The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[styles]

And that's fine, because no other commercial context allows one person (a landlord) to ruin someone's life to the same extent just because they don't see eye to eye on what's acceptable. Hence taking that decision out of their hands to an independent third party by way of the planned legislation is the only reasonable option.

If that means landlordism isn't for you, that's fine, invest in another way. But housing is a very, very special case and the landlord-tenant relationship, because of the relative consequences to each of a breach, is a very unbalanced one.

It certainly is now, well into a tenant's favour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It certainly is now, well into a tenant's favour.

As it should be, because this redresses the balance in favour of the person in the relationship who is at most risk by unfair decisions. Again, it's fine if residential landlordism isn't for you, just invest differently, if you fancy property there's always business property which is just down to what's agreed in the contract.

 

[styles]

As it should be, because this redresses the balance in favour of the person in the relationship who is at most risk by unfair decisions. Again, it's fine if residential landlordism isn't for you, just invest differently, if you fancy property there's always business property which is just down to what's agreed in the contract.

Not sure why you've mentioned three times that landlordism isn't 'for me'. It's not about me - it's about actual tenants, landlords, and the rental market. This is going to be bad for all three.

 

[ainsworth74]

No but there is behaviour which falls just short of what a court might consider antisocial behaviour for example; or people who regularly pay their rent late but don't cross the 2 months threshold the courts require for evicting for non-payment; etc.

Sounds like you'll want to use Section 8 Grounds 10 (Rent arrears of any level) and 11 (Persistent delay in paying rent) instead then. Whilst these are not mandatory possession grounds a court can certainly order possession rather than suspending it. Which is particularly likely where the landlord can show that the tenant has terrible record for payment, if there are other tenancy breaches which can be shown, etc etc. It doesn't just need to be ASB.

Then, regrettably, you're not suitable to be a landlord, because that is basically a feudal relationship where the landlord holds all the power. The law, rightly, is moving to a more equal relationship between the two, and it's an important step in that that things that are unreasonable aren't simply a matter of the landlord's opinion but rather defined clearly in law.

Quite. Having seen the sharp end S21 has been curse for many tenants as it means that landlords can get away with treating them like dirt safe in the knowledge that if the tenant tries to enforce their rights they can simply evict them and find someone else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure why you've mentioned three times that landlordism isn't 'for me'. It's not about me - it's about actual tenants, landlords, and the rental market. This is going to be bad for all three.

I simply don't agree. It is fairer and better for tenants and the market (including by freeing up properties for unwilling tenants to be able to purchase instead). It isn't better for landlords, but frankly that doesn't bother me, they have had the upper hand for far too long and that has caused gross harm to the housing market by making homes an attractive investment, which they shouldn't be - there is a shortage of them so they should primarily be for living in, not investing in.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thanks!


But changes in tax will affect "what the market will bear", through changes in behaviour prompted by the tax change. There are 2 main effects, working in opposite directions, and the overall outcome depends on which is biggest.


At the margin, there will be some landlords who decide to sell. This will reduce supply of rental properties and lead to higher rents.

I agree with your analysis

Tho it is worth noting that some landlords who decide to sell will result in the properties concerned being bought by other landlords (of differing sorts)

But those sales will increase the supply of property overall, and, other things being equal, should reduce house prices. This encourages people to switch from renting to buying, which will reduce demand for rental properties and lead to lower rents.

There is a timing issue too, because the sellers act first, so any increase in rents could be temporary.

Yes. Well at least in theory and hopefully in practice.

Of course the one thing about landlords selling properties is that the property still exists for someone else to live in (either renting or owner occupied) - it's not like it can be 'off shored' - so for government I suspect it's not a major concern.

The major concern of successive recent governments has been the need to increase owner occupation - sadly some of the policies since 2008 have actually served to make housing more expensive - and thus (no doubt at least part unintentionally) favour property investors over fist time buyers which has been a major long term policy error.

The ability to find decent, reasonably prices property to rent is of course important for people who actually don't want or need to buy a home - and many landlords provide this. But most people don't want to rent from a private landlord long term - so being forced to do so by financial circumstances breeds resentment - which means policies that are seen as 'anti landlord' are not going to be a big issue with politicians (certainly not labour ones even if some of them are landlords too)

This is why owner occupation is such an important policy objective - the traditional 25 year mortgage term means that when you are retired (and your income thus lower) your housing costs are largely reduced to maintenance only and thus should be fully affordable. But if you are renting, rent does not go down when you retire so the government has to make up the rent if you can't afford it (via social security benefits) - this is a ticking financial timebomb for future governments if they don't sort out access to home ownership for younger people 20 to 30 years ahead of their retirement date. If some or even a lot of property is sold by private landlords and ends up in owner occupation then in my view that is a good overall policy outcome for this reason.

If rents go up in the short term - which they may or may not do because of this, the trajectory of rents has been going up anyway for some time irrespective of recent legislative changes which have been / were promised by most main parties - then it could be argued that this is a price worth paying if it achieves the better objective of shifting more homes into owner occupation. Albeit that owner occupation needs to be affordable for people too.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Except now it needs evidencing and without that tenants can stay as long as they want, as they don't have a fixed term.

Oh the horror. Surely if there is antisocial behaviour, or rent being unpaid etc, then evidencing that is pretty straightforward? I'm not sure how anyone can be against landlords having to actually provide evidence for evicting tenants.

Except it is at the end of the day the landlord's property.

Not when its rented out. Its someone else's home.

 

[75A]

I own outright the Houses I let & I do not have any Management Costs. I live on a company Pension, being not old enough to qualify for the State one yet.
To me it's the principle that made me think (and still think) of what I said last night - rent up or sell up.

 

[styles]

I simply don't agree. It is fairer and better for tenants and the market (including by freeing up properties for unwilling tenants to be able to purchase instead).

Tenants who could afford to purchase properties would do so. Most people rent because they simply cannot afford to do so. This is going to push rents up, which will make saving for a deposit even more difficult, robbing first-time buyers. Not to mention that increased rents for those claiming housing benefit will simply mean more money paid out in benefits, which affects everybody.

It isn't better for landlords, but frankly that doesn't bother me, they have had the upper hand for far too long and that has caused gross harm to the housing market by making homes an attractive investment, which they shouldn't be - there is a shortage of them so they should primarily be for living in, not investing in.

Rebalancing the landlord upper hand is fine, but this is to the other extreme.

 

[WelshBluebird]

But most people don't want to rent from a private landlord long term - so being forced to do so by financial circumstances breeds resentment

Tenants don't resent landlords becuase of financial circumstances. They resent landlords because of the scumbags who refuse to carry out maintenance, up rent for no reasons (just because of "market rates"), break the law by harassing tenants in their home, try to steal deposit money that is owed to the tenant etc etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tenants who could afford to purchase properties would do so. Most people rent because they simply cannot afford to do so.

And that's largely because prices have been driven up by houses becoming an attractive investment. If we make them less attractive as one, prices will stagnate (reduce in real terms) and become more affordable to purchase again.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Nov 2025 ==

Rebalancing the landlord upper hand is fine, but this is to the other extreme.

Landlords have by and large brought that upon themselves.

 

[styles]

Oh the horror. Surely if there is antisocial behaviour, or rent being unpaid etc, then evidencing that is pretty straightforward? I'm not sure how anyone can be against landlords having to actually provide evidence for evicting tenants.

I assume you've never had difficulty having antisocial behaviour dealt with. I certainly have. Someone has a big shouting match and causes annoyance for their neighbour - how do you evidence this? Sure you've got witness statements but that's just heresay and one word against another. To give but one simple example.

Not when its rented out. Its someone else's home.

It still belongs to the landlord, who should be able to choose who they rent to and who they don't.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Nov 2025 ==

And that's largely because prices have been driven up by houses becoming an attractive investment. If we make them less attractive as one, prices will stagnate (reduce in real terms) and become more affordable to purchase again.

I'll bet you a hundred quid that house prices will not decrease by this date in 5 years time? Serious offer.

Landlords have by and large brought that upon themselves.

We shouldn't change laws just to punish people.

 

[WesternLancer]

I own outright the Houses I let & I do not have any Management Costs. I live on a company Pension, being not old enough to qualify for the State one yet.
To me it's the principle that made me think (and still think) of what I said last night - rent up or sell up.

Thanks for explaining your thinking.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I assume you've never had difficulty having antisocial behaviour dealt with. I certainly have. Someone has a big shouting match and causes annoyance for their neighbour - how do you evidence this? Sure you've got witness statements but that's just heresay and one word against another. To give but one simple example.

The usual advice is for the neighbour being impacted to record the noise. So yes you can easily evidence it.

 

[styles]

The usual advice is for the neighbour being impacted to record the noise. So yes you can easily evidence it.

Only if you're quick enough, otherwise the evidence is non-existent.

Even if you do record noise, getting it to be considered antisocial behaviour is not straightforward. As I was told by a police officer those years ago, people are allowed to have arguments. This statement is true, but every other week at 3am? Good luck. The police and the council didn't do anything about it, even with some recordings; I doubt a tenants tribunal would either. This will cost taxpayers a fortune in court costs as well.

 

[WesternLancer]

Tenants don't resent landlords becuase of financial circumstances. They resent landlords because of the scumbags who refuse to carry out maintenance, up rent for no reasons (just because of "market rates"), break the law by harassing tenants in their home, try to steal deposit money that is owed to the tenant etc etc.

Yes, but many landlords don't do those things. I've rented off several landlords and never experienced those things. Of course some, or perhaps event many do.

I suppose I perhaps meant that tenants resent being unable to secure housing other than private rented housing. Allowing people to have that choice must be the policy objective.

There are people in social housing provided by councils and housing associations who resent them as landlords too and most of those issues do not exists in the social housing sector (though some would debate the point about maintenance and if you read a few Housing Ombudsman cases you can perhaps see why)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Nov 2025 ==

Only if you're quick enough, otherwise the evidence is non-existent.

Even if you do record noise, getting it to be considered antisocial behaviour is not straightforward. As I was told by a police officer those years ago, people are allowed to have arguments. This statement is true, but every other week at 3am? Good luck. The police and the council didn't do anything about it, even with some recordings; I doubt a tenants tribunal would either. This will cost taxpayers a fortune in court costs as well.

I tend to agree with this. anti social behaviour has to be pretty 'extreme' (in my view beyond what people should expect to have to put up with) before any official agency will tend to take action about it.
At least if you rent and suffer from it it's relatively easy to move compared with if you are an owner.
And people committing such ASB will tend to take little care for the property anyway.

But the issue is every landlord wants a 'professional' type tenant, with a decent income, not on benefits, who looks after the property and pays rent on time, happily accepting rent rises on a periodic basis - but if you can get that sort of ideal customer you should actually reduce your rent to reflect the reduced costs to you as a landlord and ensure such a tenant has no incentive to move away. That never seems to happen....

 

[WelshBluebird]

Only if you're quick enough, otherwise the evidence is non-existent.

If its a one off then I wouldn't call it antisocial behaviour.
If its a pattern of behaviour then you can prepare so you can record that.

Even if you do record noise, getting it to be considered antisocial behaviour is not straightforward. As I was told by a police officer those years ago, people are allowed to have arguments. This statement is true, but every other week at 3am? Good luck. The police and the council didn't do anything about it, even with some recordings; I doubt a tenants tribunal would either. This will cost taxpayers a fortune in court costs as well.

I mean a small amount of noise for a short period of time 2 weeks apart probably isnt antisocial behaviour so they are right there. And certainly having arguments shouldn't be reason for eviction anyway.

Yes, but many landlords don't do those things. I've rented off several landlords and never experienced those things. Of course some, or perhaps event many do.

I'm speaking from my experience, but the only landlords I've resented are the ones who were scumbags or totally incompetent. The ones who have been professional, followed the law and actually realised the impact they have on their tenants lives were great.

I suppose I perhaps meant that tenants resent being unable to secure housing other than private rented housing. Allowing people to have that choice must be the policy objective.

Oh I absolutely agree with that. And of course that also applies the other way around. Some people would actually prefer to rent but feel they can't because of how insecure and open to abuse from scumbag landlords it is - and so are essentially forced into buying to have some kind of security.

There are people in social housing provided by councils and housing associations who resent them as landlords too and most of those issues do not exists in the social housing sector (though some would debate the point about maintenance and if you read a few Housing Ombudsman cases you can perhaps see why)

Granted I've not had much experience with social housing, but the small amount I did (with my ex), the issues were around maintenance being missed and incompetence / a lack of care around admin (her mum wasn't well and so they were transferring the tenancy to her to give her younger brothers some housing security, and whilst I dont know the details it was basically like pulling teeth trying to discuss it with the relevant organisations).

 

[styles]

If its a one off then I wouldn't call it antisocial behaviour.
If its a pattern of behaviour then you can prepare so you can record that.

I mean a small amount of noise for a short period of time 2 weeks apart probably isnt antisocial behaviour so they are right there. And certainly having arguments shouldn't be reason for eviction anyway.

I think getting woken up by your adjoined neighbour punching holes in a wardrobe door at 3am is reason to evict. Why should any neighbour have to put up with that? Why should a landlord be forced to retain people showing such contempt just because they weren't there with a sound level?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I think getting woken up by your adjoined neighbour punching holes in a wardrobe door at 3am is reason to evict. Why should any neighbour have to put up with that? Why should a landlord be forced to retain people showing such contempt just because they weren't there with a sound level?

Punching holes is a bit different to an argument so maybe stop moving the goalposts here.

And I'd imagine the holes themselves will count as evidence.

 

[styles]

Punching holes is a bit different to an argument so maybe stop moving the goalposts here.

And I'd imagine the holes themselves will count as evidence.

Mostly it was arguments. Occasionally it was punching things. No goalposts being moved. None of it was deemed a serious enough noise complaint by the council nor anti-social enough by the police. The police saw the holes in the wardrobe because I'd actually called to report it as a domestic (I couldn't tell what or who was being punched).

A few months later I caught the landlord and mentioned all of this, knocked on their other neighbour's door to get their side of things, and they were evicted. That is no longer possible.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't believe landlords should be forced to have tenants indefinitely, and I don't believe clogging up the courts with yet more cases just to evict awkward tenants is a good thing.

The Courts will be no more clogged up than with s.21. If someone doesn't leave after the s.21 notice period then Court action is still required, first to obtain the Possession Order and then separately to obtain a Warrant of Execution to have bailiffs complete the eviction. The only thing the s.21 does is not give the Court any discretion to suspend or refuse to grant a Possession Order (providing the s.21 notice has been served correctly). But s.21 isn't the only route where this applies- ground 8 (rent arrears of two months or more) is also a mandatory ground for possession.

It's worth noting that if someone is convicted of a major criminal offence (and the offences this includes are remarkably broad, and includes offences like having a bladed article in public) or breaches things such as a noise abatement order then they are also mandatory grounds. Any sort of ASB or failing to comply with the terms of a tenancy is also a discretionary ground.

The change in law will also make the landlord wishing to make genuine efforts to sell the property a mandatory ground for eviction.

I'm unsure why you are against the idea of a landlord having to have some evidence before applying to the Court to make someone homeless. There should be that check and balance in any system. If a tenant is genuinely anti-social then this should be relatively easy to prove to the civil burden of proof; the neighbours may not wish to testify but there will be evidence of, say, a council noise abatement order being breached or evidence of repeated police attendance at the property.

Of course the sad truth is that a significant minority of landlords use s.21 in a retaliatory fashion- an "awkward tenant" is, to them, someone who asks for repairs to be carried out promptly.

No but there is behaviour which falls just short of what a court might consider antisocial behaviour for example; or people who regularly pay their rent late but don't cross the 2 months threshold the courts require for evicting for non-payment; etc.

There are discretionary grounds 10 and 11, which are either that the tenant has any level of rent arrears or that the tenant is persistently late in paying their rent. There are also discretionary grounds for breaching the tenancy agreement or for failing to keep the property in a good state of repair.

None of it was deemed a serious enough noise complaint by the council nor anti-social enough by the police.

If it's not serious enough for the council or the police to consider it as ASB then it's not serious enough to make someone homeless, is it?

If someone is punching holes in the walls and smashing up furniture then it's likely that would meet the discretionary ground for eviction. I'm not sure many courts would refuse possession in that situation; they may make it a suspended possession order (i.e. do it again and you'll be evicted) but they're unlikely, in my experience, to shrug it off.

 

[ainsworth74]

That is no longer possible.

Yes it is, it's just not as easy anymore because the landlord now has to actually provide some sort of evidence for their claim. And as it's a civil court its only balance of probability when it comes to weighing arguments. If a landlord cannot manage enough evidence to persuade a judge on the balance of probability that possession should be granted (or at least granted but suspended so if they do it again they can be evicted) on one of Grounds 12 (Breach of tenancy conditions), 13 (Deterioration in the condition of property), or 14 (Nuisance, annoyance, illegal or immoral use of the property) then it would seem to me that they likely don't have a good reason to evict someone.

 

[styles]

The Courts will be no more clogged up than with s.21. If someone doesn't leave after the s.21 notice period then Court action is still required, first to obtain the Possession Order and then separately to obtain a Warrant of Execution to have bailiffs complete the eviction. The only thing the s.21 does is not give the Court any discretion to suspend or refuse to grant a Possession Order (providing the s.21 notice has been served correctly). But s.21 isn't the only route where this applies- ground 8 (rent arrears of two months or more) is also a mandatory ground for possession.

A S21 case is much quicker to deal with than hearing statements and reading evidence from either side about an ASB dispute.

It's worth noting that if someone is convicted of a major criminal offence (and the offences this includes are remarkably broad, and includes offences like having a bladed article in public) or breaches things such as a noise abatement order then they are also mandatory grounds.

None applied to my neighbours, so wouldn't have helped.

The change in law will also make the landlord wishing to make genuine efforts to sell the property a mandatory ground for eviction.

I'm unsure why you are against the idea of a landlord having to have some evidence before applying to the Court to make someone homeless. There should be that check and balance in any system. If a tenant is genuinely anti-social then this should be relatively easy to prove to the civil burden of proof; the neighbours may not wish to testify but there will be evidence of, say, a council noise abatement order or evidence of repeated police attendance at the property.

As I've mentioned above, gathering evidence of antisocial behaviour is often not very easy.

Of course the sad truth is that a significant minority of landlords use s.21 in a retaliatory fashion- an "awkward tenant" is, to them, someone who asks for repairs to be carried out promptly.

Sure and you could easily change the rules so that if a tribunal believes an eviction is being used to avoid a landlord responsibility, then it is denied.

The solution isn't removing S21 entirely. That's a sledgehammer to hang a painting sort of solution.

There are discretionary grounds 10 and 11, which are either that the tenant has any level of rent arrears or that the tenant is persistently late in paying their rent. There are also discretionary grounds for breaching the tenancy agreement or for failing to keep the property in a good state of repair.

None applied to my neighbours, so wouldn't have helped.

If it's not serious enough for the council or the police to consider it as ASB then it's not serious enough to make someone homeless, is it?

They wouldn't be made homeless - they were given a statutory notice period (2 months) to find somewhere else. Yes I do believe people should be evicted in cases such as the one I was subjected to where the police and council don't have the powers but it is causing their neighbours misery and anxiety.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I assume you've never had difficulty having antisocial behaviour dealt with. I certainly have. Someone has a big shouting match and causes annoyance for their neighbour - how do you evidence this? Sure you've got witness statements but that's just heresay and one word against another. To give but one simple example.

This isn't to me something that's really the landlord's job - it's a Policing and local Council matter. There's no landlord, after all, if they own the house.

I'll bet you a hundred quid that house prices will not decrease by this date in 5 years time? Serious offer.

They are unlikely to decrease in pure number terms (except maybe high value properties in London as Russian oligarchs can no longer invest) but they have certainly stagnated for a good 5 years or so now which means maybe a 10-20% real terms decrease due to inflation. It happening like this is a good thing as it makes them more affordable while not putting anyone in negative equity. Further stagnation for maybe as long as 10-20 years would largely sort things out while not causing anyone financial ruin.

We shouldn't change laws just to punish people.

A very large proportion of the role of the law is to do exactly that if they don't comply to it!

 

[Tetchytyke]

None applied to my neighbours, so wouldn't have helped.

You said they were punching holes in furniture and walls. This is easily enough evidenced and the landlord can take their pick from grounds 12, 13, 14, and 15, all of which relate to breaches of the tenancy agreement, failing to look after the property and the furniture in it, or causing nuisance.

If you can't even evidence that on the balance of probabilities then you shouldn't be able to chuck someone out of their home.

They wouldn't be made homeless - they were given a statutory notice period to find somewhere else.

Evicting someone from their home is making them homeless. The fact that they may or may not be able to find somewhere else is immaterial.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think getting woken up by your adjoined neighbour punching holes in a wardrobe door at 3am is reason to evict.

Wilful damage to the property is absolutely a reason to evict and removing S21 doesn't change that. The noise nuisance is a Police or local authority matter just as it would be if they owned the house.

 

[Topological]

This conversation has certainly moved on a long way.

There is an interesting question about what constitutes someone's property, and what you have to tolerate others doing to your property.

As a landlord, I know that there has been no profit in any of my lettings. Even if the numbers look good on paper, the yields are at most 10% and that soon gets eaten up. I suspect there are many who just try not to make a loss on the renting and then plan to live from the increased value of the underlying asset (and equity that builds up from the mortgages).

I expect that we will see more landlords incorporating and that ownership will concentrate a little more with those landlords who can afford incorporation. Whether that is a good thing, I do not know.

Certainly some good investment properties coming to market since the tax changes and Section 21 announcements (Changes to Section 21 have been going on for a few years now). The extra 2% on the tax will only add to that.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm speaking from my experience, but the only landlords I've resented are the ones who were scumbags or totally incompetent. The ones who have been professional, followed the law and actually realised the impact they have on their tenants lives were great.

I've been on both sides of the fence and I'm the same.

The landlords I've resented are the ones who've screwed me over and been allowed to get away with it. One went in after I'd left and damaged things that weren't damaged when I left; they withheld my deposit and, as it was before the protection scheme, the costs of recovering the money would have far outweighed the amount lost. The other one was a hobby landlord who expected a house to be pristine after a year of living in it, but luckily there was an independent check in and check out which found all the issues to be fair wear and tear. I resented paying for the check in but that £70 ultimately saved me a couple of grand in arguments.

I have one property rented out, an inheritance that we've kept rather than take the hit on Capital Gains Tax by selling it. The tenants are amazing, there's no mortgage, and so we've not put the rent up in five years. They're getting a bargain now the railway to that town has opened but we're happy with them so why take the risk of a void period? Even a two month void would wipe out any extra money we'd make.

I own outright the Houses I let & I do not have any Management Costs. I live on a company Pension, being not old enough to qualify for the State one yet.
To me it's the principle that made me think (and still think) of what I said last night - rent up or sell up.

I can understand the principle of it, but the tax rise of two percentage points is negligible in the grand scheme of things. On a £1000/month net yield it's only an extra twenty quid a month tax. I'm not going to sell a £200,000 house because I have to pay an extra fiver a week. I'm not sure that anyone thinking rationally would, not once they factor CGT into everything.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As a landlord, I know that there has been no profit in any of my lettings. Even if the numbers look good on paper, the yields are at most 10% and that soon gets eaten up. I suspect there are many who just try not to make a loss on the renting and then plan to live from the increased value of the underlying asset (and equity that builds up from the mortgages).

And that makes a lot of sense. You're gaining ownership of an asset from the rent payments even if there's no day to day profit or even a small "loss".

The landlords who are "buying" on interest only mortgages and just seeking a quick win are probably the ones we're better off without and those ones will be the ones mostly moaning about this.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I expect that we will see more landlords incorporating and that ownership will concentrate a little more with those landlords who can afford incorporation. Whether that is a good thing, I do not know.

There are costs to incorporation, not least Capital Gains Tax and Stamp Duty, so people doing it need to weigh up the pros and cons. For big landlords it has always made sense, more so since the changes to how mortgage interest was treated for income tax purposes, but I'm not sure it makes much sense for smaller landlords.

If you're buying a new investment property then incorporating may well make sense, but if you already own them then it probably won't.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Nov 2025 ==

The landlords who are "buying" on interest only mortgages and just seeking a quick win are probably the ones we're better off without and those ones will be the ones mostly moaning about this.

This is what I think.

We kept our inheritance property as it had sitting tenants when we inherited it and they are good tenants. We do make a profit but any profit we do make is likely to be severely dented as and when major repairs (e.g. boiler, kitchen, bathroom) become necessary. Our thinking has been that the property gives us a small but steady income stream which we put into savings and we we do eventually decide to cash in we also get to benefit from house prices going up.

As I've said above, even on a large net yield the extra tax is negligible. On my yield it's an extra £3.50 a week. If a landlord can't afford that then they should really exit the market; a landlord who can't afford that also won't be able to afford a replacement boiler either.