Lloyds Bank has reportedly agreed to acquire a block of flats in Nene Wharf, Peterborough, and could start renting them out as soon as next month.
It is understood there are almost 50 flats in the block, with the bank expected to manage the residential units through a subsidiary called Citra Living, which was set up earlier this year, filings at Companies House show.
The plan, called “Project Generation”, is aimed at bringing in another source of income for Lloyds, given that interest rates at record lows.
Britain’s biggest retail bank wants to buy and rent out new and existing properties across the UK, as it looks to boost profits.
Lloyds Banking Group saw its profits tumble by 72% to £1.2bn last year as it battled with the economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic.
It has been reported that entering the private rental market could pave the way for Lloyds to sell other products to prospective tenants, such as insurance or loans for deposits.
Lloyds said: “As we stated in our full-year results in February, we are committed to broadening access to home ownership and exploring opportunities to increase our support to the UK rental sector.”
It added: “We are committed to broadening access to home ownership and exploring opportunities to increase our support to the UK rental sector.”
Nothing wrong with large corporates entering the PRS. But it is not a ‘level playing field’ Lloyds ISN’T subject to S24 taxes like the small mortgaged sole trader LL. Hardly fair. No LL has the right to the market. It is open to all players. But mortgaged sole trader LL are subject to the penal S24. All LL want is fair competition. S24 is hardly fair if large corporates aren’t subject to it. LL would do well to sell up flats and leave them for the corporates. These are the sorts of properties that the corporates want. Small LL should concentrate on houses. Corporates don’t want penny packet houses. Though where there are new-build housing developments I can see the likes of Lloyds buying up the whole development. This is happening in the USA. So new-build availability could be restricted to small LL as the buying power of large corporates blow them out of the water. I can see whole new developments being sold off-plan to these large corporates. Developers WON’T care who buys their properties. Selling to one buyer is very attractive from the developer perspective. Pre-owned houses is where LL should invest. The Corporates aren’t interested in them. Let the Corporates have the flats and new-build properties. Hopefully the Corporates will then become the new hate objects of the vile Shelter and GR.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Re your last sentence, unfortunately Shelter is in the pocket of the Corporates so I wouldn’t hold your breath on that one.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Yep it does seem quite bizarre that Shelter etc are all for large faceless Corporates compared to their absolute hate for the small LL.
Nothing wrong with a Corporate offer if a ‘level playing field’.
But of course S24 makes Corporate competition unfair.
This unfairness will remain as no way will Govt rescind S24 to make competition fair.
I always believed the Tories were for fair competition.
How naive I’ve been!!!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Very valid points here:
– Corporates not subject to section 24 so can offset costs against the profits
– Banks can void mortgages fees and therefore only pay cost price making huge savings on “loans”
– Corporates are Ltd’s so as there is limited liability, there is less protection for tenants
– Corporation tax at 19% is a lot less than income tax
– Encourages the Banks to repossess properties as they can be used as an asset
– So obviously open to abuse (pushing tenants to purchase their other products i.e. deposit replacement, insurances, mortgages etc…)
All in all, an absolutely awful idea to allow this to happen (especially without strict regulatory oversight by an independent body).
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
UK housing market over-inflated by both major political parties in the last two decades. Overseas and financial institutions shouldn’t be allowed to buy residential properties as an investment. Low interest rate, inflation under 2℅ and help to buy first-time buyers its all scam.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
So the first purchase is a block of flats on my patch. Interesting. But will Lloyds limit themselves to such properties? I can just see that if someone, perhaps a homeowner, gets into trouble with paying their mortgage to Lloyds then the bank may be keener than normal to repossess the property. The institution will now see the place as an asset rather than a liability.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Yep can see where you are coming from.
Bank forbearance will disappear.
They will use any mortgage defaulting as an excuse to nick a property for letting dirt cheap.
2 missed mortgage payments and that could be it for the OO.
The Norgen Principle will be the only defence tactic of OO.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
This is potentially the end of PRS and letting agents as we know it, Lloyds are looking at the residential letting market to replace the profits that are just no longer there in the commercial sector. They have to make money to keep shareholders happy, this will drive up rents even further, push out the small investor and over time we may see traditional letting agents disappear. Those renters on limited incomes will the worst affected.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Big companies do not have the agility of smaller companies and individual landlords and are not, in my view, too much of a threat. I would be more deeply concerned by the current politicans and even more so by the other political parties who use the public’s emotions, and that of renters, for their own gain in buying votes. Their constant and ongoing unwarranted interference is harming renters more than landlords but cleverly it is not seen by the public. Just look how bad it has got for tenants on benefits. Previously landlords took a more laid back view but you can no longer afford to do so and even less so in the future. Abolition of S21 is only going to make this worse as you will not easily and cheaply get rid of bad tenants. Cost of removing bad tenants will significantly increase whilst lawyers reap the rewards and landlords will use tougher and tougher screening before taking on a tenant.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Nobody really knows how effective a revised S8 process will be.
But I would conjecture it has to be less effective than S21 otherwise why bother abolishing the AST and S21!?
I know for S8 I’d be perfectly content to have longer notice periods for everything apart from rent defaulting.
That is hardly non-fault and should occasion quick removal with no court action required.
Will never happen of course.
So I dread what a revised S8 will bring.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register