A Quarter of Landlords Want Out Because of Tax Changes

The Telegraph reported this week that 25% of buy-to-let landlords intend to sell the properties they are currently renting out, because of the government’s campaign of swingeing tax increases in the sector.

Unintended Consequences of the Tax Grab

This news has caused alarm not just in rental circles but throughout the professional property market, because such a large volume of property hitting the market at the same time could destabilise the entire sector. Another factor here is that rental properties are often concentrated in certain areas. Many landlords favour terraced or semi detached houses in reasonably modest areas because the prices are lower but rents are still reasonable, giving a workable investment yield.

The property market is always essentially local, as landlord advice in Manchester shows. In a local area, a large number of buy-to-let landlords selling up at the same time will definitely affect house prices. In fact if landlords feel that they need to beat a rush to market they will get in early and market their properties at higher prices, hoping to avoid a stampede of rental properties on the market once the buying season starts in spring.

The other undesirable effect of a wholesale dumping of buy-to-let investments will be that rents will rocket upwards because the property being sold will not be bought by other investors but by homeowners. This will remove large amounts of rental property from the market and cause major problems for those tenants who simply do not have the option to buy a property. As a result, the demand for council properties will almost certainly increase.

Nearly 1,000 experienced buy-to-let landlords were surveyed by the Residential Landlords’ Association and the results were pretty staggering. Almost 25% have either already sold their properties or are planning to sell them as a result of the government’s decision to stop mortgage interest being offset against rental income when landlords are working out their taxes.

The draconian changes to taxes on rental income were announced in the 2015 budget but will not come into effect until next year. The tax changes are hardest on those landlords who pay tax at the higher rates (40% or 45%) and those who have bigger mortgages. Taxpayers who aren’t on the higher rates so far, may find that because their taxable income has gone up, they are transferred into a higher rate tax band, a double whammy.

Tenants to Bear the Brunt

Tenants are going to bear the brunt of the new tax regime – not only will they find that there are far fewer rental properties around, but those that remain will be at significantly higher rents. The reduction in supply will of course mean that since demand is still constant, rents on available properties will rise, and landlords will need to make more from their property in order to get a yield that makes the investment sensible.

In fact a previous study found that nearly 60% of landlords were intending to increase their rental charges to offset the loss in income caused by the tax changes. Kent Reliance building society carried out a survey in June that found that landlords planning to increase rents were looking at an average figure of 5.6%.

Each Year Will See Further Effects

The tax changes are not coming in all at once one but are being phased in over a number of years and won’t be fully implemented until 2020. Therefore we should be able to see the effect that the changes are having year-on-year. Any changes in the first year in terms of landlords selling their properties and tenants finding that rents are rising can be expected to be magnified in every year that follows.

And the Icing on the Cake…

The detrimental effects on tenants and on local property markets described above, will be magnified by the sneaky new rules that state that when a lender offers a loan on a buy-to-let property, to a landlord who owns four or more properties, the lender will have to financially assess their entire portfolio.

The official reason given for this is that the more properties a landlord owns, the higher their mortgage arrears are likely to be. The actual effect will be that lenders will make fewer loans to landlords who own multiple properties, so the few landlords left in the game will not be able to buy new property.

It’s no way to run a housing policy.

Section 24: The Consequences for Tenants

The Section 24 debate rages on. This is the part of the Finance Act 2015, which changed the rules on landlords being able to claim back mortgage interest and offset it against rent, as well as increasing their taxes.

The property site Property118 recently featured a series of discussions with landlords, highlighting the consequences that Section 24 has had so far for their businesses. In fact, as will become clear, it’s more a case of the consequences that Section 24 has had for the tenants, not least those tenants who are on housing benefit. The site is actually collecting views from landlords that can be used in discussions with politicians, local councils and housing charities.

There are some revealing stories from landlords. As expected, in order to stay in business, many are having to pass on the rises in costs which they have suffered as a result of Section 24. If they don’t do this, they basically no longer have a business. A landlord named John explained that he had had to tell a tenant that rent would be going up, after being held for two years. That tenant moved on. He is now going to have to tell a number of other long-term tenants (some in residence for more than eight years) that their rent, too, will be going up. Tenants in M8 lettings can expect similar news.

This landlord gives his tenants a discount for being a responsible tenant. He is expecting the tax on each property to increase by about £2,000 a year. In order to break even given the new levels of taxation and the loss of mortgage interest tax relief, he would have to put his rents up by 20%. But the tenants will not be able to pay this, and he is therefore thinking of selling his properties which he had intended to provide his pension income.

Another landlord, Martin, pointed out that these extra taxes were not included in the Conservative party’s manifesto. He charges new tenants the market rate for their rent but after that he increases the rent very little, and some have no further increases for many years. All of these tenants now face very large rises in rent as he attempts to balance the books.

He feels that it is particularly unfair on landlords who have one or two buy-to-let properties and also work, because they are the ones that will fall under higher rate taxation with the result that they will barely be covering their costs. He feels that if mortgaged buy-to-let landlords are forced to sell, it will be to the great advantage of un-mortgaged landlords who will be able to step in and pick up properties very cheaply, and that this is a form of wealth transfer. The gainers will be the very rich with large buy-to-let portfolios, or corporate landlords.

Another landlord, Colin, has tenants who are mostly on housing benefit, but some of these have lived in his houses for over 10 years and all of his tenants are long-standing. He charges rents based on LHA which are therefore below market value. He wrote to his tenants some months ago warning them that rents would have to go up and that he would have to dispose of some of his houses.

One family could not afford any increase in rent and has gone to share the same property as other members of their family. Another tenant has asked for notice in the hope that they will be rehoused by the council. Other tenants have agreed to an increase of 15% in their rent – still below market value.

He feels that people are becoming homeless, and that very poor people who are already stretched are having to find more money for rent.

Another landlord, Chris, says that he has never increased the rent of an existing tenant. He owns 39 properties and half of his tenants are on some kind of benefit, including in-work benefits for people who on tough employment contracts. Some tenants have been with him for nine years and in total he provides housing for about 70 people.

There are other landlords in the conversation and three things come up repeatedly. First, that all of these landlords are going to have to put up rents. Second, that many of them are thinking of selling out at least part of their portfolio. Third, that they will never ever vote Conservative again.

What experts and commentators have to say about Section 24

These quotes have been 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”

Richard Dyson, Finance Editor at The Telegraph:

…It is a tax from Alice in Wonderland, a truly bonkers tax, a tax you’d laugh at – if it were being applied in a Third World country by a lunatic dictator.’

 

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales:

‘The idea that landlords will be taxed on the profit of their businesses, but not be allowed to offset the costs of creating that taxable profit is absurd, unjust and unsustainable. It overturns a fundamental, centuries-old principle of taxation.’

Paul Johnson of The Institute of Fiscal Studies:

‘This line of argument [about the ‘level playing field’] is plain wrong. Rental property is taxed more heavily than owner occupied property.’

Read all the expert feedback in the Full Report from Property118 

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

 

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.
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