mat109

The economics of leaving a house empty for 2 months (can't rent it) and paying council tax seem to me to be a little screwy... Why not reduce the rent? Or sell?

As a "youth" - mid-late twenties - who is going to pay for all the obscene prices when I'm 65(+) retired and a generation of the priced out have passed through. I hope noone. 40 years is a long time. I'd rather hope something will turn up. Preferably before I have children. There's not really much else I can do other than worry about it until it affects mental health, which won't help me.

The whole BMV thing is retarded. If it's BMV then it is the market.

Read "the tragedy of power" - suggests that Tony was terrified of him. Apparently earlier prime ministers had the same problem, but Tony didn't know enough history or read anything about former prime ministers. It's a common theme with Tony. Iraq anyone?

I had no intention of provoking you into any sort of reaction and I'm sorry if I've wound you up. It wasn't my intention. I'd stopped posting when you said you didn't want to engage further in a previous post. Look - I'm all too aware of the young and priced out. I'm young-ish (mid-late twenties) and priced out (London) and paying up the rent as well, as are many of my friends. I had a question asked in parliament by Corbyn in his first question time after deciding the embark on a letter writing campaign in 2015 over the housing crisis (I'm Matthew) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/14/pmqs-corbyn-accuses-cameron-limiting-life-chances-children . Shortly afterwards (looks like the day after, in fact - obviously I'd been inspired) I found HPC and have been lurking ever since. Make of it what you will, I'm not hugely pro labour/corbyn either but I had a staunchly Conservative MP at the time who wrote deeply unsatisfactory replies. It frustrates me that so few people my age don't get angrier. You'll note from my limited posts I take an interest in the tenant - landlord law, because it's the only way I have to improve my situation other than working and saving. I've extracted non-protected deposit compensation - easy to do - and enjoyed making more than one letting agent miserable by complaining loudly and winning each time. From the sympathy side - yes I'm a snowflake. I think someone in their 60s, 70s, 80s in a shit flat somewhere who can't afford to make more of their sunset years is a shame and that lady who lost her lot in "HPC-lite" and now spends her time bitter and twisted and pursuing restoration is a sad way to end a life. Other than the safety net of the benefits system the Government shouldn't get involved though. Few fear this, because they cannot see the risk (which when obvious they try and avoid - mention stocks etc.). Had she been better informed (note: not the same as education or intelligence), perhaps she wouldn't have gone all in - alternatives exist - but certain interests (builders, bankers etc.) have contrived to encourage her ilk which hurts everyone else. The BTLrs are unwitting pawns and agents. Who am I blaming? The groupthink which sees shelter as a one way bet which has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The longer it all goes on though, the more people in total get hurt - and yes, the madness needs to stop, and almost noone is going to have won out of it.

Non-legal view: I don't understand what loss the landlord suffered from not being allowed inspections - surely awards shouldn't happen if there are no damages? Also, I wouldn't rely entirely on an adjudicator for ruling that a clause is unenforceable. I don't think we've ever seen any precedent on the matter. You could always take it to court, but you might end up losing more than £500.

This is - although perhaps clumsily put - my point. Go onto any BTL forum and marvel at their inability to string two sentences together or argue with any coherence, or make rational decisions. These aren't the creme of society, they are participants in a get rich quick scheme who lack the skills and empathy to see the danger. I wouldn't be too troubled. For me, It's an explanation of thier behaviour (poorly informed, greedy, stupid) rather than a justification or a reason to bail them out. I have sympathy for anyone who loses their shirt, even if they deserved it or spent said shirt on a socially damaging bandwagon. Doesn't mean I or anyone else have to pay for it. However, if it becomes politically expedient, a politician will do anything, but with - as you say - a declining core vote and increasing public hostility towards BTLrs this seems unlikely. I completely agree with you that their effect on aggregate is destructive (many know this) and many individually abuse their position with a breathtaking lack of empathy.There is a thread (I can't find it now - possibly disappeared down the 'memory hole' they have over there) from 118 where BTLs discuss why they themselves would hate to rent which I found astounding.

Totally agree. I meant from the perspective of the common BTLr, the property market has very little risk. Their worldview, not mine and one you commonly see on the forums. Yep. There's a good reason that unsophisticated investors shouldn't touch leverage stocks (myself included). They get burnt. IMO, this is going to happen with leveraged BTL - but in very, very slow motion. If I'd borrowed masses of money to buy BT stocks last night (down 15% this morning), i wouldn't expect any pity or special pleading this morning. Problem is, there is a political risk that the Government takes pity and decides that these investors should be treated otherwise ('missold' BTL). Only thing for it is to moan, moan, moan (with pride). We're getting there. BTL overlords no longer proudly announce their 'habit' at social events - at least to me, someone under 30. Comments in the Daily Mail are mostly anti-HPI. Forward thinking politicians are falling over themselves to be seen to build (which implicitly means they think house prices are too high, even if the fixes seem ridiculous). Labour are actually talking about it, a change from the Bliar years.

Perpetual HPI is strong with this one. in fact although he briefly moved out and lived in the rental property, the area is quite rough and the neighbours threatened him so he soon moved back in. And a people farmer. Tenant scum must suffer, but my ex couldn't possibly live there. I'm reluctant to take risks on stocks and shares etc. This is part of our problem. BTL = no risk. These people have few other options with their money that they understand, so property is the only way.

Not wanting totally on everyone's parade, but if you set the time period to all, it's clear that there are some very significant swings of average in that area in both direction (I imagine not helped by low transaction volumes and some very expensive purhc) eg. Oct 2012 £2.7M to Dec 2012 £1.1M. I'd love to attach a screenshot where I am, but I can't (work computer, alas). However, the recent trend looks downwards to me. If I had the time (and easy access to the underlying data), I would do some quick stats.

More profound insights from everyone's favourite property investor. Or perhaps a fecal transplant? To break the house hording habit. I can't find any studies suggesting this might work, but what have "academicals" ever done for us?! So what have you done Gary? Oh no! So what will you do now? How about real people farming? How much for a Fecal transplant on the open market?

Read the HMRC article: Capital Gains Tax for non-residents: calculating a taxable gain or loss Looks voluntary to me. There are three methods: 1) Based in value in April 2015. 2) The straight line calculation. 3) Entire gain made all at once on date of sale (probably if you make a loss only!)

This. Really smart girl at work (early 30s, Cambridge Natsci) buying a newbuld 600k flat in Canary Wharf. Studio. 'first time buyer'. I'm pretty sure I'm the only person she's ever spoken to who dissents from this being a good plan.

They let you 'straight line' value it, so assume the gains happened evenly over time. The way compound gain works means that you overestimate gains in the distant past (not taxed) and underestimate it more recently. It does, however, demonstrate just how desperate someone in 'negative MEW equity' (ie. owing more CGT than they have in actual equity thanks to MEWing) really are. Notwithstanding the complexity of proving you are non-resident, you exile yourself. However, it's only one (minor) legislative change away with not much in the way of negative political consequences , or even an HMRC disagreement over how you've calculated it with a lengthy, expensive and stressful court case. It's an insane gamble with the climate around tax avoidance and landlords at the moment. But then 'political risk' which real businesses worry about isn't some the BTL crowd handle very well. Apart from the shouty letters. And fruitless court cases.

I'm not convinced it's been closed - it's actually quite ambiguous. CGT is imposed on non-residents for capital gains AFTER 2015. Example Hypocritical shit house bought ten years 2007 increased in price £100k sold April 2017. (ignoring some allowances) CGT is chargeable on two years of gain = 20k. 28% is 5.6k. What I'm not clear about is if you've become a non-resident in 2015, HMRC will count the previous years as being liable for CGT or not.

Ok, so I've never (needed to) even submit a tax return thanks to good ol' PAYE and I know nothing about tax. Take the below with a pinch of salt. TLDR; I think the hypothetical Mr X, by moving to Malta, might be able to avoid capital gains, but there are two main hurdles. One is proving that you're a permenant non-dom (after 5 years) and the other is that HMRC applies the rules in exactly the way you understand them (and those rules don't change). Say Mr X purchased a rental property in August 1996 for £50,000 and it is now worth £500,000, i.e. £450,000 of capital gain. He became resident in Malta in Feb 2016 and sold the property in August 2016 for £500,000. How much capital gains tax do you think he was liable for and why? For ease please assume he’s already a higher rate tax paye The basis of the figure that he then goes on to work out is based on the HMRC calculator which seems to assume Mr X has always been non-resident. However: Let's think about this and assume moving to Malta means that you can instantly, 100% prove that you are non-resident. You have to leave the country and there are lots of complex rules about where and when you have to be out, how often you visit the UK etc. You also have to be out for 5 years and in each year be non-resident. My favourite is the rule of "branch or agency"- which means that if you have branches or agents in the country acting on your behalf, then you might be resident.as well. You also (thanks to some new rules in the Finance Act 2015) have to not becoming a non-dom for the purposes of avoiding tax. Publically stating that this was your intention might be unwise as a result. However, if let's say the hurdles above are all satisfied. Look at the rules for temporary non-doms (those non-dom'd less than 5 years) and how their capital gains are calculated. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/temporary-non-residents-and-capital-gains-tax-hs278-self-assessment-helpsheet/hs278-temporary-non-residents-and-capital-gains-tax-2015 If you are fully non-dom, the calculator we are using here works out which gains took place in which years. We need to work out which gains took place in which years - capital gains after April 2015 are liable for non-residents on UK property. There are two ways of doing this: This is the method the calculator uses, and assumes that the gain is accumulated linearly across the tax years. Each year is assigned a proportion of the gain, in equal chunks and you use the capital gains allowance for each of those years. At the moment, Mr X assumes that his capital gains in each previous year prior to April 2015 are non-taxable. There is an intrinsic contradiction here, which HMRC should be alert to. Surely- you can't both look backwards and assume you weren't liable for tax in those years (when you were) AND simultaneously, calculate the gain over that period for year. Even if they were, you rely on HMRC agreeing with you. OR So you can bring the entire gain to "today"... but you pay tax on the full amount because after April 2015, well, non-residents do.

Of course, real banks never write down debt (read: crystallise their losses) It's irrational, innit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_writedowns_due_to_subprime_crisis

Even more so, the same also surely must apply to those chartered surveyors? They don't get anything from a house being rented out. RICs seems to be all for BTL. https://www.property118.com/rics-recommendations-for-the-private-rented-sector/93104/

With property118 types in love with their housing empires and planning to 'never sell' (Life expectancy is mid 70s and I guess BTLer is mid 50s) why do the industry bodies not cheer attempts to make them sell up (eg. s24)? That's ~£1440 annually (London, £1200pcm @ 10% fee a year -) compared to the £10k they'd get for selling comparable place in fees at 2% (yes, £500k, ~3% yield). Assuming average time in house is 10 years, that's £14k over 10 years, excluding inflation, or £10k now, without the need to maintain an army of letting agents/management types - having to pay staff to worry about the boilers or periodically relet the place. In NPV terms, the two are very similar even with low interest rates. Obviously this excludes the fictional fees now under pressure. ... And yet: http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/this-has-been-an-annus-horribilis-for-landords-says-connells-firm/ These guys depend on volume to generate fees. Volume = owner occupiers moving around buying and selling as much as possible, not mindless property hoarding. Now that transaction levels seem to be crashing through the floor and RICS is telling us that supply is at an historic low, do they understand their business?

He's trying it on, the chancer. Here's my view as a non-lawyer. The deposit is YOUR money until proved otherwise. The landlord needs to prove that he's entitled to it in the same that he would do if there was no deposit at all (it's only there so it is easier to get to if there is a dispute - and you have a right to go to court if you really want to). Put it this way: without a third party inventory, it's very difficult for a landlord to prove anything and they really struggle with claiming off the deposit without one. Read this: http://www.depositprotection.com/documents/top-ten-inventory-tips.pdf You have a third party inventory and it's on your side = sorted. Dispute it. Say that you agree with the checkout report in its entireity (if you do) and make sure that you submit the report you were provided with. Unfortunately, I don't think there is much you can do to prevent this happening in the first place - chancers exist and probably fancy keeping your money (this is why deposit protection legislation exists!). Don't be intimidated. There's no hearing, just written evidence. Be aware that many landlords don't understand what "fair wear and tear" is and expect you to return the place unlived in.

Very good! These "to the legal owner" letters always annoy me - almost always from estate agents. Number one, land law in the UK on my leasehold flat means that there are layers of ownership, starting at the queen and ending at me, a tenant, via the freeholder and the long-leaseholder. On the basis that I "own" my tenancy agreement and am the legal occupier, I open these anyway in case they are baliffs threatening to kick the door down and repossess my things for someone else's debt. If it's definitely estate agent material (you can see the return address on the reverse sometimes) I return to sender and ask to be removed from their mailing lists. I would tell them the queen doesn't reside here, but I suspect it would be lost on them...

For me, my (successful) tactic was to point out exactly what you have just said here. Say that you're not used to paying for things which don't benefit you, the benefit is entirely on the side of the landlord and if he is prepared to pick up the full fee, then you are happy. Also, if you don't know the landlord's address, it might be worth paying the land registry to get it - £3. You can then write to them. Remember the landlord will be paying too, and he may not even realise he has another option.

Just don't allow any viewings. Failing that, any viewings that happen be sure to complain loudly how terrible the landlord is. To the letting agent's face if necessariy with the viewer by their side. Voids cost money, and their greed has a cost.

I call troll. I've been renting privately for 10 years. Why should you get the right to buy your house at a discount while simultanesouly paying less and having better security because I was able to house myself 10 years ago out of my own pocket and you needed assistance?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3581787/Why-painful-late-life-divorce-isn-t-losing-husband-s-losing-home.html#comments Pay £120 a week to the council for a two bed? Count me in. The entitlement is incredible, and noone mentions the real problem - insane prices and an incredible disdain for those who rent. I just wish they could see how women 30 years younger have to live.