Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Btl Scum Regrouping And On The Offensive. -- Merged


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lavalas said:

Well at least good old Gary is taking it all in his stride. He's responding to someone saying they'll be selling up at the end of their fixed terms...

 

I do love the smell of a fully deserved breakdown first thing in an evening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 13.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Dont really know either, but PT seems like one of the more responsible BTL news-info sites, and forums - in very murky world of property.    There are many property vested interests on murkier si

Although all that 'creating personal brand' pushing many of the BTLers are into... / have been into for years and years. It's used by many other sectors in a similar way - there's a lot in self-p

Previous video in the link below (Landlord 29 years 'experience / greatness'), for anyone who didn't see it first time around + latest round of other BTL comments, although I skipped the ones by PB.

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Lavalas said:

Well at least good old Gary is taking it all in his stride. He's responding to someone saying they'll be selling up at the end of their fixed terms...

 

Garry's assumption is that corpse fiddlers and BTL landlords are completely discrete groups with no common members......hmmm, dangerous things assumptions 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, rantnrave said:

Henry and Vanessa cross swords over changes to tax treatment of landlords

Be sure to check the comments too!

http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/henry-and-vanessa-cross-swords-over-changes-to-tax-treatment-of-landlords/

Henry, I'm pretty sure you're reading this thread. So thank you, that was a superb reality broadside for the good ship LL Delusion, delivered by someone who they can't dismiss as minority crack pots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Exiled Canadian said:

The man is either a comic genius, having a complete breakdown, or both.

Gary likes to make out that he's the sort of guy who deals with problem tenants with a billiard ball in a sock. Whereas in reality, Gary is the sort of man who might try to deal with problem tenants with a billiard ball in a sock, before promptly tw4tting himself round the back of his own head and knocking himself out stone cold on the door step.

Gary is excellent value for money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Exiled Canadian said:

Garry's assumption is that corpse fiddlers and BTL landlords are completely discrete groups with no common members......hmmm, dangerous things assumptions 

I like it when they ask if owner occupiers pay CGT (a cornerstone a many a crumbling argument). That also assumes a BTL'er and an owner occupier are discrete groups and none of the 118'ers benefit from main residence relief. 

I do know some discrete groups though: 

1) Tax payer v's leveraged 118'er

2) Succinct letter writer v's 118'er

3) Risk Analyst v's 118'er

4) Empathy for other views v's 118'er

Gary is growing in me....he could be the next super villain on Dr Who or something. Some of his characters are brilliant.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Letting fee ban consultation begins today.

Some  tenants  may  choose  to  undertake  their  own  reference  checks  and  obtain  a ‘tenant  passport’  that  enables  them  to  demonstrate  that  they  are  financially  and  legally able  to  meet  the  terms  of  their  tenancy.  The  Government  does not  intend  to  prevent tenants  from  doing  so  but  intends to  stipulate  that  no  agent  or landlord should  require  a tenant  to  carry  out  their own  reference  checks either via  the  agent  or via  a  third  party.

77. As is the  case  now,  agents  and  landlords  should  not  discriminate  against  individuals when  considering  potential tenants  for their  properties.  We  are  aware of  certain landlords  rejecting  households  on  the  basis  that  they  have  children  or receive  benefits, which  is not  good  practice  and  strongly  discouraged.  The  Government  is keen  to mitigate  the  risk of  the  ban  leading  to  any  increase  in  discrimination  against  families and  people  who  receive  benefits  and  believes that  the  continued  use  of  holding deposits will help  to  do  this since  it  will ensure that  no  agent  or landlord is  left  out  of pocket  as  a  result  of  a  failed  reference  check.

78. It  is worth  noting  that  where discriminatory  practices  do  occur this is  often  during  the advertisement  of  a  property,  before  any  fees  are charged,  rather than  at  the  point  of taking  references or  negotiating  a  tenancy  agreement.

79. The  current  law  is clear that  agents  and  landlords  must  not  advertise  or let  a  property  in a  way  that  unlawfully  discriminates  on  the  basis of  a  person’s disability,  sex, pregnancy/maternity,  race,  religion  or  belief,  gender reassignment  or sexual orientation.   

The last point is for Fungus 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rantnrave said:

Didn't take long after S24 kicked in...

Is this new mortgage the answer to buy-to-let tax crackdown?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/new-mortgage-answer-buy-to-let-tax-crackdown/

Maybe I'm being stupid but doesn't that have the opposite effect? Is this someone just trying to prove how think BTL investors are if they fall for this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, rantnrave said:

Didn't take long after S24 kicked in...

Is this new mortgage the answer to buy-to-let tax crackdown?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/new-mortgage-answer-buy-to-let-tax-crackdown/

Complete bonkers, most BTLers have earnings over the savings interest relief threshold (16k) above that they need to pay tax on the interest earned.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, hi5lo5 said:

Complete bonkers, most BTLers have earnings over the savings interest relief threshold (16k) above that they need to pay tax on the interest earned.  

They do now that section 24 assesses their earnings with gross rental income included. :D

2rrFBbH.gif

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stumbled upon another quality PovertyLater poster.

The organiser of the Peterborough Property Investor Group (yes, called themselves PIG, the website is petpig.org, I am not making this up) gave him top-billing in a post dated 10 November 2009

Quote

Jamie is the main speaker for the evening and I know you’re going to love him! He rarely gives talks these days, preferring to concentrate on his property business but he’s coming all the way up from London as a personal favour to me. It’s taken me a while to persuade him but I persevered because he’s one of the most inspirational and motivational people I have ever heard speak.

If you feel you need an injection of motivation he’s the man for you, but why not do others a favour to??? If you have friends, neighbours or maybe teenage children that could do with supercharging their future, bring them along! Never mind they’re in dead-end jobs, lack direction, or feel that there is too much stacked against them! Bring them along to hear Jamie’s talk, which he’s titled:

The Accidental Millionaire
or
How to make a million or 3 with none of your own money, well almost!
‘When I discovered no money down and distressed sellers I thought I was set for life!’

Source

You had been given a why he needed to "concentrate on his property business" and how inspirational he can be a fortnight earlier in the Guardian (22 October 2009):

Quote

The Conservative policy announcement has been welcomed by landlords. Jamie Moodie, a professional landlord with 36 properties throughout England rented to LHA tenants, is owed arrears of between £40,000 and £60,000.

He says: "A reversion to how benefits were paid before would be a return to common sense. The problems started as soon as the rules changed last year. I've had 10 runaways so far this year and one property in Thorpe Arch near Leeds has had three non-paying tenants in a row, costing £16,000. And it's not just the arrears: tenants sometimes steal fridges and washing machines, and soil the carpets."

Source

And his latest attempt at "supercharging" is a comment on PovertyLater where he expresses his opinion about Henry Pryor:

Quote

Jamie Moodie - Renovate says:

07/04/2017 at 14:36
Member of The Landlords Union


Deny this b#[email protected] the attention he is seeking

 

Edited by Bland Unsight
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bland Unsight said:

Stumbled upon another quality PovertyLater poster.

The organiser of the Peterborough Property Investor Group (yes, called themselves PIG, the website is petpig.org, I am not making this up) gave him top-billing in a post dated 10 November 2009

Source

You had been given a why he needed to "concentrate on his property business" and how inspirational he can be a fortnight earlier in the Guardian (22 October 2009):

Source

And his latest attempt at "supercharging" is a comment on PovertyLater where he expresses his opinion about Henry Pryor:

 

This is an amazing find. The mounting arrears, soiled carpets and stolen washing machines material is a rich vein, indeed. I'm more and more convinced that on the "cup ties on a neutral venue" occasions, a particularly amusing line to push is the Miles Shitside idea from a couple of years ago that once Section 24 is implemented, not paying rent to a portfolio landlord hastens their demise and has very limited downside.

Quote

http://disq.us/p/zwa3lv

A funny thought occurred to me - better hope it doesn't occur to your tenants, because if they spot the recent changes, and can figure out the rather obvious implications, a lot of renters may simply stop paying rent now. There reasoning would be:- chances are, by the time it came to court, the BTLer would be bankrupt, and in no position to even attend, let alone present a case... And that would mean perhaps a year rent free, with no downside. Not that I'm suggesting anyone do that, of course. Although, as a mental exercise, the first step would be to consult the land registry, and find out how many properties a landlord owned. If it's a lot, and they aren't 'old', that suggests high leverage. And no facility to do anything except go poopies when tenants stop paying. Like I said, just a comment, not a suggestion. We must all honour our contracts, especially with society at large.

 The truth of it is irrelevant, I just think it's a very vivid and beautiful illustration of exactly which foot the shoe has now ended up on.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, hi5lo5 said:

Complete bonkers, most BTLers have earnings over the savings interest relief threshold (16k) above that they need to pay tax on the interest earned.  

Imagine they won't earn interest rather they will not be charged interest. 

The point is made though that these guys won't have cash. 

Effectively at the moment I carry tax efficient debt and offset with tax efficient ISAs etc. Enables also me to reduce my profit. That is the joy of S24 because it will charge me tax regardless of what I am paying on my mortgages (well restrict it to 20%). . 

I guess that is where the offset falls down. By reducing interest the profit increases so the tax increases. Whereas I am offsetting but also reducing profit and my ISAs are in a different pot. 

Not advocating any of my actions - but the offset initially sent a shiver down my spine that they had found away around S24....but it doesn't. It might alleviate overall profitability but the tax position therefore is not improved. 

I think I just went full circle on this and ended up in my own backside ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Old lags on the thread may remember that way back in July 2015 the leveraged landlords were telling us how they were going just incorporate.

For me, the man of the moment is James Fraser. A stalwart of the Axe The Tenant Tax campaign whose tenants have appeared BBC Radio 4's You and yours not once but twice in the last six months alone. You may not want to listen to all of Property Insider podcast, but Mr Fraser's discussion of the practicalities of incorporating an existing portfolio at 09:55 onwards is refreshingly candid. Another guest, the accounting director of a "a modern, cost effective, cloud based accountancy and tax service", Microbusiness team, is even more candid; transferring a portfolio in to a limited company is "a very tricky and a very expensive option", "you will pay CGT and you will pay Stamp Duty".

James Fraser is introduced to listeners as a private landlord who is "thinking of selling".

Hence almost two years down the line we're at a place where a key member of the Axe The Tenant Tax team has accepted that they cannot avoid section 24 by incorporating and may in fact be better advised to sell.

Which is what we said, on day one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bland Unsight said:

Old lags on the thread may remember that way back in July 2015 the leveraged landlords were telling us how they were going just incorporate.

For me, the man of the moment is James Fraser. A stalwart of the Axe The Tenant Tax campaign whose tenants have appeared BBC Radio 4's You and yours not once but twice in the last six months alone. You may not want to listen to all of Property Insider podcast, but Mr Fraser's discussion of the practicalities of incorporating an existing portfolio at 09:55 onwards is refreshingly candid. Another guest, the accounting director of a "a modern, cost effective, cloud based accountancy and tax service", Microbusiness team, is even more candid; transferring a portfolio in to a limited company is "a very tricky and a very expensive option", "you will pay CGT and you will pay Stamp Duty".

James Fraser is introduced to listeners as a private landlord who is "thinking of selling".

Hence almost two years down the line we're at a place where a key member of the Axe The Tenant Tax team has accepted that they cannot avoid section 24 by incorporating and may in fact be better advised to sell.

Which is what we said, on day one.

We really have tried to help, haven't we?

 

I don't understand their hostility...it's very hurtful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Exiled Canadian said:

We really have tried to help, haven't we?

 

I don't understand their hostility...it's very hurtful.

Another fun fact from the podcast, Mr Fraser says his leverage is "less than 50%". He's at the 20+ property mark, which is where section 24 goes from a beasting to war crime against the leveraged. If a portfolio at that leverage is more trouble than it's worth then a great many of the 400k BTL held by these people are coming onto the market over then next three years, and that's a lot of supply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bland Unsight said:

Another fun fact from the podcast, Mr Fraser says his leverage is "less than 50%". He's at the 20+ property mark, which is where section 24 goes from a beasting to war crime against the leveraged. If a portfolio at that leverage is more trouble than it's worth then a great many of the 400k BTL held by these people are coming onto the market over then next three years, and that's a lot of supply.

If his leverage is below 50% I'd wager that his deferred CGT liability is pretty eye watering.

Either way the nice people at HMRC are going to be taking an interest in his next move.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mrtickle said:

Superb news.

The Machiavellian beauty of S24 seems to be that the deluded BTLers mindset will prevent them from acting till their firmly lodged on the sword of their debt. Let the sport continue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bland Unsight said:

Another fun fact from the podcast, Mr Fraser says his leverage is "less than 50%". He's at the 20+ property mark, which is where section 24 goes from a beasting to war crime against the leveraged. If a portfolio at that leverage is more trouble than it's worth then a great many of the 400k BTL held by these people are coming onto the market over then next three years, and that's a lot of supply.

 

13 hours ago, Exiled Canadian said:

If his leverage is below 50% I'd wager that his deferred CGT liability is pretty eye watering.

Either way the nice people at HMRC are going to be taking an interest in his next move.

Apparently this 50% leverage on 20 properties will see his tax bill 'nearly double'. He is 'putting rents up and maybe selling one or two in the future'.

 

Edited by Lavalas
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.