Big private landlord backs abolishing the private rented sector
Midlands BTL investor says Green Party's contentious plan to end private letting ‘has merits’ but would take many parliaments.
The Green Party’s controversial policy to abolish private landlords has “a lot of merits” despite only being unachievable over “a very long time,” a big private landlord has surprisingly revealed.
John Kane, who has a portfolio of properties across the Midlands, made the eye-raising comment during a discussion on BBC Politics Midlands with the motion’s co-sponsor, Worcester City Councillor Alex Mace (main image).
The Green Party voted at its October conference to maek the effective abolition of private landlordism official policy alongside a commitment to build more council houses.
I think the policy has a lot of merits and I think it would be an ideal world for people to have their accommodation provided through the state rather than private enterprise.”
Kane says: “I think the policy has a lot of merits and I think it would be an ideal world for people to have their accommodation provided through the state rather than private enterprise.”
The landlord, though, questioned the practicality of implementing such sweeping changes and what it would mean for both landlords and tenants.
He adds: “Private landlords are not all Rachman-type companies. A typical landlord runs three or four properties – it’s their pension.”
Parliaments
During the discussion, Mace told Kane that, if the Greens win the general election in 2029, it would “take a number of parliaments” before the party reduced the number of private landlords to the level it wants.
Asked where councils would get the money to purchase properties, Mace claimed it would be via the “same places landlords have been getting it”, including borrowing and rental income.
“Rather than going to landlords and being paid back in tax, the entire rent goes back to the council,” he added.
Mace also explained that the aim was not to abolish all landlords altogether, but that it would drastically reduce the proportion of privately rented homes.
Why stop at accommodation? It’s surely deeply unfair to pick solely on private landlords, who achieve barely 6% annualised net returns after deduction of operational and maintenance costs, mortgage interest, and income and capital gains taxes. If the Greens really followed through with their beliefs, then surely food, energy, jobs, childcare, healthcare, pensions, holidays and pretty well everything should all be provided for free by the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-wise-and-kind Government. After all, how can it right that capitalists are allowed to make a disgusting thing like profits? They only exist through exploitation of working people and Mother Nature.
“We are the Greens and we know what’s good for you.”
“Eat your greens” comes to mind …
Actually, the current level of private landlords is purely a reflection of government policy, or policy failure, depending on how you see it. Back in the day, social housing was seen to have serious failings, including poor quality accommodation that was often deemed to be worth less than the repairs required to make it decent. Add to that widespread anti-social behaviour from tenants that knew they could stay no matter what. Back in the 80s and 90s you could always tell the council estates by the state of them and the huge piles of rubbish at the end of many of the gardens. I know, because I rented a house privately in a new-build road surrounded by a rough council estate in the east Midlands.
Thatcher thought that all property should ultimately be privately owned as people tend to take more care of what belongs to them, so enacted legislation to move things in that direction with Right to Buy and opening the rental market back up to private landlords.
If the Greens want to move the needle in the other direction, they should do it fairly and without punishing those who have put up their own money and taken the risk of starting a business accommodating people. We should not be effectively criminalised for providing a social need.
The simplest way of doing this would be to buy PRS properties off of landlords, hassle-free, for a fair market value as and when they decided to sell up, with a modest discount, say 10%, for a quick and easy sale. As Mr Kane says, one way for councils to do that without ruining their finances would be to take out finance against the value of the property. Also, drastically reduce RTB and make social rents means-tested so that people with high-paying jobs don’t get subsidised rents.
Of course, the level of rent would need to cover this and the maintenance and any rent arrears, so it’s a case of “careful what you wish for”!
House-owners will always need the ability to rent out their original private residences with moves for work or relationship purposes.
In any event, aside from the basic Human Rights aspect, the Council and even Social Housing are ‘ NEVER ‘ going to reach anywhere near a point where sufficient homes are available for those who need / want to rent.
Another ‘pie-in-the-sky looney Green policy.
Is it right Greta is going to be one of their M.P’s 😉