If Ken can cajole landlords into accepting lower rents, then he deserves to be the next Pope, not a mere Mayor. The reality is that buy to let landlords have paid excessive amounts for their properties, and even the current extortionate rents leave them with little profit.

Building more shoebox flats will help, as would relocating state jobs to the regions, and shipping those on benefits to Margate. Thanks to Tory foresight, some of those policies are being put in place, but London is effectively detached from the UK economy, and more well paid people want to live here than there are available properties. If this is the best Ken can come up with, he should stand aside now, in favour of somebody who might win.

Limit the amount of houses landlords can rent. They would have to own more than 75% of the building if they don't live there. Many would be sold and the market price will drop for those wanting to buy rather than pay more for rent than a mortgage would cost.

Can I run for Mayor
I will abolish congestion charge. I would increase the council tax on the rich and reduce it for the poor. I would give businesses a tax break or rent reduction for employing local people and award them for paying proper salaries and for providing ongoing training.
Oh hang on a minute!
Can't do that as that is just doing good things.

Ken's got it half right and I know this will make Friedmanites choke on their cornflakes (like I'm concerned) but there needs to be a licensing system imposed on private landlords.

Also, this obsession with property ownership has to stop.

Simply tax the landlords rather than the workers and the businesses.
This gives the workers and businesses more to spend on rent but penalises landlords for leaving properties empty and speculating on gaining a higher future rent. The result would be a far fairer and more efficient use of property.

diGriz:
Limit the amount of houses landlords can rent. They would have to own more than 75% of the building if they don't live there. Many would be sold and the market price will drop for those wanting to buy rather than pay more for rent than a mortgage would cost.
So, as a landlord, if I rent out a property, I can't own more than 75%? So I have to sell the kitchen, but can hang on to the bedroom and bathroom? That would be a challenge to do.

DNAse:
Simply tax the landlords rather than the workers and the businesses. This gives the workers and businesses more to spend on rent but penalises landlords for leaving properties empty and speculating on gaining a higher future rent. The result would be a far fairer and more efficient use of property.
I am taxed on rental income already, thank you. One way to avoid this would be not to get any rent, by leaving it empty. In terms of penalising landlords who leave properties empty (personally I have never seen any point in that), perhaps you mean a fixed charge per empty property?

@kwakwa2 - I'm guessing that DNAse was suggesting some form of land tax, which would have the effect you suggest.

I don't know the details of your tax affairs, but many landlords don't pay tax on all of their rental income, offsetting it againts the costs of letting. For things like maintenance and management costs, this seems fair. However, the abilty to offset mortgage interest means that landlords effectively pay mortgage interest out of their gross income, while homeowners must pay out of their net income. I understand the most creative landlords pay practically nothing.

This means that landlords can either borrow more cheaply, or borrow more, than a homeowner, making property harder to afford for those who simply want to buy somewhere and live in it.

The playing field should be levelled; either by preventing landlords from offsetting mortgage interest or by allowing homeowners to claim relief on their interest payment (I favour the former).

Please read peoples posts before responding.

It was a shock [to me] when Boris was voted in.

I had always assumed that Londoners were properly aware of the background reality of matters; despite constant rubbish from leading papers.

I like to think of Boris as having a number of very shiny suits, which look very good on him. Ken, on the other hand, has a rather tired grey number.

If you look at Boris in a strong light, you will perceive that he is in fact naked. Whereas observers should be relieved to see that Ken has some real cloth on him!

diGriz:
Please read peoples posts before responding.

I read it, and quoted it in full, but I didn't understand it. I own a property which is rented out, but how do I own no more than 75% of it? Who do I sell the other 25+% to, and how is this done?

Perhaps if you explain: do you mean number of properties (a landlord owning more than 4 might have to sell one in four of them)? Should I co-own with another landlord, so we own 50% each? I simply do not understand your proposal.

LondonPhil:
I don't know the details of your tax affairs, but many landlords don't pay tax on all of their rental income, offsetting it againts the costs of letting... The playing field should be levelled; either by preventing landlords from offsetting mortgage interest or by allowing homeowners to claim relief on their interest payment (I favour the former).

OK, I do offset mortgage costs against rent, just as any other kind of business can offset interest cost against operating profits.

Preventing landlords from offsetting mortgage interest is possible, and has been done in Ireland, but it wouldn't affect those landlords who are mortgage-free. Personally, I would probably just pay the mortgage down faster.

If the current system were maintained for commercial property landlords, I see some scope for landlords to legitimately or otherwise minimise it by buying say, a flat over a shop and treating it all as commercial.

By the way, the system is not all in favour of landlords versus owner occupiers: mortgages can be much more expensive.

A cap on rents is a win win for those renting, especially first time buyers. Either they rent a place for cheaper or, if the landlord is not prepared to take less money on their cramp little shithole and threatens to sell it , then more properties come on to the market meaning more properties for first time buyers at cheaper prices. I doubt that all these landlords will suddenly sell just because they cannot get such crazy rents anymore. They either rent it out below the cap, sell it or leave it empty.

If the Labour Party is "Self-Righteousness Looking For a Cause" then Ken Livingstone wants to engage us in helping him find a cause in the worst possible way by defining a villain in this case "private landlords" and trying to engage us in a campaign against them. Ken is not the best type of Labour politician that will focus its self -righteousness in an honest way and not seek to whip up prejudice in the process.

Not only is Ken's villain the private landlord but also his new proposal for a commissar controlled Letting Agent that will compete with the many privately owned Residential Letting Agents In London an implied attack on the the Private Agent and a threat to their business.

Estate Agents used to be the favourite villains of the press until the Bankers took over. You can see in Ken's speech an incipient attempt to villanise the Letting Agent.

London Letting Agents shouldn't have to compete with a Letting Agency run by Ken's Labourcrats.

He (Livingston) is a proven liar. Even most of Livingston supporters are proven liars. Only a fool or someone with amnesia would vote for him. I will be voting Boris.

He suggested that you need to own more than 75% of the property (as opposed to the bank owning it) if you don't live in it in order to rent it out, as opposed to the bank owning it. That means you need to make a significant investment in the property before trying to squeeze money out of it.

Why would the Labour Party chose such a hated figure as its candidate? I don't get it.

You only have to read the official Wikipedia article on Ken Livingstone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone

to know this is not a man who should have been chosen AGAIN as Labour's candidate for Mayor.

Rent controls have been tried before: they were a disaster. Owners were unable to keep up their properties. The is gave rise to Rachminasm - named after Ranchman, a notorious slum landlord.

The article on pensions explains why so many people became landlords: it was because of the poor returns on pension funds.

The write off of costs is reasonable. Buy to let is a business and finance costs are the same as for any business; the same applies to refurbishment and repairs. Restriction of allowances would result in the downgrading of properties.

Rents would also have to rise to pay for the lost allowances.

Another point overlooked is that landlords pay capital gains tax when the properties are solved.

Not everyone wants to own property. I have several tenants who could afford to buy, but for various reasons do not. Then there are those who cannot mostly single people who are divorced, and people starting their careers who have not yet decided to settle. Housing all of these people is way beyond the resources of national and local government. The private system gives them accommodation for the time they need it. I have found local authorities are generally the worst - remember the Camberwell fire.

Then there is the question of limited companies, and housing associations: many of these provide accommodation for students: if landlords have to pay extra tax, these too will have to be taxed on the same basis for property investments.

It is time that people regarded renting out as a business like another. Landlords have to work hard for their money, and take risks It is worth remembering why we got into this mess with property: it was caused by an unsustainable boom by Nu Labour and and previous governments' failure to regulate the money supply properly and their failures to reform the pensions industry.

Distorting the market yet more is the worst thing which can be done.

Rents are set by the market and can go down as well as up.

I well remember when I had to drop rents to get new tenants because there were
many extra properties in one locality.

There is ample regulation: tenants are protected by short-hold tenancy agreements, and
safety regulation. There will always be cowboy landlords just as there are and will be cowboy tenants.

Rentals not only should be left to the market it is essential that they are. previous attempts at rent regulation were a disaster for all concerned.

By the way it is not true that buy to let landlords paid excessive amounts for their properties.

They paid the market price at the time.

Our portfolio goes back nearly 40 years: we have bought when we thought it prudent to do so.
At the margin there will always be times when the market gets ahead of itself, but most BTL
is long term.

Rent is not a function of the cost of the property but of the availability of rentals.

This would to work.

First, many mortgages limit landlords to owing no more than 4 properties in a building.
So the 75% rule you want to introduce would change the borrowing rules.

Secondly it would be a recipe for chaos. The private letting sector would dry up creating a huge demand for
council property - which could not be met. It is also worth remembering that councils are among the very worst of landlords. the fire disaster in Camberwell was in a council property; it is councils which dump families in B&Bs which are utter slums.

Te typical BTL landlord keeps their properties up and their tenants happy - as both make for a reliable rental stream.

The regulatory system already covers safety and fair tenancy terms.

Letting property is a business like any other and when it was over-regulated the result as a disaster for all concerned.

It is worth noting that councils are the worst: they dump people in B&Bs which are totally unfit for habitation, and yet they are supposed to regulated these places.

the obsession with property is something that is a press and media phenomenon - a lot of ignorant articles, and tacky TV shows. real live landlords do not indulge in these things but focus on their businesses.

Landlords are already taxed.

there are council taxes

income tax on the rent

and capital gains tax on any profits on sales

VAT on agents fees and furnishings eg washing machines, carpets,
paint, etc.

The tenant pays the council tax, and there are CGT allowances as well as means of circumventing it altogether by moving into the place and calling it your main residence before you sell it, I think. If you are VAT registered then you can claim VAT back. I think the tax burden on landlords is pretty negligible compared to what an employed tenant might be liable to pay.

Can I also suggest an intelligence test for landlords. If they can't even understand your straightforward comments, then they're not really the sort of people who we want providing our housing. I notice, however that although they are too stupid to understand simple English, they seem to have mastered tax avoidance well enough.

Anyone got a link to Ken's full speech on Tuesday 13th December? It was online but I can't find it now. There are only bullet points on the Ken Livingstone website.

Let's start by reforming HB and the subsidiy it provides. Then we wouldn't need a Living Wage, Living Rental or the tax soaking bureacracy that Ken wants. Tenants would have to live within their means (which itself would force down rents) or they would have to move away from London. In order to attract back workers, London businessses would need to up their wages (which would probably push rents back up over time). Problem solved and all done by reducing government spending. But, alas, it's too easy for those that love big government and want easy answers that involve spending yet more money.

I am sure that the concept of a City XYZ Living Rent is laudible..... but, frankly, if the cost of living in the area is too high, it is down to the individual to address that issue given their own personal circumstances, and either finance their living arrangements through hard work and graft or move, but not to rely on the taxpayer to address cost of living excesses.

Life is Hard..... Deal with it.

I'm saying get rid of those other taxes and replace them with a land tax.
The real issue with landlordism is that a proportion of the profit is NOT earned. i.e. it comes from an increase in land values which is the work of everybody else and not the landlord. A land-value tax would target this element of the profit but leave the part that is the landlord's work i.e. the housing service supplied. Thus LVT would encourage good landlords and penalise Rachman or speculative amateur types.

So landlords and letting agents just need to demand tenants prove they are in permanent employment with a wage that is at least 3x the rent.

Problem solved.

Coolhandluke77..any landlord with any sense does a credit and reference and affordability test with any new tenant (paragon, homelet etc) who are pretty strict on affordability.
However it is worth considering that 1/3 of income on rent, doesnt afford some people a lot of choice, and doesnt consider the increase in disposable income as you go up the payscale or your relative spending and lifestyle habits (if you earn 100k a year, you might want to spend 40 or 50k on rent and live in a nicer area..who are the government to make that decision for someone)
Secondly for so called profteering landlords, I am both landlord and tenant(I live in Singapore) and the UK has no idea how good it has it...London has a lot of good value choice in the suburbs if people choose not to live in central London; and tenants have a huge amount of protection in the UK. Asia is incredibly expensive, with almost no protection and controls (and you pay 2 months deposit up front..which frequently isnt paid back)
As for the UK my experience as a landlord, even with a letting agent I get phone calls at 2 in the morning (as ive yet to meet a competent letting agent)..running around sorting even minor issues out....on a property worth 850k (no debt) I clear 12k a year after costs, which i then pay UK tax on despite living abroad...I would be better off putting that money in a savings account a 3pct on a fixed deal...but I prefer tangible assets (property) and I like the fact someone enjoys living in my house in the UK as much as I used to.

petergibbinson - you're lying or really dim if you truly own a 850k property and receive only 12K in rent - you must have one of the most over-priced properties there is (or you believe everything your estate agent told you) as in most areas a properties of that price would let for a minimum of double that.

Yes, there may be countries where renting is even less secure than England, and Singapore may be one of them, but that ignores the fact that in most civilised countries, renting is far MORE secure and rents reasonable - hell, even the US has rent controls! so hardly some kind of socialist radical concept.

Rent controls and secure tenancies work brilliantly across Europe - I don't hear the Germans, say, where renting is far more popular than here, that they wish they could be more like Britain and get rid of those pesky regulations - do you?

Oh and if you hate being a landlord so much then sell the property so someone can use it as a home, not as an investment or pension vehicle or whatever. Sick of landlords moaning how hard their lot is - unlike tenants who rent because they have to have roof over their heads, and landlords inconveniently bought up all the available houses, no-one made you be a landlord.

Selfish git.

"Granted" what a mature response...if you read the post again you will see I said
" I clear 12k a year after costs"
SO the rent is indeed double that, but then I have repairs and improvements, letting agent fees, 2k a year for a gardener I provide for the property etc...I could probably sepnd a lot less but feel I should treat others as I wish to be treated myself....still a selfish git am I? Lying or dim?
And I don't wish to sell the property, as it is my home and I want to live back in it when I return to the UK (I am seconded to work abroad..so yes someone made me an accidental lanlord, as an equivalent place to buy in Singapore is nearer 3 mio GBP) is that again so selfish of me, to want to keep a home I very carefully chose?
Every tenant I have ever had has left of their own free will, some stay for 2 years some for 1..I dont put the rent up, and would love someone to stay for longer than 2 years, but people circumstances change all the time... I wasnt moaning if you read the post again, I was explaining how landords are not all profiteering monsters...but clearly you consider me such.
Rent controls are a much bigger and valid discussion, but i will say as for rents being unreasonable...I think taxis, price of food, insurance, the cost of a plumber, builder, electrician are all potentially "unreasonable" should we put price caps on all of those? Or should we let a market with plenty of competition decide that?

@BeckyP

I can tell from your avatar pic - what with your mirrored sunglasses and intense facial expression - that you're a person to be taken seriously. You look so cool, in an ASOS, no ideas of your own, celebrity style trickle-down, type way.

Shouldn't you be filling out your application form for The Apprentice or something, rather than bothering the good people on here?

You make an ostensibly convincing argument for self-reliance coupled with not giving a sod about others, except for the fact that discussing the life you rightly identify as Hard, and attempting to tease out solutions, IS dealing with it. You just prefer life and politics structured to suit you. In case you hadn't worked it out yet, the 80s film Wall Street, was meant as a criticism of your kind of philosophy, not a template for existence. You seem to have made the same fatal mistake as the Ali G kids made.

BeckyP

Do you have, or intend to have, any kids?

Cos I'm a tax-payer, and although married, I regrettably have no kids.
At no point have I ever, ever, thought to begrudge my 'tax payers money' going on childrens education, family tax credits, child allowance, free bus travel, subsidised child care, etc etc etc etc etc etc.

One could mention a thousand things 'tax payers money' is blown on with seeming unfairness, from which I derive no apparent benefit whatsoever. Are you a LandLord? Because there are all types of grants available to Buy To Let landlords, for instance. Even Bankers have come to rely on a kind of 'benefit' recently.

it is down to the individual to address that issue given their own personal circumstances, finance their living arrangements through hard work and graft or move, but not to rely on the taxpayer to address cost of living excesses

a) Do you imagine a waitress, cleaner, assembly worker, teacher, bus driver, etc doesn't already work hard?

b) Anyway, what makes you think, if they live in a council house and pay their rent, the 'tax payer' is actually subsidising them? Most Council Housing was built on the proceeds of my parents and grandparents generation. The local authority will have no mortgage company to pay (if they ever did). In fact, the local authority will be in profit even taking into account repairs. No subsidy required for those kind of tenants. The 'Tax Payer' is no more paying for housing built from the 30's to the 80's than we're still paying for WW2.

c) I'm a Tax Payer too, and if my contribution is spent keeping a roof over a needy family's heads, i can think of a lot worse ways for governments to expend it. And many, many, Tax Payers will concur. And some won't.

see above

and above that