The possibility of an extended mortgage holiday being introduced, for landlords as well as home owners, has been sharply criticised by a group of activists in the capital.
The Financial Times has speculated that the current mortgage holiday scheme - announced in March with those who applied quickly facing the end of the holiday next month - could be extended for another three months at least, possibly with stricter criteria.
UK Finance, which represents most mortgage lenders, says the mortgage holiday so far has averaged some £755 a month for borrowers who took advantage of the initiative.
But now the London Renters Union says: “Every landlord owns hundreds of thousands of pounds of wealth, while nearly two thirds of renters have no savings. Clearly, it’s renters who should be getting support right now.”
Although no decision has yet been taken on the mortgage holiday extension - if it is to happen - the LRU says:“The government is prioritizing landlords’ profits over renters’ survival. As well as getting an extended mortgage holiday, landlords are benefiting from the increase in the Universal Credit Local Housing Allowance, which effectively subsidises their wealth. What have renters been given? A weak and temporary eviction ban that has allowed many evictions to continue.”
Letting Agent Today has in the past asked LRU to set out what evictions have taken place under the current moratorium.
The latest LRU statement continues: “The government has said it wants to avoid a sudden increase in financial distress when its temporary measures end. In that case, it needs to prevent the eviction crisis that will begin as soon as the temporary ban is lifted on 25 June. And it needs to end the rent crisis that has been building for years, but which the pandemic has magnified to catastrophic proportions.
“Instead, the government has only proposed the weakest of stop gap measures. It must suspend rent, cancel rent debt and make the eviction ban permanent. Otherwise we’re headed for a disastrous rent debt and eviction crisis.”
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
.png)
%20(002).jpg)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
No comment !
Don't worry mate , I'm sure you and other "paper landlords " are doing alright out of this as the mortgage holiday has being extended until October .. without knowing that some of us have created the economic bubble buying to let property's ignoring and not considering that we are all accountable for "Business risks" especially in case of catastrophes or pandemic and that includes landlords.
And before you answer calling me a troll I anticipate that I'm most likely considerably richer than you .
Can I choose to pay what I want on my council tax, mortgage payments and hmrc tax. I need a mortgage holiday so I can give these clowns free place to live, supermarket give them free food, government to give them free benefit, on line suppliers give them free designer clothes, free broadband and unlimited food and drinks . These idots at lru need to be to mental asylum.
They cant even afford to support themselves. let them move back home to their parents . I am sure their parents will kick them out in no they are needy . they are simply needy idiots .
why do you allow access to your website and give them idiotic views a platform to air. is it because your then can hide your shortcomings when you cant manage your landlords and tannest. and hide behind smoke screen these people give you
we employ agent services to manage tenants. and pay well for these services. expect a reasonable service .we pay you and not tanents.
ask lru to do crowd funding , buy a property raise the mortgage and let them give these people free housing. I am sure if they , shelter ,citizen advice , council and many organisation will help them get government grants as they are helping to a new way of housing people.
In short stop complaining and put your money where your mouth is or shutup and put up
Girish, is Fabio familiar with the saying ' empty vessels make the most noise '
( Those that got it, don't boast about it )
" I'm still considerably ritcher than yaaaaawww"
But you still can not spell you fool.
Unfortunately, Fabio, being richer than all of us put together doesn't discount the fact that you are also the most stupid person on here, your ignorance only magnified by the proportion of your wealth, in simple terms for you, in your case the richer you are the more stupid you are.
Evidently we are from a different generation Richard Kirwan as clearly you don't understand Harry Enfield humor gag.
#I'm richer than yaaaaaaaawwww
Just one problem Fabio, Harry Enfield is really funny, you on the other hand are just a sad imitation.
I think is a disgrace give a mortgage holiday to buy to rent landlords, simply because they benefit from an intrest free holiday and pretend rent from tenants covered by UC .
All this circle is on tax payers expenses
Mortgage holiday should be granted only on the first house and not buy to rent properties . Fair is fair dout des!!
Wrong again Fabio, its evident money doesn't accompany Intelligence. Numerous references have been made to the accumulated interest on mortgage deferments being due and that the likely cost of such interest for an average mortgage is over £900.
Renters are already saying, as is everyone, that repayment of just the monthly rent is going to be hard enough. So who exactly has confidence that tenants will be able to find the extra to repay any shortfalls ?
There are also credit implication for a landlord and some lenders have been blunt enough to say they would not offer any further mortgage products to a borrower who had requested a deferment.
If it wasn't already clear that your not a landlord, any doubt has been demonstrably expelled.
Mortgage holiday is not something that is free. Missed payments are added on to what we owe. We must pay them back unlike grants and furloughs that everyone else gets.
If you dont or cant pay your rent how can I pay my mortgage?
We cant evict you but If we all get repossessed for being un debt I guarantee you will be evicted by the banks.- no mercy.
I actually agree with Fabio.
There should be no mortgage deferment facility for LL.
LL are in business and MUST be aware of all possible issues.
But of course for LL to be able to operate their business effectively they need to be able to CONTROL their assets 100%.
Now as Fabio knows this isn't currently the case.
LL are very effectively prevented from CONTROLLING their business assets by the dysfunctional eviction process made even more dysfunctional by the current Govt eviction ban.
LL should be exposed to the icy winds of business competition but to achieve this there needs to be a level playing field.
I know of know other business which has its capital controlled by the law which effectively FORCES a LL to provide a free accommodation service with little chance of ever recovering the costs of that service from the consumer.
This in effect means LL are forced to do business with one arm tied being their back.
A LL must be able to remove rent defaulting tenants very quickly so that he can expose his property accommodation to the full force of the prevailing market.
Without a functional eviction process price discovery is effectively suspended.
The offer to treat by LL is being prevented by Govt.
No other business is forced by law to do this.
Without any rental income and the inability to get rid of rent defaulting tenants how are LL supposed to manage! !!??
How do the likes of Fabio suggest LL meet their monthly costs without any rental income!!??
These stupid LRU bemoan the very poor savings status of tenants and unfavourably compare that with possible capital values of LL properties.
Well it is NOT the fault of LL that tenants are feckless and don't bother having savings.
Next we come to the capital values that may exist in LL properties.
As far as I am aware a brick in a house cannot be chipped away and spent in the local supermarket.
Property value is very hard to extract and is ordinarily achieved by borrowing on a lender perceived value and that is even if the LL could afford the additional borrowing costs.
I thought the objective of Govt and the PRA was to reduce LL leverage NOT increase it.
These idiot LRU and the likes of Fabio seem to be suggesting that LL somehow tap into the capital value of their properties to assist their non-rent paying tenants.
A most bizarre concept!!
These LRU and the likes of Fabio are out of their very tiny minds!!
All LL ask for is a level playing field with other businesses which means NOT treating finance costs as income and the ability to control their assets by being able to remove rent defaulting customers immediately.
That is how all other businesses work in the UK.
Why should LL be treated differently?
I just think it should not be LL holiday mortgage and not an eviction ban , simple .
The rents are largely covered from benefits .
Fabio, the Government terminology of ' Holiday ' caused so much turmoil and misunderstanding amongst everyone, Tenants, Landlords and Mortgage companies ( who weren't Consulted on the proposal ! ) some mortgage companies outright refusing to grant a ' Deferment 'of payments for up to 3 months.
The lenders that would had various 'stings' to the tail, extra interest, some refusing to grant further products ( loans ) to borrowers who'd asked for a deferment. so
' Simple ' it certainly isn't unfortunately.,
The majority of tenants are still able to pay either All their rent or a large portion of it and their Landlords are more than happy in majority of cases to work along with this.
The cases my company are seeing, are where Tenants were in arrears Before Covid and once the Lockdown came, plain flatly refused to pay, OR Communicate further with their landlord, probably knowing there was at least a 3 month moratorium on eviction proceedings in court .
What fails to be appreciated, is that only a tiny percentage of Tenants are evicted and that is usually the last and expensive resort for landlords who invariably loose between £ 5, to 10 k and more per eviction.
It is interesting you support the eviction process no matter how dysfunctional it currently is.
That at least is good.
However it is clear you do not understand at all how the UC system works as far as tenants are concerned.
I can assure you that the maximum UC Housing element is substantially less than the usual rent levels in the South.
A line from the Wash to the Humber is generally unaffordable for UC claimants.
I know my market rents are more than double the LHA rate for my area.
Indeed the LHA rent would just about cover half the monthly mortgage payment.
Hardly a surprise then that I would never take on a UC tenant at the outset of a tenancy.
You clearly do not understand how the HB element is calculated within the OBC.
I appreciate that these details maybe lost on you because you are NOT a LL; EA or LA.
If you were you would understand how incorrect you are when it comes to your belief that LHA is sufficient to pay market rents.
It is of course these boring details which causes many not in the PRS to make comments about things they know nothing about.
It would perhaps be advisable to state that as far as you are aware that relevant circumstances are as you state.
This will always give you a get out that you reserve the right to be incorrect and advised accordingly.
LL and LA shoukd be prepared to correct you so that you better understand how things work.
Unfortunately your statements without caveat just make you look stupid.
If you seek understanding there are many who are prepared to give it to you.
But under no circumstances can you presume that what you state is correct.
So as you state and I agree there should be NO mortgage deferment or eviction ban.
Trouble is LL face multiple rent defaulting tenants.
This is not a normal state of affairs.
It is usually the case that a LL has one rent defaulting tenant at a time and can therfore just about manage the losses caused by one rent defaulting tenant requiring eviction.
But to now have multiple cases of rent defaulting tenants leaves the LL unable to sustain the losses caused by rent defaulting tenants.
This is why evictions should be sped up not slowed down.
It is unreasonable at definitely not fair to expect a LL to maintain viability of multiple properties without rent.
LL must ve given the opportunity to let a property to a rent paying tenant which requires effectively immediate removal of a rent defaulting one.
Govt is preventing this.
I for will be selling up as I simply CANNOT ever risk multiple rent defaulting tenants.
A fast track eviction process in the event of tenant rent defaulting is the only thing that will prevent me from selling up.
I know this will nevsr occur so I will eventually be leaving the PRS.
I definitely won't be selling to any FTB or tenant as they can't afford my price.
Onlu upsizers and downsizers can afford my properties.
Highly unlikely a LL will buy as I require full retail price.
Few LL buy at retail price.
So it will mean after I have sold there being about 16 homeless occupants.
I fail to see how all this benefits tenants.
I would add to what Paul's said and point out that the Govt treat the PRS as pseudo -Social Housing, which it is NOT.
Renting private property is similar principle to renting a car. Some people are too big a risk to rent any type of car to, and if the Govt wants Everyone to have a 'car' then the state should provide some ( or public transport ) for those that can't rent one.
When you rent a car, there are extensive checks on your license, you pay a deposit and and ANY damages are chargeable. Steal a rental car, or don't return it at the end of the agreement and its a criminal matter the police will investigate. Renter can't run on the rental agreement as 'periodic' rental until s/he chooses to return it.
Let me give another analogy, All shops want customers, as landlords want tenants. But shops do not want people entering and pretending to browse and act like customers whilst they steal - shoplift. Same applies for landlords. its the very few that give renting a bad name ( very few landlords, and few tenants. Meanwhile, endless bureaucracy and expense for EVERYONE, is administered to the whole sector.
Take Tenant fee ban as example, A few agents were taking advantage, instead of putting a limit on fees, they were abolished altogether. - result, rents gone up for everyone.
Please login to comment