As a landlord with legal experience, there is plenty to worry about. Incentives for tenants to dispute rent increases, having to rely on a broken court system, draconian (including criminal) penalties for innocent non-compliance to name but a few. Whoever thinks there is nothing to worry about, is in for a shock.
I appreciate your concerns, especially coming from a legal background. There’s no denying that the Renters’ Rights Bill introduces challenges, such as the incentives for tenants to dispute rent increases and the need to navigate a complex court system. That said, I believe a lot of the narrative around these changes focuses too heavily on the negatives. From my experience as a landlord and from what I discussed in the video, while there are legitimate concerns, many landlords might be overestimating the impact. For example, the abolishing of Section 21 has been a big talking point, but landlords still have clear routes to regain possession using Section 8 for valid reasons, like rent arrears or damage. Yes, it might take longer, but it’s not impossible, and it encourages everyone to be more diligent with tenant selection. I also understand the worry about penalties for non-compliance, but as long as landlords stay informed and adapt to the new rules, these issues are manageable. The changes are significant, but they’re not necessarily disastrous if approached with preparation and the right mindset. It’s definitely not about ignoring the challenges, but focusing on how to navigate them effectively rather than being driven out by fear. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and it’s an important discussion to keep having. Best, William Gale
" Incentives for tenants to dispute rent increases" - Only a greedy leech landlord would see this as a bad thing. You will be held accountable, and you don't want that.
The issue is that either the renter or the owner must in some way pay insurance and property taxes if they want a "permanent roof" with utilities like electricity, gas and water. Because of this, many people-at least in California, where I currently reside-are living in tents. No taxes, rent, mortgages, or insurance. The number of people who tell me they live in their car that I meet amazes me. Its crazy out here!
It’s getting wild by the day. The prices of homes are quite ridiculous and Mortgage prices has been skyrocketing on a roll(currently over 7%). Sometimes i wonder if to just invest my spare cash into the stock market and wait for a housing crash or just go ahead to buy a home anyways.
I get such worries too. I'm 50 and retiring early. Already worried of the future and where its headed, especially in terms of finances and how to get by. I'm also considering making my first investment in the stock market, but how can I do so given that the market has been in a mess for the majority of the year?
This is precisely why I like having a portfolio coach guide my day-to-day market decisions: with their extensive knowledge of going long and short at the same time, using risk for its asymmetrical upside and laying it off as a hedge against the inevitable downward turns, their skillset makes it nearly impossible for them to underperform. I've been utilizing a portfolio coach for more than three years, and I've made over $319,000.
Annette Marie Holt is the licensed advisor I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
As someone who owns a property in an area with an existing council licensing scheme, its just money for old rope, council charges a fee for the privilege. Will the govt do the same? I have no problem with registering my property on a database for transparency. I object to what is in effect an additional tax on me.
Hi @glostergloster6945, I totally understand your frustration. Licensing schemes can feel like an extra tax on landlords, especially if the fees aren’t going toward meaningful improvements. Ideally, if a national database is implemented, it should be straightforward and affordable, focusing on transparency without placing an excessive burden on landlords. Let’s hope the government can strike a balance that benefits both tenants and landlords. Best, William Gale
Re ltd, not always good idea if you are in retirement age or close & that’s your only income or if your usual income is via a trading company. If you sell to your Ltd you pay stamp duty again.
You bring up a great point, especially for landlords close to or in retirement. Holding properties through a limited company isn’t always ideal if it’s your primary income source, as taking out profits via dividends can lead to higher tax liabilities compared to personal ownership. Plus, if you’re selling a property to your own limited company, you would have to pay stamp duty again, which adds an extra cost that needs to be factored in. These issues highlight that a limited company structure is often more beneficial for those who plan to reinvest profits and grow their portfolio over the long term, rather than those looking to extract income regularly or wind down their investments. It’s definitely not a one-size-fits-all solution, and careful planning is crucial to avoid unexpected tax bills. Thanks for pointing this out-definitely an important factor to consider! Best, William Gale
I have been caught out in the past by tenants who appear 100% and caused me no end of hassle. But I honestly think that savvy tenants will realise that if they cause trouble they may find it hard to rent again, because landlords are going to seriously scrutinise tenants and of course insist on references from past landlords. But all said and done, it is nevertheless a serious worry unless of course you have a large portfolio and can loose the odd hiccup.
completely agree with you. There will be some landlords with 1, 2, 3 properties that will be unlucky and land a bad tenant that will push them into the red all of a sudden. I would definitely recommend those in that situation have insurance in place against such situations
Yep there is no way I would ever invest again in the long-term letting sector. The RRB is an unmitigated disaster for the PRS with EPC requirements being ridiculous. The PRS will massively contract. Very bad news for tenants Not so for LL.
I completely understand your stance, and you’re not alone in feeling that the Renters’ Rights Bill (RRB) and the EPC requirements have created significant challenges for landlords. While the RRB aims to provide more security and rights for tenants, it seems the balance may not be right when it comes to retaining landlords in the market. The stricter regulations, combined with costs to improve EPC ratings, are pushing many landlords to exit the sector, which could lead to a significant contraction of the Private Rented Sector (PRS). If too many landlords leave, it risks driving up rents and reducing availability, which ultimately hurts tenants-exactly the opposite of what the bill aims to achieve. Finding a balance that protects tenants’ rights without driving landlords out of the market is critical, and there’s more work to be done in getting that right. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It’s an important issue that needs ongoing discussion. Best, William Gale
Ltd company is not more tax efficient in many situations. If you withdraw your profits from the company you'll actually pay more tax with the corporation tax and dividend tax combined than owning personally. Plus you really get stung if you make a large gain and want to sell the property and withdraw the cash
You raise an important point, and it’s true that using a limited company isn’t always the best route for every landlord, especially if you plan to frequently withdraw profits. The combination of corporation tax and dividend tax can sometimes outweigh the benefits, particularly when selling properties and realizing large gains. However, with Labour’s potential plans to increase capital gains tax (CGT), there might be more reason for landlords to consider holding properties through a company. Rumors suggest CGT could be aligned with income tax rates, meaning higher-rate taxpayers could see CGT rates jump from 28% to as much as 40-45%  . In contrast, corporation tax will be capped at 25%, offering some stability for landlords who reinvest their profits rather than withdrawing them immediately . Ultimately, the decision depends on your long-term strategy, and with potential tax changes on the horizon, it’s wise to consult a tax advisor to navigate these complexities effectively. Best, William Gale
@@BritishHomeInvestors Yeah but you still need to get the cash out of the company after selling so even if they do raise CGT to match income tax you'll still pay more exiting after paying the corp tax and the higher rate dividend tax. Also they seem to be signalling backing down on the CGT hike. There may well be a lot of landlords getting lumbered with massive personal tax bills years down the line having not considered all implications of buying in a company
You make a valid point about the potential tax hit when withdrawing profits after selling properties through a limited company, especially with corporation tax and dividend tax combined. However, one of the key advantages of using a limited company is the flexibility to control when you take profits out. Unlike personal ownership, where you’re taxed on all rental income annually, holding properties through a company allows you to retain profits and reinvest them without immediately triggering personal tax liabilities. This can be especially beneficial if you plan to grow your portfolio over time. Additionally, there’s the issue of Section 24, which prevents individual landlords from offsetting mortgage interest as a cost. This change has significantly increased the tax burden on personally-owned buy-to-let properties. Limited companies, on the other hand, can still deduct mortgage interest as a business expense, which helps manage profitability even if taxes are higher when eventually taking out dividends. It’s definitely not a one-size-fits-all situation, and you’re right that landlords need to carefully weigh these factors, especially with the ongoing uncertainty around capital gains tax. Consulting a tax advisor is the best way to navigate these complexities and make the most informed decisions. Best, William Gale
Since when does the supplier pay? The customer ends up with the bill ultimately. More competitive markets leads to smaller margins for suppliers and better prices for customers. The more you reduce competition through regulation.. the higher prices tend to get for customers. This applies to any market. Not just the rental market.
Landlords already pay tax on turnover not profit that's one reason rents are going up ,its called section 24,,research information ,before making STUPID comments ,
@@BritishHomeInvestors Buy-to-let should be banned. The core reason houses are worth so much is because people like you buy them as an "investment". Its a disgusting practice - they're basic living essentials. You should only be allowed to buy a house if you're going to LIVE in it.
If you really believe that the renter's rights bill is no problem for landlords, you need to change your job. I couldn’t bear to listen to you anymore. Good luck dealing with savvy tenants who know how to play the rules.
I get where you're coming from, and I understand the concern about savvy tenants taking advantage. My point is that while the Renters' Rights Bill will bring changes, it's not impossible for landlords to adapt. With proper screening, a solid understanding of the new rules, and pressure on the government to improve court efficiency, landlords can still navigate these changes effectively. It’s about staying informed and prepared. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Best, William Gale
I am a landlord with 10 properties portfolio, I am not all worried, Landlord will adapt to all the changes, the key thing is to chose your tenants very carefully and don’t cut corners, take out a good insurance plan against your tenants. Let’s wait and see what the final bill do. But we the landlord will find away around this law , when it comes to getting rid off bad tenants. Also offer good tenants good property.
It’s not a problem there’s insurance for guaranteeing rent that the tenants pay for and all my new tenants have to provide it. The only person that get screwed is the tenant because of lack of property on the market sending rents up.
