Btl Scum Regrouping And On The Offensive. -- Merged

[Gush]

1 hour ago, hi5lo5 said:

https://www.propertytribes.com/btl-getting-ever-more-draining-in-the-se-t-127629373-2.html#pid289457

Very intresting thoughts. For more https://hmolandlady.com/about/. Basically she hasn't got any skills to work in a real job, worried about tax changes and doesn't want sell NOW and kick herself in 20 years time.

After nearly two decade of living of the next generation, they are still not content and want to continue for 2 more decades.

[EnglishinWales]

23 hours ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

Originally, landlords were armed thugs who controlled territory by force in order to extract resources from the populace.  

Changes since amount to little more than a PR exercise.  The violence is outsourced from the minor landlords to the chief landlord - the state - but most people have been so hoodwinked by centuries of propaganda that actual violence is unnecessary.  

So it's true that modern landlording, in the west at least, is much more of a confidence trick than the bloodbath it was 200 years ago, but the principle is the same: Control territory, farm people, extract rent.

It's quite clear that landlording should be abolished.  It's an undemocratic relic of the feudal system and landlords are nothing but a burden on the society that is required to support them.

Due to this long history of landlording, our economy remains tied to the notion that landowners somehow provide the rest of us with land.  In reality land - exclusive use of a location - is a service provided by the population to the landowner.   

Without the threat of violence, your claim to this field or that river has to be negotiated with everyone else, and people aren't going to hand you everything in return for nothing.  You'd simply be ignored.   

Once you recognise that basic fact, you can come up with any number of ways of efficiently and fairly allocating space. 

The key principle is that land users should pay for what they are using.  Even renting out houses is fine if you are actually paying society for the area you are taking up, it just ceases to be very profitable.

Instead we allow landowners to externalise their costs, and then wonder why we have an hour long commute to work and our kids can't leave home. 

HERE HERE.

[EnglishinWales]

Imagine what a different place this would be if Churchill had got his LVT. Just imagine...

[BorrowToLeech]

3 hours ago, dugsbody said:

Thanks. Requires a complete reorganisation of society (internationally), unlikely to happen in any near or medium term unfortunately.

No. Fixing the land market is easy.  

 

 

[Bear Hug]

8 hours ago, Bunfight said:

Don't read this bit of her website until you've taken your blood pressure medicine... 

https://hmolandlady.com/why-run-an-hmo/

Good advice, I should have listened.  Particularly depressing are her stories about tenants.

Where is a blog about me with my regular rent payments and minor repairs to the house.  Just because I hate the scumlord so much that I'd rather spend a tenner on parts and an hour of my own time than talk to the landlord or deal with the useless so-called plumber they send.

[Sandwiches33]

On 5/5/2017 at 6:17 AM, Bunfight said:

In nearly a decade of reading this site this is the best post I've had the pleasure of stumbling across. Absolutely spot on!

I agree , it is an amazing post

http://www.newstatesman.com/life-and-society/2011/03/million-acres-land-ownership

I read 36000 landed gentry own over 50% of the registered land. Only 74% of the land in britian is actually registered.

You dont even own the land when you buy it, you need to ask permissions to do things on it, you cant even park a caravan on it without "permissions" which are often extremely costly and a closed process. You cant even keep a cow on it without permissions!

I was talking to someone recently who was telling em about a new build he was working on, After you buy the house you dont own the land and have to pay and annual fee but this is the kicker. He said you dont own the roof either becuase the building firm wants to keep the roofs in case they want to profit from a large scale solar project!

Yet we are sold the idea that we have property rights and this is laughable becuase if the authorities feel you arent being a  good little slave they can just take your land too and repurpose it.

Yet if you suggest we need some sort of better system as it is grossly unfair you are often branded a communist.

[Venger]

On 5/4/2017 at 9:20 AM, dugsbody said:

With respect, not meaning to be antagonising, but even though I agree with much of your sentiment on landlords, I genuinely don't understand your holistic view with regards land or property (I'm going to use property in place of land, but feel free to read the two as the same, just with a dwelling on it). Are you saying there should be no rental property at all? Does that mean no-one has the right to rent out property they own or that no-one has the right to actually own property in the first place and it belongs to some other... thing. What would that thing be?

This thread is for laughing at the PovertyLater BTLers in the trap of S24, to follow the change in their reality collapse, and keep eyes on other bits and pieces around S24 and measures affecting the BTLers (eg when SDLT surcharge came in, doubling down on S24).

And we missed at least 5 important entries from BTL forums, that would have been useful on this thread, in the 48 hours RushRoad took to this thread glorying up BTL and other HPCers discussing basics over 3 pages, trying to get into RushRoad's BTLer head for gracing us with his presence.

Not for trying to discover the 'secret greatness' of the BTLers/Landlords, and wondering what the problem is with wider landlording choice.

Although I see Dr.BTLeech given you a few good replies.

18 hours ago, dugsbody said:

Thanks. Requires a complete reorganisation of society (internationally), unlikely to happen in any near or medium term unfortunately.

For UK, Section24, SDLT surcharge (BTLers).. bringing in a few interesting situations for BTLers who went on the double down.  Some shocks on BTLers in UK, might prevent those of a BTL mind to dance into it in the future.

It's for each individual to decide upon.  I haven't been able to stop people buying up all the homes with BTL debt to rent back out to renters (many of who could have been would-be-OOs).

We can only make a start and the UK has (S24 and other measures).

Does this all come back to your thinking over buying a property in France and renting it out, until you're ready to retire there?

If you want to rent out property in France (or wherever), that's your choice.

I had to laugh when the French EA suggested buying two apartments to rent out, and HPI++ lock in, profitz profitz, mad-gainz at twice the debt/price.

On 1/23/2017 at 9:26 PM, dugsbody said:

.........Phillip, it sounds as though if Nice were my target destination, it might make sense to buy sooner rather than later? Would there be a possibility of buying now and covering mortgage costs by renting out or are the yields too low there?

 

On 1/24/2017 at 2:34 PM, Phillip in Nice said:

..........You may prefer to get a couple of smaller properties in Nice and let them out as holiday rentals. You will get a larger yield, not just covering the mortgage but an actual income, and a place to stay as much as you want for free until retirement. You will still get the full benefits of capital appreciation when all the major works are finished. When you retire you can sell one to unlock the capital for living and then renovation work of your target purchase, and then live in the second rent free until you find your dream home at a great price. Then sell the second and buy the dream home. It is just a suggestion, though maybe not for you if you cannot bear to spend your holidays in a smaller apartment until then.

Phillip.

  

Edited May 6, 2017 by Venger

[Venger]

On 5/3/2017 at 8:02 PM, Venger said:

Found myself on a Facebook HMO page the other day....

https://www.facebook.com/groups/housesofmultipleoccupancy/

There could be some interesting info on there.

 

That mortgage broker (usually switched on about all things mortgage/BTL mortgage)  /BTLer I mentioned raises a point.

Is there anything in it?

Quote

 

LO: 2 May at 13:22

Accounting query...

As we know with the advent of Clause 24 some investors are transferring beneficial ownership to a company.
On this basis Joe Bloggs has 15 properties with mortgages and moves the beneficial interest in those properties to his company JB Ltd where the rent now goes into. His aim is to ensure that the company benefits from full mortgage interest relief as this is the entity that now 'owns' the properties.
However.... only Joe can offset the mortgage for tax purposes as they are in his name not the company's.
This is a crucial point that I have not seen covered. I have checked this with a number of accountants who concur that only the borrower can offset the mortgage against the rent. There have also been numerous court cases where this has been proven to be the case.
In all the excitement has this simple fact been overlooked?

----------------
DR: What you are effectively saying is this theoretical scenario might possibly be construed by HMRC as tax evasion with the accompanying penalties. It has concerned me what some landlords have told me what they are thinking of doing with their portfolio. I simply say to them please ensure you take the best advice you can from a qualified UK tax adviser before going any further!

----------------

LO: Totally agree. I got fed up of arguing the legal, mortgage, insurance and technical issues so now respond with this:-

What is the worst that can happen and can you handle it?

- HMRC investigate in a few years time and overturn whatever you've done. You face the tax due, doubled in fines plus interest and penalties. You don't have the money so lose everything. Is that a risk you can live with? 

- The lender repossess or calls in your loans. You lose everything. Is that a risk you can live with?

Can you pick up your post each morning and not crap yourself when you see a letter marked HMRC or from your lender?

---------------

SN:  I can't believe Mark Alexander & the property118 gang of super skilled top barristers have overlooked such a simple fly in the ointment ?
---------------

LO: Me neither! Perhaps they should have consulted an accountant instead of a lawyer!

---------------

DR: Or, with due respect to accountants a chartered tax adviser who specialises in this area of work!!

--------------
LO: I didn't want to get into the mortgage side or Trust side.

I was trying to come at this from a very simple tax and accounting perspective.

Can you offset a mortgage in someone else's name against your rental income?

I believe not as do the accountants I have asked.
--------------

LO:  However if this point is to be argued there is much case law regarding where responsibility and ownership lies with beneficial trusts. If the same arguments are used here then the Ltd Co can't put the mortgage interest against the rent.

Lenders have repossessed properties and the individuals holding beneficial interests have claimed equity/profits/ownership. The lenders have won every time making the beneficial trusts moot.

--------------

LO: I'm not on about extracting profits; no issue with that. I'm talking about setting up a trust and putting the property in it - beneficial or otherwise. 

I would add however as per my earlier post as these strategies have come to the fore in light of S24 lenders are becoming far more savvy. 

I've had the first client already who can't find lending because his taxable income isn't reflected by his ownership (mortgages on his credit report before anyone says don't declare those in a trust to the lenders!) 

Lenders don't want to be seen to be encouraging tax avoidance no matter how legit. One has already told us they'll inform HMRC when they see them. Up to HMRC if they take action and an investigation may result in nothing but who wants that shit to deal with!

---------------

LO: BI do not dispute Trust law as you know Paul but we strongly disagree on lenders allowing them!

No lender would willingly agree to your set up. 

If they don't have mortgages then that's just a HMRC issue.

 

I can't give a direct link.  For all the replies involved (lots of them... with 'read more' expanders) you have to scroll down from this link to 2nd May.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/housesofmultipleoccupancy/

[Bland Unsight]

44 minutes ago, Venger said:

Quote

I would add however as per my earlier post as these strategies have come to the fore in light of S24 lenders are becoming far more savvy. 

I've had the first client already who can't find lending because his taxable income isn't reflected by his ownership (mortgages on his credit report before anyone says don't declare those in a trust to the lenders!) 

Lenders don't want to be seen to be encouraging tax avoidance no matter how legit. One has already told us they'll inform HMRC when they see them. Up to HMRC if they take action and an investigation may result in nothing but who wants that shit to deal with!

 

Busta's Patented BICT Strategy, putting the Later in to PovertyLater

[disenfranchised]

On Thu May 04 2017 at 9:09 PM, DrBuyToLeech said:

Originally, landlords were armed thugs who controlled territory by force in order to extract resources from the populace.  

Changes since amount to little more than a PR exercise.  The violence is outsourced from the minor landlords to the chief landlord - the state - but most people have been so hoodwinked by centuries of propaganda that actual violence is unnecessary.  

So it's true that modern landlording, in the west at least, is much more of a confidence trick than the bloodbath it was 200 years ago, but the principle is the same: Control territory, farm people, extract rent.

It's quite clear that landlording should be abolished.  It's an undemocratic relic of the feudal system and landlords are nothing but a burden on the society that is required to support them.

Due to this long history of landlording, our economy remains tied to the notion that landowners somehow provide the rest of us with land.  In reality land - exclusive use of a location - is a service provided by the population to the landowner.   

Without the threat of violence, your claim to this field or that river has to be negotiated with everyone else, and people aren't going to hand you everything in return for nothing.  You'd simply be ignored.   

Once you recognise that basic fact, you can come up with any number of ways of efficiently and fairly allocating space. 

The key principle is that land users should pay for what they are using.  Even renting out houses is fine if you are actually paying society for the area you are taking up, it just ceases to be very profitable.

Instead we allow landowners to externalise their costs, and then wonder why we have an hour long commute to work and our kids can't leave home. 

So the state is the landlord in chief...

...and you want it to remain so - whilst farming the farmers?

 

I cannot see why that leads to a better outcome for the general populace, unless it is a sliding scale - and the more you own, the more you pay - although farm land is problematic.

 

[BorrowToLeech]

58 minutes ago, disenfranchised said:

So the state is the landlord in chief...

...and you want it to remain so - whilst farming the farmers?

 

I cannot see why that leads to a better outcome for the general populace, unless it is a sliding scale - and the more you own, the more you pay - although farm land is problematic.

 

Both your response and dugsbody's suggest, I think, that you have both read too much into what I said.  

I haven't proposed a radical change in society, or state involvement in the land market.   I didnt really mean to propose anything.

I simply described the facts as they are.  There are many ways of responding to those facts, some involve the state, some don't, some are radical, some aren't.   

It's a really interesting topic but Venger's right its a bit OT for this thread (except I thought that dugsbody's original question was perfectly reasonable).  

Feel free to start a thread and I'll give a better answer. 

Edited May 6, 2017 by DrBuyToLeech

[Neverwhere]

4 hours ago, Venger said:

That mortgage broker (usually switched on about all things mortgage/BTL mortgage)  /BTLer I mentioned raises a point.

Is there anything in it?

Looks like a very reasonable set of points to me.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

5 hours ago, Venger said:

 

That mortgage broker (usually switched on about all things mortgage/BTL mortgage)  /BTLer I mentioned raises a point.

Is there anything in it?

I can't give a direct link.  For all the replies involved (lots of them... with 'read more' expanders) you have to scroll down from this link to 2nd May.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/housesofmultipleoccupancy/

Didn't the collective "we" say this, very early doors?

 

[Noallegiance]

Sorry if this has been answered in here somewhere, but can a landlord transfer a rental property into a non-working partners name and escape S24?

[mrtickle]

9 hours ago, Venger said:

 

That mortgage broker (usually switched on about all things mortgage/BTL mortgage)  /BTLer I mentioned raises a point.

Is there anything in it?

I can't give a direct link.  For all the replies involved (lots of them... with 'read more' expanders) you have to scroll down from this link to 2nd May.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/housesofmultipleoccupancy/

Facebook how now made a change, so that as well as "like"ing a Comment on a Post, you can now also mark it as Love, Haha, Wow, Sad or Angry.

(Previously you could only do that on Posts, not any of the Comments below a Post)

It's very tempting to mark this as HaHa, comment made just a few minutes ago.

Quote

Rosalind Beck I sent in an official complaint this week as they felt it wasn't necessary to answer my 16 detailed questions as they had 'already answered them.' They consider the matter closed. I don’t.

 

Ha, it gets better

Quote

Mitchell Mann What if we all put our rental properties up for sale and told our tenants it's because of s24, ask all the tenants to write to their mp saying they are losing their home because of it and enclose a copy of the sales particulars. Also in the sales particulars/advert ensure your agent puts "selling due to section 24" or something similar.

Reckon that would have any effect?

I think that's already been tried. LOL.

And if they did put "selling due to S24" then that would be great - the buyers would know it's a forced sale and can offer less.

 

Edited May 6, 2017 by mrtickle

[oatbake]

Busta has been going on about BICT on P118 hasn't he? It sounds like it's a disaster waiting to happen... Have any 118ers confirmed they have gone down this route? Which are the ones to watch? Sounds like they need to stay under HMRC's radar and desperately hope their lender doesn't find out!

[Lavalas]

I think that Shirleyann Haig did a long time ago after splashing her details all over the newspapers and Internet. She doesn't really post anymore though.

There's also a poster called NW Landlord who has, and he talks a lot about his mates who have portfolios in the hundreds who've gone down a different route by forming companies and taking out 'options' on their properties purely to avoid S24. Such is the 'confidence' of this bunch he's been talking of the fact they've now cracked on with buying again, to the extent of hoovering entire portfolios from other landlords selling up. The final thing to note is that they sure do give away a lot of detail over time, if you're paying attention.

[Venger]

10 hours ago, 24 year mortgage 8itch said:

Didn't the collective "we" say this, very early doors?

Yes, a few times.  

Although I never got to grips with it back then either.
 

Quote

 

October 20, 2016

Now I know its a sales pitch but look at what needs to be done for the transfer to be done legitimately so that it doesn't annoy anyone and look at what HMRC will do if they think you are pulling a fast one (and you will be if your company is trying to claim mortgage interest relief against a mortgage that isn't in the companies name).

 

 

On 5/2/2016 at 10:09 AM, Byron said:

My take is that the Ltd Co. collect the rents.

They then give this money to the LL in order for the LL to pay the mortgage interest from their personal account.

Surely this will be seen as simply income from a source and subject to 20/40/45% tax as appropriate?

The LL is no longer receiving rents from a property and therefore able to claim the over generous Government BTL tax subsidy.

One of M118's explanation in link below.

Quote

Refinancing is the fatal blow to landlord incorporation – OR IS IT? -Mark Alexander - Published on 06/12/2015

 

 

 

More explanation (from a barrister on the BTL side of things, am not going to post my doubts against his view here/)
https://www.property118.com/beneficial-interest-company-trust/91418/

I guess the tax-relief 'answer' is somewhere in here... ?

Quote

 

A beneficial interest company trust transfers 100% of the beneficial interest (income and capital gain) in the property rental business to a company. This involves no change of legal ownership so far as HM Land Registry is concerned. The consequence is that existing mortgages can remain in place without affecting the mortgage lenders rights.

The trust deed empowers the company to be able to call upon the legal owner(s) (settlor) of the trust to sell the property at any time and transfer 100% of the net sale proceeds to the company. In reality the persons controlling the company are the same as the legal owners of the properties, hence there should never be a conflict.

Due to the way the trust deed is structured, the legal owners of the property rental business now stand as bare trustees, i.e. they only hold the legal title in name but don’t own any share of the rental profits or capital gains. The settlor is still legally responsible for the mortgage arrangements, hence the question is raised; how does the settlor receive the money to pay the mortgage interest? Again, this is dealt with in the trust deed. Without affecting any of the legal rights of the mortgage company, the trust deed makes the company a party to the mortgage liability, and hence responsible for servicing the contracts. The structure allows the settlor of the trust (the legal owners/borrowers) to continue to make the mortgage payments and claim them back from the company.

The outcome is that the entirety of the business sits on the balance sheet of the company and all income and expenses associated with the property portfolio accrue to the beneficial interests company. HMRC have the right to treat payment of the mortgage as income arising to the settlor of the trust. However, the settlor of the trust (as bare trustees) would only be responsible for the flat 20% tax rate payable by trustees, hence a zero tax liability based on the ability to claim 20% tax relief on the mortgage interest.

 

 

Good post by Ah-So, imo

 

[Venger]

4 hours ago, Lavalas said:

There's also a poster called NW Landlord who has, and he talks a lot about his mates who have portfolios in the hundreds who've gone down a different route by forming companies and taking out 'options' on their properties purely to avoid S24. Such is the 'confidence' of this bunch he's been talking of the fact they've now cracked on with buying again, to the extent of hoovering entire portfolios from other landlords selling up. The final thing to note is that they sure do give away a lot of detail over time, if you're paying attention.

Yes, I noticed a bit of that as well, Lavalas.

Apparently just an excercise by Govt to get BTLers to incorporate, and less about rebalancing BTLer side advantages and raising tax revenue... so to keep on as incorporated with moar properties and snapping up opportunities from others who need to sell..... ?

Quote

2017-04-28 10:36:06
I have incorporated and not had one issue with any of my 9 different lenders they know what’s going on and the business they have lost due to George Osbourne means they really want to keep you as long as they get paid they arnt bothered. One of my friends got a query from one lender ---- ----- sent them a letter quoting legal jargon and they backed right off it’s well worth any porftfolio landlord looking into incorporation as at worse it buys time why this nightmare plays out

-----

If anyone cannot incorporate a partner of mine who has 350 properties has gone down the option agreement route has ran it by various tax experts and apparently it’s a goer just thought I would share that for anyone undecided ?
-----
I will never vote Tory again until they repeal this disaster. They may aswell have came into my home robbed it and kidnapped my family that’s how I feel I cannot believe any landlord is considering voting for them you may aswell give them a free pass to do what ever they like.
I cannot do it it doesn’t sit right and contradicts all off the hard work done my the tenant tax team and people on here I am shocked that so many landlords are still gunna vote for them I really am and sends the wrong message and hinders the hard work trying to get a u turn, we will get knowhere fast with this approach it makes us look pretty stupid if u ask me. Go and see your MP say this tax is going to increase homelessness bankrupt thousands of hardworking landlords oh and by the way I will still vote for you cause u are the best of a bad bunch I’d rather not bother than give those parasites my vote.
-----
I have incorporated using ---- ----- (-------- Barristers) and can’t speak highly enough of the help he’s been. It is a pain and time consuming and quite stressful but I am so happy I did it now and can now move forward with expanding which hit the buffers when s24 was announced. In my humble opinion this is what the government want companies not individuals running the PRS.

I will still be selling some properties that have larger mortgages when they come empty though to release equity and hedge bets as nobody knows what’s coming next with this horrendous landlord bashing government.

If it wasn’t for being a member of Property118 me and my partners and friends would have been sleep walking into this tax nightmare

Thanks 118
-----

It’s done now so at least for the foreseeable I can trade as normal and there is another way one of my partners is implementing which is a back up,then there is always a u turn. even if I get 2/3 years it will be far more effective then running under our own names, plus we have an experienced barrister in our corner advising etc. Whilst this is playing out we are diversifying into refurbs to sell and building etc so all eggs are not in the buy to let basket there is always opportunities just got to keep moving forward these torys won’t beat me
-----
Who knows but advice I have been given is once it’s done its done and I am now focusing energies away from traditional buy to let as it’s all very up in the air but any new purchases will be done in limited company
-----
Please don’t take my comments as I am happy that my fellow landlords are being taken to the cleaners that is not the case my point is in times of uncertainty and panic great opportunities will present themselves I too have had a wasted 18 months like many others instead of focusing on making money I’ve been spending money, just so I can do the same thing under a ltd company banner. I’d love 30 mins in a room with George Osbourne but I don’t fancy going to prison ha
-----
There will be massive opportunities to clear up though through ltd company it’s creating a perfect buyers market low prices and high rental demand we have just snapped our first portfolio up from a landlord who is selling up every cloud and all that. Plus these lenders are going to be falling over themselves to lend because at the end of the day no lending = no profit
-----
I went to see Rosie cooper mp west Lancs soon after as this passed. She said once it received royal assent it’s pointless even trying as it will fall on deaf ears and to be fair she couldn’t have been more right. I was representing landlords owning 500+ properties in a very condensed area housing vunerable people and i told her she would have a homeless crisis in this area like never seen before due to this tax how many people affected in 500 houses ? In her constituency ? this still didn’t even get her to take notice. If that doesn’t I don’t know what will. They don’t care or don’t want to care that’s when I realised I was on my own and need to sort my own ship out which is what I have done don’t mean to be negative but that isn’t the reality it’s coming plan accordingly.
-----
I’m getting constant calls from tenants saying landlord is selling plus we have just agreed to buy two portfolios through our limited company I think it is definitely the end of the small landlord they want companies running the PRS this is the aim in my opinion of the government
-----
02/02/2017 at 14:21
What this government have done is nothing short of a national disgrace to ordinary hard working people I wouldn’t listen to a word they say sorry to hear ur plight the million dollar question is WHERE ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE GOING TO LIVE once the sell off starts
-----
This 20% 40% relief gets my back up what they have done is disallowed 100% finance costs with a 20% rebate even MPs still don’t get it or they are all part of the osbournes sneaky lies
-----
Mark I couldn’t agree more it’s time to get ur own ship in order as best you can and batten down the hatches it’s is a great idea but let’s be brutally honest it’s clutching at straws. The only time this will be repealed is when the carnage starts happening in about 2/3 years time I really believe all efforts should be channelled into limiting the affects on ur own portfolios sad but true the government arnt listening.
-----
Can’t see it happening myself as any common sense and reason is clearly being ignored by people who have no idea or insight into the PRS I personally am planning for this to be in place for some time. Only when landlords fall on there swords and people are made homeless, and tax receipts are nothing like what they forecast will the government look at it in my opinion as this policy is unaffordable for most
-----
25/01/2017 at 10:36
Since I have started the incorporation process and started to get stuck in setting it up I am actually comfortable and pleased I am going into a ltd company structure for a number of reasons. I know it’s not for everybody but I really do urge people with sizeable portfolios to speak to ---- ----- I was a little daunted at first but am now actually pleased at how easy it is. I still totally disagree with s24 but it’s not going away soon so I would suggest to all they look into incorporating as that is the real motivation behind this policy the government wants companies Running the PRS not millions of individuals as it’s easier to police on so many levels from their point of view. If you look at the figures involved from a tax revenue point of view it’s peanuts which makes me believe this isn’t a tax grab but a policy to stream line the PRS just my opinion and I repeat I’m am totally against the policy justice trying to understand the reasoning.

https://www.property118.com/member/?id=1600

[Venger]

9 hours ago, mrtickle said:

Facebook how now made a change, so that as well as "like"ing a Comment on a Post, you can now also mark it as Love, Haha, Wow, Sad or Angry.

(Previously you could only do that on Posts, not any of the Comments below a Post)

It's very tempting to mark this as HaHa, comment made just a few minutes ago.

 

Ha, it gets better

I think that's already been tried. LOL.

And if they did put "selling due to S24" then that would be great - the buyers would know it's a forced sale and can offer less.

 

Thanks @mrtickle

My eyes are not very good for finding things on Facebook.

So 'the official complaint' has been filed !

And Bosh likes Alex's style at what he imagines he would like to send them next...... grrr.

Also that BTLer's 'ace' idea to try and use tenants as human shields (another BTLer wanted mass Section 21 BTLer protest with teary tenants to be his focus), getting all BTLers to come to market to sell, to try and force a S24 backdown?  Bring it.   

 

 

[Toast]

On 29/04/2017 at 1:43 PM, Phil321 said:

Appreciate the point you are making and my editing of your post perhaps removes some of your balance. 

I work in service industry. Customers are absolutely and totally King. However, if a customer is rude to staff their accounts are closed. Same all over now...hospital staff, traffic wardens, train conductors. The tone of her approach is unprofessional and ranty calling MPs 'stupid'. So she is getting the responses that are deserved.

I fully agree: in the service industry, you can make a choice as to how much the customer is king, and you can draw the line at rudeness. There is a balance of power, like any normal human relationship, and both sides can choose to walk away if they don't like the deal. My point was about the special relationship that exists between those in authority and those under authority, which (in my eccentric view) is an essentially evil situation (albeit sometimes a necessary evil); and what is needed to make it more tolerable.

As far as this particular letter-writing campaign to hmrc is concerned, I think they've made their stand for human dignity, and can get on with being taxed to death and ignored.

[BorrowToLeech]

41 minutes ago, Toast said:

My point was about the special relationship that exists between those in authority and those under authority, which (in my eccentric view) is an essentially evil situation

Landlords are an authority, as far as their tenants are concerned.

That's the essentially evil situation.    

Central government is elected and can claim to be a legitimate authority.

Landlords cannot. 

Edited May 7, 2017 by DrBuyToLeech

[Pop321]

5 minutes ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

Landlords are an authority, as far as their tenants are concerned.

That's the essentially evil situation.    

Central government is elected and can claim to be a legitimate authority.

Landlords cann

58 minutes ago, Toast said:

I fully agree: in the service industry, you can make a choice as to how much the customer is king, and you can draw the line at rudeness. There is a balance of power, like any normal human relationship, and both sides can choose to walk away if they don't like the deal. My point was about the special relationship that exists between those in authority and those under authority, which (in my eccentric view) is an essentially evil situation (albeit sometimes a necessary evil); and what is needed to make it more tolerable.

As far as this particular letter-writing campaign to hmrc is concerned, I think they've made their stand for human dignity, and can get on with being taxed to death and ignored.

 

I think the fundamental point is the letters are so undignified and unprofessional that it is funny. It should be laughed at....ranty letters to HMRC, super idea. I think she should write to a police man and ask them to arrest the tax man because S24 illegal. 

I am with Dr Leech in this.  We know in reality there is bandwidth in attitudes of both tenants and landlords but on a forum we generalise. We need to. 

There are some LLs out there who feel they are the 'all knowing' authority on housing and are so 'entitled' they have lost complete balance. 

They are absolutely entitled to write the letter, have their say and others are entitled to mock them for the completely unprofessional, illogical and repetitive child like nature of said letters. 

I am sure a LL will exist who has sent a coherent view regarding the impact of S24 and may well have an equally coherent acknowledgement. (Dismissive or otherwise) 

When a letter starts in such an aggressive, repetitive and patronising tone it must take all the efforts not to reply back in a similar manner. 

Lets see if "they leave it here....and now get taxed to death". Or as I suspect...more ranty letters. 

I am a LL and honestly believe much more is on its way. And not least because these 118'ers are ensuring LLs and their entitled attitudes, poor business plans and willingness to evict/increase rents to serve their cause puts them 'front and centre'. Interest only next and quite rightly....otherwise they will be all 'entitled' at the end of the mortgage terms and look for someone to compensate their positions.

Then the political threats. I bet the Tory's are shaking in their boots about losing the 4% of LLs vote who might agree with the 118'ers. Laughable....

S24 is so carefully designed that it is completely avoidable and hits (in the main) the crazy leveraged, double down, I own lots of property, individual. It also stems 2m LLs buying 10 houses each (ie 90% of the housing stock). At 0.25% and tax relief...that was the direction of travel until S24

I agree they can write to an MP. But the manner of the letters is threatening and irrational. So if it's okay I will laugh at them....and it would be funnier if the author didn't have the power of housing over so many families. 

Freedom of speech and giving it to the man is fair enough. As is my freedom to laugh at their letter writing babble. 

[BorrowToLeech]

2 hours ago, Phil321 said:

I think the fundamental point is the letters are so undignified and unprofessional that it is funny. It should be laughed at....ranty letters to HMRC, super idea. I think she should write to a police man and ask them to arrest the tax man because S24 illegal. 

I am with Dr Leech in this.  We know in reality there is bandwidth in attitudes of both tenants and landlords but on a forum we generalise. We need to. 

There are some LLs out there who feel they are the 'all knowing' authority on housing and are so 'entitled' they have lost complete balance. 

They are absolutely entitled to write the letter, have their say and others are entitled to mock them for the completely unprofessional, illogical and repetitive child like nature of said letters. 

I am sure a LL will exist who has sent a coherent view regarding the impact of S24 and may well have an equally coherent acknowledgement. (Dismissive or otherwise) 

When a letter starts in such an aggressive, repetitive and patronising tone it must take all the efforts not to reply back in a similar manner. 

Lets see if "they leave it here....and now get taxed to death". Or as I suspect...more ranty letters. 

I am a LL and honestly believe much more is on its way. And not least because these 118'ers are ensuring LLs and their entitled attitudes, poor business plans and willingness to evict/increase rents to serve their cause puts them 'front and centre'. Interest only next and quite rightly....otherwise they will be all 'entitled' at the end of the mortgage terms and look for someone to compensate their positions.

Then the political threats. I bet the Tory's are shaking in their boots about losing the 4% of LLs vote who might agree with the 118'ers. Laughable....

S24 is so carefully designed that it is completely avoidable and hits (in the main) the crazy leveraged, double down, I own lots of property, individual. It also stems 2m LLs buying 10 houses each (ie 90% of the housing stock). At 0.25% and tax relief...that was the direction of travel until S24

I agree they can write to an MP. But the manner of the letters is threatening and irrational. So if it's okay I will laugh at them....and it would be funnier if the author didn't have the power of housing over so many families. 

Freedom of speech and giving it to the man is fair enough. As is my freedom to laugh at their letter writing babble. 

It's simpler than that really: landlords can't stick it to the man because they are the man. 

I mean, this lot couldn't stick it to anyone even if they had sellotape hands and pissed glue, but that's not the fundamental point here.

[spyguy]

I think I can see where the P118ers have messed up.

They hired a barrista for their legal advice.