I thought I'd have a look at what 200K as I was curious from a post above. There are indeed places around that mark but there are a lot of horror shows, auctions and a good deal of strings attached. Its actually soul destroying looking at what so much money buys so little but that's the world we all live in.
I think I have seen the future of social/BTL. (I'm not being serious BTW)
Who knew you could buy detached in London for 24K.
To get anything decent on/under £200k you'll need to move out a bit (from Bromley) or be prepared for modernisation work and lease extensions or auctions. You might scrape something in a cheaper postcode like Grove Park for around £200k.
Lots of purpose built one bed flats in places like Dartford for sub £150k, good commuter line.
Those £24k boxes are truly taking the pee, my summer house is bigger and didn't cost that!
I thought I'd have a look at what 200K as I was curious from a post above. There are indeed places around that mark but there are a lot of horror shows, auctions and a good deal of strings attached. Its actually soul destroying looking at what so much money buys so little but that's the world we all live in.
I think I have seen the future of social/BTL. (I'm not being serious BTW)
Who knew you could buy detached in London for 24K.
To get anything decent on/under £200k you'll need to move out a bit (from Bromley) or be prepared for modernisation work and lease extensions or auctions. You might scrape something in a cheaper postcode like Grove Park for around £200k.
Lots of purpose built one bed flats in places like Dartford for sub £150k, good commuter line.
Those £24k boxes are truly taking the pee, my summer house is bigger and didn't cost that!
I agree with you Rob,if you want to get on the housing ladder move out to Kent,best thing I ever did
It is a well-trodden path - Medway for example is full of south Londoners.
Yes my aunt moved from Grove Park to Snodland in the 1960's!
It is but as a youngster who wants to move out out when the bright lights of London are there to be enjoyed and to be lived in. It's so depressing that young people have to move away from friends and family to do this... and don't get me started on having to spend your 20's living with your parents. What a nightmare. The thought of that makes me shudder but that's more my problem I think. I know the younger generation don't want my sympathy but they sure have it. It is just unfair.
You're joking. The thought of having some of these 20 year olds living at home. We was working on a job The woman had 3 daughters, eldest one had moved out and the mum had the grandson most days. The other 2 aged between 25-30 lived at home and they don't pay a bean in rent. One day the mum had asked them if they could help with the housework. The reply from the daughters was " can't you do the housework during the day"
Let's not forget it also could well be in the government's power to pass legislation that you can't evict a tenant when buying a property from a landlord (say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss), or that the tenant gets first dibs, almost like a private "right to buy".
What do you mean you can't evict a tenant when buying a property? You mean if you buy a property with a sitting tenant in place? You can't just evict a tenant who has a tenancy agreement without giving notice under the terms of the tenancy. Of course the tenant can buy the said property if they want - at market rate
Well, this is exactly why i'm talking about a kind of private right to buy - maybe some kind of subsidy or help to buy loan perhaps, so it would be below market rate. This obviously requires estate agents not to be absolute shysters and inflate the prices...
Why would it be at below market rate? It has to be at market rate. Why should they get a subsidy and not anyone else? Who is pay the subsidy
I get you don't agree with how it works. No one 'inflates prices' unless of course no one is prepared to pay the prices
You do know how right to buy works right? They should get a subsidy/loan because they live in the property - it's their home. Who lends the loan? The government, interest not payable for 5 years say, like the current help to buy loan and the government gets a chunk of equity perhaps.
Of course I know how right to buy a COUNCIL property works, right. How on earth would that work with a privately owned property, right? It's where they live but not their property
Seriously. What's the matter with some people? I'm 49 with no pension. So if I decided in the next couple of years to buy a 2nd property as a pension, some would be happy to see it go tits up for me.
I personally don't see a problem with buying a second property outright and then letting it out at a fair price.
I do have an issue with taking out a mortgage and expecting tenants to pay for it.
So all rental properties need to be mortgage free - that's going to work, NOT! Who decides a fair price? They tried something in Scotland that just made it worse for tenants. A fair price is market price.
You do realise a lot of businesses you buy from take out loans and by doing business with them you are paying off their mortgage loan
Right, I agree. But don’t become dewy eyed when the market turns on landlords who’ve overleveraged themselves and expect tenants to pick up the tab. Having your cake and eating it comes to mind - something for nothing.
Who is going 'dewy-eyed' about anything?. If you mean by 'overleveraged themselves' is this exactly the same as many owner/occupiers due to amongst other things, the worldwide economy? Don't be surprised when rents go up - and tenants have no choice about it and some of the reasons rents have gone up because the government has passed more costs on to the landlords.
And then the landlord passes it on to the tenant? What kind hearted people they are. If you can't afford to own a property and rent it out, sell it. It's quite simple - it's the market.
Many more would have to sell up than currently are, which would be even worse for tenants - I'm not surprised you aren't able to purchase your own place if you don't understand the fundamentals even if you must have predicted the end in the recent low interest period that so many others didn't! I know lots of people in their 20s buying a property
I don't know why you simply don't understand the rules of supply and demand apply to both tenants and landlords. If scores of landlords sell their properties then supply outreaches demand, prices go down, tenants who want to buy that otherwise couldn't afford to buy can now afford to buy - the whole social contract begins to work again. There is obviously the problem of foreign "investors" and domestic investo- i mean landlords then hoovering up the cheaper properties - but that's where maybe a fat stamp duty on a second property could be useful to then make it unprofitable for greedy landlords and investors. This extra stamp duty could then be funelled into building social housing. I know people who've purchased their own property, but they're either doing extremely well in life or have moved to areas that bring their commute up over an hour or more. As many have said on this thread, the current system is unsustainable and delaying the inevitable (prices dropping) is just roping more and more people of my age into the hellscape of negative equity in the future.
I'm getting a vibe that kentaddick is a tenant, who doesn't earn enough money to buy his own property.
lots of people are in that position - that is not humorous - it's just unfortunately true.
The thing that sticks in my craw a little as someone in that position - I can just about afford to pay the monthly mortgage for the place I live in, as a renter - and in fact that is what I am doing - but apparently i'm not trusted enough to get a mortgage - but I can pay someone elses off and nobody sees the issue.
It's a bit sick tbh - the system seems kinda set up against me.
edit for clarity - 9 years of renting thus far. Never missed a single rent payment. seen my rent rise by 25 -50 quid a month each year in that time, (until recently) for a one bed flat. After the latest rise i requested to hand in my notice and planned to go back to parents - my (decent) landlord called me (first time in nine years i've even had to speak to the guy) and asked me what he needed to do to keep me in the place.
Yeah it was clearly meant as some kind of dig, but the majority of people of my generation (>50%) are now renters, it just comes across as hopelessly out of touch.
One of the craziest threads i've seen. Rents are high because are willing to pay them, people can't get on the ladder because they spend too much time on Charlton Life, buying property is like investing in crypto. WTF? Bet there's other gems that i've missed.
It's a bit weird, I'm still yet to be told why some one would become a landlord other than accumulating wealth off the back of some one else (their tenant).
I simply don't understand how you cannot understand the situation and think that landlords selling up means rents will go down. It's what is happening now and rents are definitely not coming down. If there weren't landlords, there wouldn't be properties to rent. Most business 'accumulate wealth off the back of some one else'!
The idea is not to have rents go down, but prices of properties to go down. Heaven forbid it'll be more affordable to buy your own property than live in some one else's. If there were no longer any private landlords, then i guess the state would have to look at providing social housing, again - heaven forbid..!
Most businesses don't trade on a fundamental human need that then soaks up >50% of their customers wages. Although thinking about it in these terms sums up the attitude of landlords, it's just a business to suck up some wealth.
This is the point most people are missing. You're not trading crypto.
I've spent the last day or so being told that being a landlord has nothing to do with greed and sponging wealth off people, and now i'm told it is and it's fine because "it's a business".
Because you think it is greed but it isn't. No one is 'sponging'. You are entitled to your opinion but it doesn't make you correct. Am off to do some more work now
I'm going to ask this for what feels like the tenth time, how is it not greed? How is it not sponging when you're contributing nothing to the productivity of the country? and, something i've definitely asked before - Why do people become landlords in the first place?
You say you are asking the same question more than once. You have had the answer, more than once. By the way, do you think it is greed for any business to make any profit?
For what feels like at least the tenth time, there are numerous different reasons why people become landlords
Let's not forget it also could well be in the government's power to pass legislation that you can't evict a tenant when buying a property from a landlord (say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss), or that the tenant gets first dibs, almost like a private "right to buy".
What do you mean you can't evict a tenant when buying a property? You mean if you buy a property with a sitting tenant in place? You can't just evict a tenant who has a tenancy agreement without giving notice under the terms of the tenancy. Of course the tenant can buy the said property if they want - at market rate
Well, this is exactly why i'm talking about a kind of private right to buy - maybe some kind of subsidy or help to buy loan perhaps, so it would be below market rate. This obviously requires estate agents not to be absolute shysters and inflate the prices...
Why would it be at below market rate? It has to be at market rate. Why should they get a subsidy and not anyone else? Who is pay the subsidy
I get you don't agree with how it works. No one 'inflates prices' unless of course no one is prepared to pay the prices
You do know how right to buy works right? They should get a subsidy/loan because they live in the property - it's their home. Who lends the loan? The government, interest not payable for 5 years say, like the current help to buy loan and the government gets a chunk of equity perhaps.
Of course I know how right to buy a COUNCIL property works, right. How on earth would that work with a privately owned property, right? It's where they live but not their property
Right to buy was the beginning of the end, especially when those sold off cheap weren't replaced with new stock, you can trace back a lot of todays housing problems directly to then. Wonder how many of those are now BTL's? I know when I was looking in Portsmouth most of the rental flats were ex council properties. In a bizarre but not unexpected twist the council were very keen to rent them back!
Right to buy should never have happened as it did, right to buy on privately owned property is even more ridiculous.
There's one reason why people become landlords and the government should reverse RTB. Not sure why this thread needed reviving.
There’s more than one reason. Whilst most do so as an investment, some do so through circumstance. A few people I know - 1 rents their flat as couldn’t sell it when moving in with partner (cladding issue), another is on a 5 year secondment in Australia so has rented their flat whilst away. My mate rents his parents old house as when they died the siblings couldn’t decide what to do with it (one was adamant to not sell and was easier to rent than try to force a sale). My aunt rents her old flat in the IOW as until the last 18 months was in negative equity, she’s now (she says) too old to go through the hassle of selling and removing a good tenant and has said it’ll be my job to sort it out when she goes as one of her executors!!
so whilst I’m sure the majority of BTL’s were bought purely as an investment that’s not the only reason.
I do agree on right to buy though, should have ended many years ago, or it should be forced for every sale two need to be built or something similar.
This thread seems to me to look at everything from the wrong end of the telescope.
In my opinion the journey ought to start from the perspective of street sleepers, the homeless, those young people leaving the care system, and those on the minimum wage (working about a 40 hour week).
The reason I say this is because the thread title mentions housing.
My starting point would be legislation to not leave properties empty beyond a certain period of time, if that happens eye watering punitive taxation and council tax. Rent controls related to the minimum wage and square feet. Heavy fines on landlords who neglect the properties, and tax rises in order to build loads more local authority homes.
I imagine there are those who can quadrille around details, and tell me how wrong I am in this or that aspect, but if the discussion is about housing what suggestion do others have about homes for the poor and dispossessed and homeless?
There's one reason why people become landlords and the government should reverse RTB. Not sure why this thread needed reviving.
There’s more than one reason. Whilst most do so as an investment, some do so through circumstance. A few people I know - 1 rents their flat as couldn’t sell it when moving in with partner (cladding issue), another is on a 5 year secondment in Australia so has rented their flat whilst away. My mate rents his parents old house as when they died the siblings couldn’t decide what to do with it (one was adamant to not sell and was easier to rent than try to force a sale). My aunt rents her old flat in the IOW as until the last 18 months was in negative equity, she’s now (she says) too old to go through the hassle of selling and removing a good tenant and has said it’ll be my job to sort it out when she goes as one of her executors!!
so whilst I’m sure the majority of BTL’s were bought purely as an investment that’s not the only reason.
I do agree on right to buy though, should have ended many years ago, or it should be forced for every sale two need to be built or something similar.
Great post, none of those reasons are financial. I take back everything I've ever said.
This thread seems to me to look at everything from the wrong end of the telescope.
In my opinion the journey ought to start from the perspective of street sleepers, the homeless, those young people leaving the care system, and those on the minimum wage (working about a 40 hour week).
The reason I say this is because the thread title mentions housing.
My starting point would be legislation to not leave properties empty beyond a certain period of time, if that happens eye watering punitive taxation and council tax. Rent controls related to the minimum wage and square feet. Heavy fines on landlords who neglect the properties, and tax rises in order to build loads more local authority homes.
I imagine there are those who can quadrille around details, and tell me how wrong I am in this or that aspect, but if the discussion is about housing what suggestion do others have about homes for the poor and dispossessed and homeless?
Different people have different points of view, as they are entitled to - there isn't just 'one end of the telescope!
There's one reason why people become landlords and the government should reverse RTB. Not sure why this thread needed reviving.
There’s more than one reason. Whilst most do so as an investment, some do so through circumstance. A few people I know - 1 rents their flat as couldn’t sell it when moving in with partner (cladding issue), another is on a 5 year secondment in Australia so has rented their flat whilst away. My mate rents his parents old house as when they died the siblings couldn’t decide what to do with it (one was adamant to not sell and was easier to rent than try to force a sale). My aunt rents her old flat in the IOW as until the last 18 months was in negative equity, she’s now (she says) too old to go through the hassle of selling and removing a good tenant and has said it’ll be my job to sort it out when she goes as one of her executors!!
so whilst I’m sure the majority of BTL’s were bought purely as an investment that’s not the only reason.
I do agree on right to buy though, should have ended many years ago, or it should be forced for every sale two need to be built or something similar.
Agreed. But then I would do as said the same thing myself a while back. Bit of course was told was wrong. Quite a few rent their property to pay their care home fees too
Any other landlords on here got a tenant that’s no longer paying the rent and is getting your payment from an insurance policy instead ? I let a property through an estate agent who in turn has an insurance policy which I am charged for each month in order for my interest to be noted on and covered by it. The tenant stopped paying rent so the EA makes a claim each month and that insurance recovery is applied to the rent owed. The same EA provides a self-assessment for tax breakdown and i notice they listed an insurance recovery as rent. However, HMRC website states ‘rental income is the rent you get from your tenant’ which seems to imply the insurance recovery doesn’t meet the HMRC classification of rental income and is therefore potentially not taxable. Anybody experienced or know the correct treatment for this ?
Any other landlords on here got a tenant that’s no longer paying the rent and is getting your payment from an insurance policy instead ? I let a property through an estate agent who in turn has an insurance policy which I am charged for each month in order for my interest to be noted on and covered by it. The tenant stopped paying rent so the EA makes a claim each month and that insurance recovery is applied to the rent owed. The same EA provides a self-assessment for tax breakdown and i notice they listed an insurance recovery as rent. However, HMRC website states ‘rental income is the rent you get from your tenant’ which seems to imply the insurance recovery doesn’t meet the HMRC classification of rental income and is therefore potentially not taxable. Anybody experienced or know the correct treatment for this ?
Any other landlords on here got a tenant that’s no longer paying the rent and is getting your payment from an insurance policy instead ? I let a property through an estate agent who in turn has an insurance policy which I am charged for each month in order for my interest to be noted on and covered by it. The tenant stopped paying rent so the EA makes a claim each month and that insurance recovery is applied to the rent owed. The same EA provides a self-assessment for tax breakdown and i notice they listed an insurance recovery as rent. However, HMRC website states ‘rental income is the rent you get from your tenant’ which seems to imply the insurance recovery doesn’t meet the HMRC classification of rental income and is therefore potentially not taxable. Anybody experienced or know the correct treatment for this ?
Any other landlords on here got a tenant that’s no longer paying the rent and is getting your payment from an insurance policy instead ? I let a property through an estate agent who in turn has an insurance policy which I am charged for each month in order for my interest to be noted on and covered by it. The tenant stopped paying rent so the EA makes a claim each month and that insurance recovery is applied to the rent owed. The same EA provides a self-assessment for tax breakdown and i notice they listed an insurance recovery as rent. However, HMRC website states ‘rental income is the rent you get from your tenant’ which seems to imply the insurance recovery doesn’t meet the HMRC classification of rental income and is therefore potentially not taxable. Anybody experienced or know the correct treatment for this ?
That's what happens when you're greedy mate.
How dare the tenant have to pay rent
Maybe that's the solution - landlords pay tenants to house sit.
Any other landlords on here got a tenant that’s no longer paying the rent and is getting your payment from an insurance policy instead ? I let a property through an estate agent who in turn has an insurance policy which I am charged for each month in order for my interest to be noted on and covered by it. The tenant stopped paying rent so the EA makes a claim each month and that insurance recovery is applied to the rent owed. The same EA provides a self-assessment for tax breakdown and i notice they listed an insurance recovery as rent. However, HMRC website states ‘rental income is the rent you get from your tenant’ which seems to imply the insurance recovery doesn’t meet the HMRC classification of rental income and is therefore potentially not taxable. Anybody experienced or know the correct treatment for this ?
Any other landlords on here got a tenant that’s no longer paying the rent and is getting your payment from an insurance policy instead ? I let a property through an estate agent who in turn has an insurance policy which I am charged for each month in order for my interest to be noted on and covered by it. The tenant stopped paying rent so the EA makes a claim each month and that insurance recovery is applied to the rent owed. The same EA provides a self-assessment for tax breakdown and i notice they listed an insurance recovery as rent. However, HMRC website states ‘rental income is the rent you get from your tenant’ which seems to imply the insurance recovery doesn’t meet the HMRC classification of rental income and is therefore potentially not taxable. Anybody experienced or know the correct treatment for this ?
Regardless surely it’s still income to declare on your tax return.
Any other landlords on here got a tenant that’s no longer paying the rent and is getting your payment from an insurance policy instead ? I let a property through an estate agent who in turn has an insurance policy which I am charged for each month in order for my interest to be noted on and covered by it. The tenant stopped paying rent so the EA makes a claim each month and that insurance recovery is applied to the rent owed. The same EA provides a self-assessment for tax breakdown and i notice they listed an insurance recovery as rent. However, HMRC website states ‘rental income is the rent you get from your tenant’ which seems to imply the insurance recovery doesn’t meet the HMRC classification of rental income and is therefore potentially not taxable. Anybody experienced or know the correct treatment for this ?
Regardless surely it’s still income to declare on your tax return.
Possibly though if you received a recovery from your house, car, holiday, medical or pet insurance for instance would you declare that as taxable ?
that wording for rental income on the HMRC website seems pretty definitive and I can’t be the first ever landlord to have been paid out by insurance when the tenant has defaulted so you would have thought if HMRC still considers it to be rental income they would have said so
Any other landlords on here got a tenant that’s no longer paying the rent and is getting your payment from an insurance policy instead ? I let a property through an estate agent who in turn has an insurance policy which I am charged for each month in order for my interest to be noted on and covered by it. The tenant stopped paying rent so the EA makes a claim each month and that insurance recovery is applied to the rent owed. The same EA provides a self-assessment for tax breakdown and i notice they listed an insurance recovery as rent. However, HMRC website states ‘rental income is the rent you get from your tenant’ which seems to imply the insurance recovery doesn’t meet the HMRC classification of rental income and is therefore potentially not taxable. Anybody experienced or know the correct treatment for this ?
Regardless surely it’s still income to declare on your tax return.
Possibly though if you received a recovery from your house, car, holiday, medical or pet insurance for instance would you declare that as taxable ?
that wording for rental income on the HMRC website seems pretty definitive and I can’t be the first ever landlord to have been paid out by insurance when the tenant has defaulted so you would have thought if HMRC still considers it to be rental income they would have said so
But those examples are recompense for money lost and which you already paid for from taxed income.
Your rent pay out is the first time you got payment as the tenant did not pay as they should.
I’d say morally it is taxable albeit the cost / premium can be offset as a cost I assume.
Any other landlords on here got a tenant that’s no longer paying the rent and is getting your payment from an insurance policy instead ? I let a property through an estate agent who in turn has an insurance policy which I am charged for each month in order for my interest to be noted on and covered by it. The tenant stopped paying rent so the EA makes a claim each month and that insurance recovery is applied to the rent owed. The same EA provides a self-assessment for tax breakdown and i notice they listed an insurance recovery as rent. However, HMRC website states ‘rental income is the rent you get from your tenant’ which seems to imply the insurance recovery doesn’t meet the HMRC classification of rental income and is therefore potentially not taxable. Anybody experienced or know the correct treatment for this ?
Regardless surely it’s still income to declare on your tax return.
Possibly though if you received a recovery from your house, car, holiday, medical or pet insurance for instance would you declare that as taxable ?
that wording for rental income on the HMRC website seems pretty definitive and I can’t be the first ever landlord to have been paid out by insurance when the tenant has defaulted so you would have thought if HMRC still considers it to be rental income they would have said so
PIM2110 - Deductions: main types of expense: insurance premiums and recoveries
Insurance recoveries
Amounts recovered under such policies should be dealt with as follows:
Insurance recoveries in respect of damage to the property should normally be set against the cost of repairs to make good the damage. But see PIM2040, which indicates that sometimes the right result may be achieved by deducting the expense when it is incurred and crediting the insurance recovery as a receipt when it is received.
Insurance receipts in respect of loss of rents are taxable as income of the rental business.
Lewisham Council are just about to give my brother and his wife £26000, TWENTY SIX GRAND... To give up the tenancy on their 4th floor 2 bed council flat in Sydenham. They have been there for over 25 years.
Any other landlords on here got a tenant that’s no longer paying the rent and is getting your payment from an insurance policy instead ? I let a property through an estate agent who in turn has an insurance policy which I am charged for each month in order for my interest to be noted on and covered by it. The tenant stopped paying rent so the EA makes a claim each month and that insurance recovery is applied to the rent owed. The same EA provides a self-assessment for tax breakdown and i notice they listed an insurance recovery as rent. However, HMRC website states ‘rental income is the rent you get from your tenant’ which seems to imply the insurance recovery doesn’t meet the HMRC classification of rental income and is therefore potentially not taxable. Anybody experienced or know the correct treatment for this ?
Regardless surely it’s still income to declare on your tax return.
Possibly though if you received a recovery from your house, car, holiday, medical or pet insurance for instance would you declare that as taxable ?
that wording for rental income on the HMRC website seems pretty definitive and I can’t be the first ever landlord to have been paid out by insurance when the tenant has defaulted so you would have thought if HMRC still considers it to be rental income they would have said so
But those examples are recompense for money lost and which you already paid for from taxed income.
Your rent pay out is the first time you got payment as the tenant did not pay as they should.
I’d say morally it is taxable albeit the cost / premium can be offset as a cost I assume.
Just my guess.
I totally agree with your thinking but it’s the specific HMRC wording of rental income being the rent you get from your tenant that doesn’t fit with the view that the insurance recovery is rent because the tenant didn’t pay it
Lewisham Council are just about to give my brother and his wife £26000, TWENTY SIX GRAND... To give up the tenancy on their 4th floor 2 bed council flat in Sydenham. They have been there for over 25 years.
This thread seems to me to look at everything from the wrong end of the telescope.
In my opinion the journey ought to start from the perspective of street sleepers, the homeless, those young people leaving the care system, and those on the minimum wage (working about a 40 hour week).
The reason I say this is because the thread title mentions housing.
My starting point would be legislation to not leave properties empty beyond a certain period of time, if that happens eye watering punitive taxation and council tax. Rent controls related to the minimum wage and square feet. Heavy fines on landlords who neglect the properties, and tax rises in order to build loads more local authority homes.
I imagine there are those who can quadrille around details, and tell me how wrong I am in this or that aspect, but if the discussion is about housing what suggestion do others have about homes for the poor and dispossessed and homeless?
Different people have different points of view, as they are entitled to - there isn't just 'one end of the telescope!
Why can't housing or having a home be binary? You have somewhere or you don't. I don't know the absolute direction of travel, but only four days ago this report from Barnado's suggested that 700.000 children don't have their own bed to sleep in, let alone secure housing.
Any other landlords on here got a tenant that’s no longer paying the rent and is getting your payment from an insurance policy instead ? I let a property through an estate agent who in turn has an insurance policy which I am charged for each month in order for my interest to be noted on and covered by it. The tenant stopped paying rent so the EA makes a claim each month and that insurance recovery is applied to the rent owed. The same EA provides a self-assessment for tax breakdown and i notice they listed an insurance recovery as rent. However, HMRC website states ‘rental income is the rent you get from your tenant’ which seems to imply the insurance recovery doesn’t meet the HMRC classification of rental income and is therefore potentially not taxable. Anybody experienced or know the correct treatment for this ?
Regardless surely it’s still income to declare on your tax return.
Possibly though if you received a recovery from your house, car, holiday, medical or pet insurance for instance would you declare that as taxable ?
that wording for rental income on the HMRC website seems pretty definitive and I can’t be the first ever landlord to have been paid out by insurance when the tenant has defaulted so you would have thought if HMRC still considers it to be rental income they would have said so
But those examples are recompense for money lost and which you already paid for from taxed income.
Your rent pay out is the first time you got payment as the tenant did not pay as they should.
I’d say morally it is taxable albeit the cost / premium can be offset as a cost I assume.
Just my guess.
I totally agree with your thinking but it’s the specific HMRC wording of rental income being the rent you get from your tenant that doesn’t fit with the view that the insurance recovery is rent because the tenant didn’t pay it
See my earlier post on specific HMRC wording. It's pretty clear that insurance rent recovery is taxable as rental income.
This thread seems to me to look at everything from the wrong end of the telescope.
In my opinion the journey ought to start from the perspective of street sleepers, the homeless, those young people leaving the care system, and those on the minimum wage (working about a 40 hour week).
The reason I say this is because the thread title mentions housing.
My starting point would be legislation to not leave properties empty beyond a certain period of time, if that happens eye watering punitive taxation and council tax. Rent controls related to the minimum wage and square feet. Heavy fines on landlords who neglect the properties, and tax rises in order to build loads more local authority homes.
I imagine there are those who can quadrille around details, and tell me how wrong I am in this or that aspect, but if the discussion is about housing what suggestion do others have about homes for the poor and dispossessed and homeless?
Different people have different points of view, as they are entitled to - there isn't just 'one end of the telescope!
Why can't housing or having a home be binary? You have somewhere or you don't. I don't know the absolute direction of travel, but only four days ago this report from Barnado's suggested that 700.000 children don't have their own bed to sleep in, let alone secure housing.
This thread seems to me to look at everything from the wrong end of the telescope.
In my opinion the journey ought to start from the perspective of street sleepers, the homeless, those young people leaving the care system, and those on the minimum wage (working about a 40 hour week).
The reason I say this is because the thread title mentions housing.
My starting point would be legislation to not leave properties empty beyond a certain period of time, if that happens eye watering punitive taxation and council tax. Rent controls related to the minimum wage and square feet. Heavy fines on landlords who neglect the properties, and tax rises in order to build loads more local authority homes.
I imagine there are those who can quadrille around details, and tell me how wrong I am in this or that aspect, but if the discussion is about housing what suggestion do others have about homes for the poor and dispossessed and homeless?
Different people have different points of view, as they are entitled to - there isn't just 'one end of the telescope!
Why can't housing or having a home be binary? You have somewhere or you don't. I don't know the absolute direction of travel, but only four days ago this report from Barnado's suggested that 700.000 children don't have their own bed to sleep in, let alone secure housing.
Because it doesn't work as you think it should. It is very complex and not just about 'greedy' landlords
I have not once accused landlords of being greedy.
My thesis has been about what to do about getting people housed. For example my suggestion about rent ceilings related to earnings is not one about landlords being greedy, it is approaching things from a different starting point.
Maybe it is a bit like part of the philosophy behind squatting, where an empty space is seen as an opportunity to benefit people in need and squatters have (or had) rights.
Certainly in the short term I would try to investigate ways to quickly change the boarded up empty shops everywhere into places for people to live.
There is a very distasteful irony seeing a homeless person huddled on cardboard under a grubby duvet in the doorway of an empty shop.
Lewisham Council are just about to give my brother and his wife £26000, TWENTY SIX GRAND... To give up the tenancy on their 4th floor 2 bed council flat in Sydenham. They have been there for over 25 years.
I'd ask for more, they are very keen to get them out and Lewisham will probably expect to pay more.
Lewisham Council are just about to give my brother and his wife £26000, TWENTY SIX GRAND... To give up the tenancy on their 4th floor 2 bed council flat in Sydenham. They have been there for over 25 years.
Comments
By the way, do you think it is greed for any business to make any profit?
For what feels like at least the tenth time, there are numerous different reasons why people become landlords
Right to buy should never have happened as it did, right to buy on privately owned property is even more ridiculous.
so whilst I’m sure the majority of BTL’s were bought purely as an investment that’s not the only reason.
I do agree on right to buy though, should have ended many years ago, or it should be forced for every sale two need to be built or something similar.
In my opinion the journey ought to start from the perspective of street sleepers, the homeless, those young people leaving the care system, and those on the minimum wage (working about a 40 hour week).
The reason I say this is because the thread title mentions housing.
My starting point would be legislation to not leave properties empty beyond a certain period of time, if that happens eye watering punitive taxation and council tax. Rent controls related to the minimum wage and square feet. Heavy fines on landlords who neglect the properties, and tax rises in order to build loads more local authority homes.
I imagine there are those who can quadrille around details, and tell me how wrong I am in this or that aspect, but if the discussion is about housing what suggestion do others have about homes for the poor and dispossessed and homeless?
that wording for rental income on the HMRC website seems pretty definitive and I can’t be the first ever landlord to have been paid out by insurance when the tenant has defaulted so you would have thought if HMRC still considers it to be rental income they would have said so
PIM2110 - Deductions: main types of expense: insurance premiums and recoveries
Insurance recoveries
Amounts recovered under such policies should be dealt with as follows:
You have somewhere or you don't.
I don't know the absolute direction of travel, but only four days ago this report from Barnado's suggested that 700.000 children don't have their own bed to sleep in, let alone secure housing.
https://www.barnardos.org.uk/news/children-sleeping-floor-and-sharing-mouldy-and-soiled-beds-cost-living-crisis-continues#:~:text=Based on these findings, Barnardo's,not having their own bed.
See my earlier post on specific HMRC wording. It's pretty clear that insurance rent recovery is taxable as rental income.
Maybe it is a bit like part of the philosophy behind squatting, where an empty space is seen as an opportunity to benefit people in need and squatters have (or had) rights.
Certainly in the short term I would try to investigate ways to quickly change the boarded up empty shops everywhere into places for people to live.