Holiday Lets/homes

[macafee2]

In some places a large proportion of houses are holiday lets.
Some people are complaining that this ruins community spirit as people are only there for a couple of weeks and locals are being forced out be it due to rent prices or purchase prices.

Who is to blame? The locals for selling to the highest "bidder"
who could be from outside the area or the outsiders for coming in with their money?

3 of the last 4 properties I know that sold in the last 2 years in the village where I live, went to outsiders, me being one of them.

The Channel Islands used to, I do not know about now, I was told only allowed those living there and perhaps some of their families to buy in the Channel Islands.

macafee2

[stevestrat]

Mentioned on the news one woman who was evicted so the owner could turn the property into a holiday let. There should be something in place that gives locals a chance to buy (or even rent), no idea what that something could be though. I don't blame the seller, who doesn't want the highest possible for their property but some of these places must be like a ghost town off season.

[MSS]

Second homes and holiday lets should be heavily regulated, as rental properties are. And of course heavily taxed.

[planenut]

You may note that the implication is that this type of ownership has increased within the last three years. This coincides with the Covid pandemic and thousands will have discovered the pleasure of UK based holidays. At least a generation will have passed where overseas holidays were the expected norm.
British seasides have been used for decades to house people on Benefits in otherwise unlet boarding accommodation. Landlords will have had to rely on that income therefore cheaper holiday boarding is not so available.
Money speaks, and as Stevetrat says, who would not want the best price for one's property?

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by MSS

Second homes and holiday lets should be heavily regulated, as rental properties are. And of course heavily taxed.

MSS is that an attack on the "rich", you seem to make your comments as blanket statements, covering one and all. So I want you to explain why I should be heavily taxed on my rental property. Before you answer please read on.
4 1/2ish years ago my sister became homeless, my wife and I put up the money for her security deposit so she could get a rental property and became the guarantors for the rent.
It was more then she could comfortably afford so when I retired I took my lump sum and my wife an I bought her a house to live in, the rent was about £200 less then "commercial" rent. It is now £300 below "commercial" rate

We gave her almost £600 towards decoration, it was the security deposit money.
In the years we have had the property we have done all our legal responsibilities, we have also put in a new boiler, new facia and this year had planned to put in a new bathroom.
Spending more money to make the house better for her, not filling our wallet with loads of wonga.
We are still out of pocket as we have not got our fees back let alone purchase price.
When a battery goes in my smoke detector I have to pay for a new battery, if a battery goes in her smoke detector she calls me. If one of my taps starts dripping I have to pay to fix it, if one of her taps starts dripping she calls me.
I have to pay the maintenance on two homes!

I can no longer "afford" to lend my daughter money. If my son wants to borrow money we are stuffed. This is because
my cash has been spent on my sister. What signal does that send to my wife and children that I spent so much money on my sister and not them?

Before this, long before this, my wife and I would send her money to help her get get through the month and it was at about this time, my wife, I found out years later, would sit down stairs crying when I had gone to bed as she did not know how we would pay our bills.

So tell me, why should I be heavily taxed for having a rental property where the above applies?
Please please when you make your comments could you please consider there are people already supporting the less well off?

macafee2

[wraymond]

So, local houses for local people? I don’t think that works very well. The trouble is you very soon run out of local people, especially in some of our beautiful villages and towns.

New blood grows into and further establishes longer term residences which in turn inherit that once ‘new’ blood settling and bringing up their families. It’s natural growth, nowt to do with isolationism or ladder climbing.

As far as costs are concerned, what is needed is local council building of rented starter homes at realistic prices rather than the hugely inflated prices for superior developments. The major building firms have to a large extent cornered the market and tend to concentrate on town/urban sites, so compounding the problem. If councils did this again and imposed, say, a ten year continuous tenancy agreement before the right to buy could be made available, it would develop into a useful ‘ladder’ and help with costs.

Valuation could be limited to council build costs plus inflation. Note: not current market trends. Our own first ‘bought’ house was a council house (largely because I worked in the area) some 50 years ago) and what a wonderful thing it was. We occasionally drive around there on nostalgia trips. The row of 22 houses, all bought years ago, has transformed the area into a very pleasant place. It’s still just the place for young families.

There are long established local schools aplenty, with health services and shopping. No lengthy car journeys, no railway needed. Think of the environment, with everything within walking distance! They would all have built-in electric charging points too! Utopia!

[MSS]

Originally Posted by macafee2

MSS is that an attack on the "rich", you seem to make your comments as blanket statements, covering one and all. So I want you to explain why I should be heavily taxed on my rental property. Before you answer please read on.
4 1/2ish years ago my sister became homeless, my wife and I put up the money for her security deposit so she could get a rental property and became the guarantors for the rent.
It was more then she could comfortably afford so when I retired I took my lump sum and my wife an I bought her a house to live in, the rent was about £200 less then "commercial" rent. It is now £300 below "commercial" rate

We gave her almost £600 towards decoration, it was the security deposit money.
In the years we have had the property we have done all our legal responsibilities, we have also put in a new boiler, new facia and this year had planned to put in a new bathroom.
Spending more money to make the house better for her, not filling our wallet with loads of wonga.
We are still out of pocket as we have not got our fees back let alone purchase price.
When a battery goes in my smoke detector I have to pay for a new battery, if a battery goes in her smoke detector she calls me. If one of my taps starts dripping I have to pay to fix it, if one of her taps starts dripping she calls me.
I have to pay the maintenance on two homes!

I can no longer "afford" to lend my daughter money. If my son wants to borrow money we are stuffed. This is because
my cash has been spent on my sister. What signal does that send to my wife and children that I spent so much money on my sister and not them?

Before this, long before this, my wife and I would send her money to help her get get through the month and it was at about this time, my wife, I found out years later, would sit down stairs crying when I had gone to bed as she did not know how we would pay our bills.

So tell me, why should I be heavily taxed for having a rental property where the above applies?
Please please when you make your comments could you please consider there are people already supporting the less well off?

macafee2

Yeh - I love a good attack on the rich. You just wait until the revolution comes!

Ian - you should reread my post - I said 'as rental properties are', meaning as rental properties are already heavily taxed.

What I implied was that second and holiday homes should be heavily regulated and taxed as rental properties are already heavily regulated and taxed.

The reason so many second homes exist is that those with wealth are able to accumulate greater amounts of wealth through second homes etc. thus effectively pricing the local population out of the market.

I do hope you are paying due taxes on your rental income!

[bikerdude666]

Someone my wife works with paid an obscene amount for a place in Cornwall, as a holiday let, at equally obscene prices. The 1st 2 years due to covid it was fully booked as everyone was holidaying in the UK, despite the stupid price being charged, and they still got a lot of enquiries from others desperate for somewhere to stay. Cornwall was ridiculous last year and I felt sorry for the locals. It was so packed in Newquay we couldn't find anywhere to park at all. The odd occasion we managed to park at a supermarket the shelfs were empty, it was like the pre-lockdown panic buying all over again.

This year as people can go abroad again, they're apparently down to about 50% booked, but still with stupid prices so covering their costs.

I don't think it would be at all bad if there was a tax/fine, on the time a property sits empty if it's a holiday let. It would encourage them to price it more sensibly to get it filled and bring something into the local economy, than just sitting there empty.

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by MSS

Yeh - I love a good attack on the rich. You just wait until the revolution comes!

Ian - you should reread my post - I said 'as rental properties are', meaning as rental properties are already heavily taxed.

What I implied was that second and holiday homes should be heavily regulated and taxed as rental properties are already heavily regulated and taxed.

The reason so many second homes exist is that those with wealth are able to accumulate greater amounts of wealth through second homes etc. thus effectively pricing the local population out of the market.

I do hope you are paying due taxes on your rental income!

Sorry if I mis understood you. I hope you understand why I get a bit upset with your thoughts on the wealthy paying for the poor, I already have been.

We are not making enough money to pay tax, we are not taking any money.

macafee2

[MSS]

Originally Posted by macafee2

Sorry if I mis understood you. I hope you understand why I get a bit upset with your thoughts on the wealthy paying for the poor, I already have been.

We are not making enough money to pay tax, we are not taking any money.

macafee2

Ian - I think your case is an exceptional one. There will always be exceptional cases.

But surely, you cannot object to my thoughts on the increasing diparity between the earnings and wealth of the wealthy relative to the bottom 25% or even the average earner. The only way to address this is to heavily tax the wealthy and wealth. There is no justification for anyone earning more that £100k PA when a technician with a science degree working in a school or college earns about £15k PA.