and efficient.
Gavin is on public record recently (via Twitter) speaking out in support of private landlords by saying:
“Astonishing attack by @jeremycorbyn on private landlords who provide homes for millions of people. More to do but EHS (English Housing Survey) shows standards rising”.
All of the above comments must be put in the context that we have very limited experience meeting with and dealing with politicians, so it is hard to make comparisons in that context. This was in fact the first ever meeting with a current Cabinet Minister for all of us.
However, from a business comparison point of view, I would rate the way that Gavin communicated and managed the meeting to be of a very high standard in a commercial setting.
The main points we put across during the meeting are as follows:
1. The unfair and retroactive nature of Section 24 and the damaging consequences totenants, landlords, suppliers, developers and the housing market. This was obviously the key focus of the discussion.
2. Our Judicial Review and that our preference would be for the Government to remove the retroactive nature of Section 24 as quickly as possible (i.e. apply it only from April 2017 onwards), as opposed to having to fight us in the courts. (This then leaves future property purchases open to either being affected by Section 24 and people can go into this with their eyes wide open, or they can be more serious about their property business and buy through a Ltd company). We made it clear however that we and our supporters will take the Judicial Review as far as the process allows and are committed to the cause.
3. When costs rise for the supplier in most businesses, ultimately the end user shares in footing the bill. We know he is supportive of this point as he is on record previously making this statement about Landlord licensing: “It doesn’t take a genius to work out what will happen if this scheme goes ahead: landlords who make the payment will simply pass the cost on to their tenants. Lest I be accused of scaremongering, the Council admits this, though the admission is buried 19 pages into its report ‘tenantsmay be impacted by an increase in their housing costs as landlords seek to pass on some or all of the costs of licensing through higher rent levels’.” Gavin Barwell MP (on Croydon Council’s landlord licensing scheme 2014).
Gavin shared that the tax changes and policies that we have seen over the last 12 months, stemmed from the Bank of England’s comments regarding preventing another housing bubble and that buy to let landlords would be more likely to default, and in a downturn, make the situation worse. We made the points that there were far more simple and honest ways to address this concern by changing lending criteria. What has in fact happened is that a sustained tax grab has been initiated and only recently are we now seeing some of the lending criteria being adjusted. Furthermore, we have had personal experiences with the Bank of England and are not confident that they have a full and broad understanding of the sector from a commercial point of view.
We talked about the impact that Section 24 will have on rent rises to tenants and Gary Elliot, a Corby based landlord and part of the Hunters letting agent group, informed Gavin that he had already increased rents by 5% in anticipation of the rent rises, and plans to do so for every year for the next four years. Previously he had not increased rents for existing tenants for six years but is having to do so because Section 24 will increase his tax bill from £20,000 to £45,000 per year and if he doesn’t increase rents, he will have to sell and tenants will have to move out.
Gavin seemed genuinely surprised that the tax increase would be so high for Gary and others like him. We made the point that the more people you provide homes for, the more likely Section 24 will have a devastating impact. It is punishing exactly the wrong people (unless your goal is to raise rents and reduce the number of homes). At this point Gavin asked if Section 24 was removed, would Gary put his rents back down? Gary answered honestly by saying no. We made the point that the failed Irish experiment resulted in a 50% increase in rents over a three year period before they scrapped them and many of those rents did not go back down afterwards. We followed this by saying that it was therefore in the Government’s and housing market’s interest to change Section 24 as soon as possible, otherwise rents will rise aggressively over the coming years, and they are unlikely to go back down. We showed him a Guardian article from that newspaper on that day, stating that rents have now reached record levels and he said he had also read it that morning. We said that this was just the tip of the iceberg and there is far more and far worse coming.
Gavin was interested in the importance of the supply of new homes and how we think Section 24 would impact this situation. We were in common agreement that the lack of supply of new property is the fundamental cause of the housing crisis and this is a key issue for him to address in his role as Housing Minister. There is a common consensus that the bigger house-builders are going to continue to build at similar levels as in the recent past and no game-changing solution to the crisis will be forthcoming from that sector of the market.
Build to Rent is a new development that has, in the USA at least, had a genuine impact on the supply of new homes, especially in the more densely populated areas. We agreed that it was not an ‘either/or’ situation, both private landlords AND build to rent type developments and developers, were part of the solution. Gavin mentioned that he had visited Pocket Living (https://www.pocketliving.com/) and appeared to like the possibilities offered by these types of innovations in the sector. Similar properties are offered by Martin Skinner’s Inspired Assets.
We made it clear that buy to let investors were critical to supply as they are one of the few forms of buyer groups who are willing and able to put down deposits on developments at an early stage and before mortgage finance is available. First time buyers hardly ever do this as it is a golden rule in property that you don’t exchange or put down large non-refundable deposits until you have mortgage offers in place. However, experienced investors are often comfortable doing this as they have a different risk profile. From a developers’ perspective, buy to let investors’ deposits are often critical in achieving the financing they need to commence the build process. And properties bought by buy to let investors not only create new homes for tenants to live in, but when they are sold in future, some of them will end up in the hands of first time buyers.
Gavin shared that the smaller and medium-sized developers, like Martin Skinner and his company Inspired Assets, are an important part of the solution.
We also made the point that more and more people are sharing properties for both affordability and social benefits. We explained that Platinum Property Partners have purchased 800 properties and turned these houses into 5,000 new units of high quality affordable accommodation for key workers and working professionals by making them HMOs. This proved the point that existing stock, when converted into quality HMOs, can also create more places for people to live, and more affordably than living alone. House and flat sharing and smaller apartments are part of the solution. In fact SpareRoom, who kindly supported us by providing some research data and comment for the meeting, suggest that there are 20 million empty bedrooms in the UK and if just 5% were of them were rented out, there would not be a housing crisis.
We discussed the retroactive nature of Section 24 (it is not retrospective in legal terms). Why did the Government bring something in that changes the rules for people who made decisions based on certain financial assumptions and now they have had the rug pulled from under them? Gavin mentioned that as a principle, tax changes should and are normally forward looking, but there are some exceptions. He was not willing to comment further but was certainly nodding and cannot dispute that it is normal and sensible business practice to make policy changes that affect the future and not the past.
We discussed the fact that there was no consultation on Section 24 and whilst he could not comment on the exact reasons for this, he did say that this is often the case with other policies. He made an off the record general comment that we understood, but it is not one that we can agree with.
Gavin also understood that London was a ‘bubble’ in the sense that the issues surrounding housing in London are far different than it is in all other parts of the UK.
At various points we had short break-off discussions about Capital Gains Tax, licensing, permitted development rights, space standards and other housing related matters. However, the crux of the meeting was Section 24 and all roads led back in that direction.
Next Steps
In terms of next steps, Gavin provided us with some useful recommendations on areas that we should be focused on and the arguments that will give us the most leverage to change opinions. We did not go into the meeting expecting his public support for our legal challenge or a Government u-turn, as this is something that clearly in his role he cannot give.
Like all cabinet members, he is expected to support the Government’s policies and decisions, even when they may personally disagree.
He was left knowing that our proposed win-win solution was that Section 24 gets changed so that properties purchased in individual names, prior to April 2017, are not affected by the legislation.
Whilst we were initially resistant to any form of ‘compromise’ solution when we started out on our Section 24 Judicial Review journey, we soon came to see the logic in offering the Government a way to partially save face and still give us the main objective that the vast majority of our supporters are rooting for. This point of view is not only one shared by the other landlord organisations but also lobbyists and our expert communications agency, Westbourne, who have a proven track record in helping to overturn or dilute bad tax policies. It would be the smart and practical solution and is our central focus alongside the Judicial Review.
A follow up meeting was discussed with a site visit to one of Martin Skinner’s Croydon developments, Green Dragon House. We are positive this will happen and can continue our dialogue again. We left behind a printed PowerPoint presentation that summarises the key points effectively and in simple terms and this will be shared in the very near future, so that our supporters can use it as the basis for meetings with their MPs.
Action Steps
In terms of how you can help us build on the positive outcomes from this meeting, here is what we would suggest and be grateful if you can support:
Meet your MP – Steps on how to do this can be found in the link below on this excellent page produced by the RLA. In addition, we would suggest taking a printed copy of the PowerPoint/PDF presentation that we will soon be making available as a leave behind and to use as a guide for you during the meeting if you would feel more comfortable having a clear structure to follow. Maybe consider going with one or two others – a fellow landlord, letting agent or a tenant who can talk about how rent rises will impact their ability to get on the property ladder or the fact that if they do not aspire to this, that they are happy renting, always see themselves doing this and want affordable and good quality accommodation like you provide.
Public attendance at Court Hearing in London on Thursday 6th October from 11.30am – Our 90 minute court hearing, where Cherie Blair QC MBE and our expert legal team will make our case for a Judicial Review of Section 24, will be open to the public. We have managed to secure a larger court room, but interest from supporters means that capacity is already oversubscribed. There may be an opportunity to request an even larger space, but this is unlikely. If you haven’t already registered your attendance via the Facebook page, please email info@tenanttax.co.uk to be added to a waiting list.
Join us for expert panel debates and meetings at the Property Investor Show, London ExCel, Friday 7th and Saturday 8th October – Meet us personally and join in a seminar or panel debate and Q&A that we will be hosting at the Property Investor and Homebuyer Show. Tickets are free and we are expecting a large turnout from our supporters. We will have a stand at the show that the organisers have very kindly provided to us free of charge, so please show your support to them and us by coming along. The NLA have already confirmed that they will take part in the panel debate on both days, with their CEO Richard Lambert attending and taking part personally on the Saturday. We await final confirmation from the RLA of their attendance and participation also on the panel debate and they have already indicated positively that they will be taking part.
The Axe the Tenant Tax umbrella campaign now represents over 100,000 landlords through various organisations and who are estimated to house over 1 million tenants. Our cause and campaign is growing in both size and stature as every week progresses. Our outcomes continue to be crystal clear; overturn Section 24 via a Judicial Review, or get the Government to remove the retroactive nature of Section 24 so that past property purchases are not included. We will continue to grow and expand the inclusive umbrella campaign and continue to work with and attract more coalition partners.
A massive thank you to every individual, large and small, who has supported us so far. Please keep doing so and spreading the word.

We Support a Judicial Review of Clause 24

Brentwood Lettings is very proud to support a new campaign against the unfair and unjust Clause 24.

Steve Bolton and Chris Cooper are co-leading a legal challenge against the Conservative Government via a process known as a “Judicial Review”.

Judicial Review of Clause 24 (Alice in Wonderland Tax Grab) is aimed at disallowing the perfectly legitimate finance costs (including mortgage interest), of individuals who own and operate buy to let properties in their own name but excludes the same for institutions, corporations, wealthy cash buyers and overseas landlords.

If you would like to lend your support to this campaign please visit:

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CLAUSE 24 – CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

clause 24

 

This Clause 

The Government wishes to continue to tax not just the rental ‘profits’, but will now not allow individual investors to offset the main cost of arriving at that taxable profit, namely the mortgage finance costs.

If you would like to lend your support to this campaign please visit:

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CLAUSE 24 – CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

 

What’s at stake?

EVERY single business in the UK is allowed to offset their total costs against their income before being taxed (on their profit). The Summer Budget changes this very fundamental and important business principle.

However, it only does so in a way that just discriminates against individual buy to let business owner-operators, who have mortgages/finance costs.

As a result of this change, many thousands of people will find themselves being taxed on loss-making buy-to-let properties, see massive increases in the percentage of tax payable and many will find that they will be pushed upwards into a higher tax bracket, even though they may well not be making a single penny of extra profit!

We want to bring back a level playing field in the private rented sector to challenge the advantage the government is giving to institutional and corporate investors, overseas property buyers and cash-purchasing landlords, none of whom are affected by Clause 24.

In the words of Philip Booth, a Professor of Finance, Public Policy and Ethics at St. Mary’s University:

“To put it quite bluntly, this is an elementary undergraduate public finance error that should not be made in the Treasury.”

A member of ICAEW commented;

“It is a long established principle of taxation that expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business are deductible when calculating the taxable profits. Clause 24 of the Summer 2015 Finance Bill contravenes that principle and will result in proprietors of property businesses being liable to tax on a fictitious profit – even if the proprietors really make a loss.

The tax change does not just affect new borrowings. Landlords with existing borrowings will be affected. Portfolio landlords will be particularly badly hit.

As a consequence of the tax change, major changes in the private sector will take place. Some landlords will pass on their increased tax by increasing rents. Others will be forced to sell, as they will not be in a position to pay the extra tax demanded by HMRC. Homelessness will increase as some tenants will not be able to afford higher rents and many will be evicted by landlords forced to sell”.

Steve Bolton, who is spear-heading the legal fight on behalf of his 250 strong network of PPP landlords and thousands of other investors, commented:

“It’s not clear why the Government has chosen to just launch an attack on buy-to-let owner-operators with mortgages. It’s a tax from Alice in Wonderland – truly absurd and divorced from real life. Not only is this tax grab unfair, undemocratic and underhanded, but we believe that it could also be unlawful.”

The lawyers supporting Steve Bolton and other interested parties believe that there may be a basis in Human Rights and European law where this can be challenged and over-turned via the courts.

If you would like to lend your support to this campaign please visit:

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CLAUSE 24 – CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

 

What’s the next step:

ImageVaultHandler.aspx

The campaign is seeking a “judicial review”, which is a type of court proceeding where a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action taken by a public body (in this case the Conservative Government).

Specifically we are challenging Clause 24 of the Finance Bill 2015, which we believe unlawfully breaches human rights and/or European Union law.

 

What are the steps and likely timings for a judicial review action?

Screenshot 2015-12-27 14.53.51

Raising £50,000 of funding – as soon as possible

A “pre-action protocol letter” setting out our case to be sent to the Government in January 2016 (latest);

An application for judicial review to be filed with the court in February 2016;

The Government then has 21 days to respond to the application by filing a defence;
If permission is granted, a 1-3 day hearing would then be scheduled by the court and a decision would be made

If you would like to lend your support to this campaign please visit:

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CLAUSE 24 – CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

 

The legal team:

09_05_2013_06_37_57_SarahHannett

Mrs Cherie Blair CBE, QC and Sarah Hannett Omnia Strategy LLP.

 

 

If you would like to lend your support to this campaign please visit:

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CLAUSE 24 – CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

Individuals affected by Clause 24 if it results in landlords leaving or not investing further in the private rented sector:

Landlords
Lettings agents
BTL lenders
Mortgage brokers
Handymen
Builders
Insurance providers
EPC providers
Suppliers of products and services to the lettings sector – including digital products such as property management software.
Accountants
Furniture providers (HMOs)
Solicitors
Tenants

 

If you would like to lend your support to this campaign please visit:

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CLAUSE 24 – CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

 

Ben Street Clayton Main image

Ben Street

Brentwood Lettings are pleased to present this newly decorated 2 bedroom terrace to rent in Clayton. Within…

Price: £ 575.00 pcm
Teddington Road New Moston Main image

Teddington Road

**IDEAL FAMILY HOME** Brentwood Lettings are pleased to offer this spacious 3 bedroom semi detached property to…

Price: £ 600.00 pcm
St Georges Drive Moston Main image

St Georges Drive

Brentwood Lettings are pleased to present this delightful family home which is ideally located on a quiet…

Price: £ 700.00 pcm
Honister Road Moston Main image

Honister Road

Brentwood Lettings are pleased to present this spacious 3 bedroom Semi detached property to rent in Moston.…

Price: £ 599.00 pcm
Lowton Avenue Moston Main image

Lowton Avenue

Brentwood Lettings are pleased to present this two bedroom Terraced property which is situated in the Moston…

Price: £ 540.00 pcm
Silton Street Moston Main image

Silton Street

Brentwood Lettings are pleased to offer this 2 bedroom property located in the Moston area. The property…

Price: £ 540.00 pcm
Ruth Avenue New Moston Main image

Ruth Avenue

Brentwood Lettings are pleased to present this immaculately presented 2 bedroom terraced property which is ideally located…

Price: £ 575.00 pcm

Property Management

We manage properties throughout Manchester for investors all over the world. Contact us to talk about your property

Lettings

We provide a let only service for those landlords who wish to self manage their properties

Maintenance

We provide a full range of maintenance services, from safety inspections and repairs right up to full refurbishments

Local Property Experts

We know North Manchester like the back of our hands, chat with us for all the latest news and trends in the area

Investor Tips

Being your people on the ground, we find out about the hottest and most lucrative of local investment opportunities first hand.

Advice & Support

We are available to talk about the Local Property Market and your individual properties whenever suits you, book a call with us today