They want to make money so guaranteed tax free income for 5 years might be attractive.
They are already making money and still leaving. Too little far too late.
Considering the rules keep changing, you can't promise anything will last 5 mins never mind 5yrs.
If a contract is signed it can't be broken by rules changing.
Gives security to both sides the government has a house and the landlord has tax free income.
Successive govts have spent decades creating legislation and contracts that shaft landlords and force them out. They did this while they watched the rental crisis get ever worse.
They have no credibility left. Any contract they create will leave the landlord pick up the pieces and carry the cost when it goes bad. Because that's what they always do.
LLs are not running from this Govt. But the next one.
Clearly you havent been a landlord for the past 10 years :)
There is now security and contracts are not worth the paper they are written on to the landlord with new legislation appearing evey time there is a full moon.
Landlords also face into the real prospect of tenants overholding following notice to quit.
I think we will see a lot of this in the coming months and the govt will not criticise the tenants for their actions.
This will cause further distrust amongst the landlords and increase the rate of landlords exiting the market.
SUre Leo just went on TV the other day and told them to overhold if they feel like it.
If that wasnt the final straw for remaining landlords then they deserve everything they get for staying in the market. The writing is so clearly on the wall now, its in neon. They would be very stupid to not be issuing the notice to quit to your tenants now, because i dont think there will be another chance after this door is closed, and it will be.
Spot on. How some people fail to understand this is beyond me, honestly!
Yep. Leo is actually adding to the panic amongst landlords.
I think his aim is to purchase as many as possible via state intervention, but the hole in that bucket is that there are no staff in the LAs to devise and implement a plan to purchase at scale.
So more homes to those can afford to buy on the private market, but higher rents and fewer properties for renters & higher rent subsidies for the tax payer to come.
Seeing as we are both posting anonymously your assertion about me may not be the gotcha you think it is.
I have some knowledge of contract law and I am quite certain that what I have proposed is sound in legal terms.
Of course I can't guarantee how well it would work in addressing the landlord confidence situation but then again neither can you.
We just have different opinions on that.
You are versed in contract law and you dont know the ins and outs of how landlords are being screwed over day after day with legislation changes for at least a decade. I smell a porkie pie.
They are even working on ways to ensure that you have noone else to sell to but them, redcuing the cost to them of your property. Surely there has to be something illegal in there if they can do that.
The opposition are even more anti-landlord so I'd be running for the exits too.
If you are reduced to inferring that I am a liar you must realise you are on shaky ground.
It doesn't matter how legally sound you or anyone thinks it is. The fundamental issue is that small, private lessors have totally lost confidence in the government's handling of the rental market and won't trust them to protect property rights.
It's nearly impossible to restore that confidence in the required timeframe - it's going to take an awful long time.
Lets just say that if you are well versed with cointracts you should uinderstand why contracts for landlords are not worth the paper they are written on, and can and do get changed by legislation often. So can you see how that might be a problem? I thought you would have known that though and i wouldnt have to spell it out for you.
Your proposal is utterly flawed. It addresses none of the issues causing LL to leave the market. In addition it assumes they will draft a contract completely differently than they have done for years. There is no evidence that they will do this. None. You're looking a leopard to change it spots.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
A contract between the State and a landlord cannot be unilaterally broken.
All three of you seem to be determined to catastrophise the current situation.
Any proposed solutions will be dismissed.
They've circumvented evictions twice now. So thats a bust.
If its not a catastrophe then let just LL leave. Why keep blocking them from leaving.
Any criticism of "solutions" is shot down. So they implement the solution unilaterally. How is that working out?
Private lessors are leaving the market in droves, despite record rent levels. That says everything we need to know.
Ah come on. What do you think the eviction ban was?
QED
Yeah that makes sense.
Yep, its a race to the bottom and all these measures are making things worse for the Renter, not better.
Ever notice the minute the Govt. (any Govt) sticks their size 14s in the Property/Accommodation market, they tend to make things worse. Rarely do they improve the situation. Each measure they take leads to unforeseen consequences, which in turn forces them to announce another measure to undo the damage just done. This inevitably leads to further confusion and more unforeseen consequences, and so the merry go round spins 'n spins.
and they wonder why LLs are leaving in droves ...
I think you should look up what happened during the property crash. The government reduced HAP and told the tenants to quit their leases and insist on reduced rent. That to me seems like the state unilaterally broke multiple contracts. Can you explain how it wasn't?
I would appreciate if you could link to where the State was in breach of contract.
In the meantime my proposal is simple.
The Government through the local authority signs a contract to rent the property from the landlord for a period of 5 years tax free.
What happens at the end of the 5 years. Does the local authority return the house the landlord in the state it was handed over in.
A clause would be inserted to cover this bearing in mind that there will be a normal level of wear and tear in any residential property.
