x
By using this website, you agree to our
use of cookies
to enhance your experience.
SEARCH
Search
STAY
CONNECTED!
Sign in
Sign in
New here? Sign up
Feedback
My Account
Feedback
Sign out
×
Make Today's Website as home page
Menu
Estate agent today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Letting agent today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Landlord today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Property Investor today
News
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Introducer today
News
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Property Jobs Today
Home
Find a Job
Search Recruiters
Recruiters
New
m's
Personal Profile
View my company profile
m Goe
3609
Profile Views
About Me
Send message
View company profile
Follow all comments made
my expertise in the industry
m's wall
m's
Recent Activity
The German system is completely different. And not just in the interaction between LL and tenant. German pensions are much higher which means retirees continue to be able to afford market rents in their old age. This makes renting for life a viable option. Not so in Britain. If you do not own your house, have a council house or a large private pension when you retire, you probably won't be able to afford market rents. Until that changes, renting can only ever be a temporary housing solution. Unless this is addressed we are going to see big social problems when generation rent hits retirement. Luckily, I'll most likely be dead by then :-)
From:
m Goe
23 October 2019 10:03 AM
The whole idea is nonsense and reflects the current trend of making everyone responsible. Except for the person who is. LL's must ensure tenants are entitled to be in Britain, else they can be prosecuted. I would suggest that illegal immigration is the sole responsibility of the home office and the illegal immigrant. Yet, here we are. LL's must ensure that tenant's are aware of their rights. I would suggest that I am the only person who is responsible for knowing my rights and that the same goes for everyone else. Tenants included. Yet, here we are. LA's must ensure LL's are complying with all relevant legislation. I would suggest that, just like any other business person, LL's are responsible for the companies/properties they own and the manner in which they are run. Yet here we are. How about we all take responsibility for our own actions and leave it to the police and the courts to sort out those who fail to comply? Now wouldn't that be a shocker?
From:
m Goe
23 October 2019 09:41 AM
"Local authorities should be given the power to confiscate properties from landlords who break the law, according to a committee of MPs." Great idea! We can implement this right along with confiscating cars from drivers who don't obey the highway code, TV's from viewers who don't pay the license fee and leases from tenants who break the clauses in their rental contract. All of which break the law. Yep. Great idea.
From:
m Goe
24 April 2018 11:46 AM
Is he going to propose controlling interest rates as well? How about controlling refurbishment costs? Controlling house prices? Rent defaults? Councils advising defaulting tenants to wait for the bailiffs? No? Thought not.
From:
m Goe
13 March 2018 16:02 PM
I really wish people would stop flogging their services on comment streams. If you want to advertise yourself then pay for an actual ad. And stop annoying others with your inane posts.
From:
m Goe
06 December 2017 10:37 AM
This is exactly the sort of comment which demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt that you do not have a clue. Houses sold by PRS landlords do not tend to be magically swept up by needy first time buyers. That is because the average deposit (£90k in the SE) is now so high most FTB's cannot hope to afford it. Add to that stamp duty, mortgage arrangement fees, survey fees, legal fees etc and the fact that bank's are reluctant to lend and you've pretty much got a perfect storm for FTBs. PRS landlords are neither fools nor masochists and will not continue to invest in a sector that is no longer viable. Therefore they are not likely to buy up these now available properties. That will be done by big housing corps. And you just have to look at the utilities sector to know what will happen when that takes hold. As for those who simply do not wish to buy. Hhhmmmm. I guess they'll just have to sleep under a bridge. Yep. You really are the expert.
From:
m Goe
21 November 2017 11:36 AM
"He offered the following advice to landlords: “We look for you to consider tenants’ ." Perhaps he'd do better to look to the government to consider landlords instead.
From:
m Goe
21 November 2017 11:25 AM
Strange how we never see articles saying 'New Powers will make it quicker and easier to tackle rogue tenants.'
From:
m Goe
07 November 2017 09:31 AM
As a landlord I already pay letting fees. If my fees increase because of this then rents will rise to cover the increase. It's that simple. Maybe instead of legislating the sector to death while at the same time bemoaning the housing shortage, the government should stop fighting the symptoms and engage in some lateral thinking to eradicate the cause. I know it's a big ask - particularly from politicians - but a little vision would go a long way here.
From:
m Goe
02 November 2017 09:49 AM
In other words," if we can force a private landlord to house the person, then we don't have to". Your local council. Always.
From:
m Goe
25 October 2017 09:22 AM
"there is “no compelling evidence” for tenants to pay upfront letting agent fees or renewal costs to existing tenancies because “the large majority of the work undertaken by agents is work that the landlord would otherwise be doing themselves”. And the landlord's time is free, of course.
From:
m Goe
24 October 2017 09:42 AM
If this is meant to encourage people to let then I wouldn't hold my breath. More regulation, more admin and more political meddling is not what the sector needs. Let's see how many tenants vote for Sajid when they can't find a rental property for love nor money because PRS landlords are exiting the market in droves. If that's be best the government has to offer then God help them all.
From:
m Goe
04 October 2017 11:23 AM
I have been a landlord for 20 years and have had the odd tenant who is overly demanding. I have had demands to send someone round to change a light bulb, 7 o'clock wake up calls on Sunday mornings because the freezer compartment flap on a fridge doesn't close (not defrosting for a year will do that for you) and various unauthorised attempts at re-decorating because the tenant did not feel sufficiently stimulated by the neutral colour schemes. It happens. And there are remedies. Unauthorised decorating is reversed and ALWAYS deducted from deposit (tenants should note that most contracts state that changes to decor must be agree with the landlord) and, although I am very happy to carry out all standard repairs, unreasonable tenants will find that their contracts will not be renewed. The same goes for tenants who do not pay on time, cause a nuisance to the neighbours or turn the flat into a tip. Also, all items covered in a standard contract. This being the case, I see no reason to get annoyed or enter into personal disputes with tenants. I'm not their mother, I'm their landlord. Our arrangement is strictly business and as long as we all understand that, we will get along just fine.
From:
m Goe
06 July 2017 09:20 AM
Is that so? Because as a landlord in London, I can assure you that this has not been my experience. Thanks to S24 I have put rents up this year. There has not been so much as a murmur from any of my tenants. Why? Because most other landlords are doing the same and therefore there is nowhere for tenants to go. If S24 continues, I will put rents up again next year. And the next. And the next. This I will have to do simply to feed the taxman. In the meantime, I will cease any further investment i.e. no adding to the nation's rental stock by this landlord. Which, in turn, will only serve to drive rents up more.
From:
m Goe
05 July 2017 12:05 PM
He wants to replace the deposit with landlord's insurance. And who's going to pay for that, I wonder? Because as a landlord, I can assure Mr Jagota that it won't be me.
From:
m Goe
05 July 2017 11:56 AM
You have obviously never employed a managing agent. If you had you would know that landlords are already charged contract & contract renewal fees by their agents. The tenant's fee's cover references, viewings etc. Why should I, as a landlord get charged for those? If a tenant does not pass the reference check or decides to view several properties then he should pay for the time he/she has wasted. What part of that is unfair?
From:
m Goe
26 June 2017 14:40 PM
So discriminating against children and DHSS is okay. Just as long as we're not discriminating against gays? Blinkered. Much.
From:
m Goe
26 June 2017 14:34 PM
Note that the article states 'in peak season' i.e. for the rest of the year you are likely to struggle letting the place at all. Slightly misleading headline there.
From:
m Goe
20 June 2017 10:08 AM
Aren't you rather missing the point here? This 'crime' was committed by the tenant, not the landlord. Since when does this make the landlord culpable or even responsible for sorting out the mess? When was the last time a local council was fined for this kind of 'offence'? Judging by what goes on in most social housing projects, I'd say the answer is 'never'. Councils are unable/unwilling to sort these kind of issues on their own turf but want to fine the PRS for doing the same. Hypocrisy at it's best.
From:
m Goe
30 May 2017 10:12 AM
"Ward wants to see a system where a tenant’s Universal Credit and benefit payments can be made directly to their landlord" Uhm...wasn't that what we used to have before some clever politician started meddling with a sector he did not understand? You'd have to be crazy to rent to benefits tenants these days. Whatever your mortgage contract says. Luckily, thanks to Section 24, benefits will soon be nowhere near the level of rents so the problem will disappear from our table. And land squarely in the lap of the local authorities. Good Luck, chaps. You get what you deserve.
From:
m Goe
02 May 2017 09:10 AM
I believe there are already plenty of laws in place to curtail rogue landlords. They just need to be applied. Typical Labour nonsense. Go home, Jeremy.
From:
m Goe
02 May 2017 09:05 AM
I'm guessing you work for rent-hub then. On commission.
From:
m Goe
26 April 2017 10:30 AM
These schemes are nonsense and - as the article rightly claims - just another form of tax. The legal system is designed to deal with rogue landlords. It just needs to be applied more stringently. Experience tells us that councils cannot even deal adequately with their own housing stock and - that being the case - I fail to see why they feel qualified to police other people's. Just another non-job for yet more penpushers and paid for by hard working landlords.
From:
m Goe
30 March 2017 10:30 AM
Stupid idea. It starts with 'can I paint that room a different colour' and ends with 'can I add a few walls'. And when it all goes wrong who is going to pay to put it right again? The landlord.
From:
m Goe
23 March 2017 09:26 AM
Slightly misleading headline. What it actually says is 'Rents are growing in most of the country but falls in London and the South East are dragging down the national growth rate.' Rents in London are already about twice what they are in most other regions. Rents at the top end are starting to level off because people are moving to the commuter belts. They can no longer afford the rent in London itself. That's particularly true for families who require bigger properties. It won't last long because as demand rises all around the SE, the outlying areas will soon catch up. And then we're back to square one. Thanks to S24 I have raised rents on all my London properties this year and not a murmur from the tenants. If rents were indeed falling I would expect them to move out as they could get cheaper elsewhere. I therefore assume that I'm not the only landlord who is doing this. God knows where they get all these statistics from but I prefer to trust my own eyes. They are usually more reliable.
From:
m Goe
13 March 2017 15:50 PM
I suppose they have to do something to house social tenants. With government policy as it is, no PRS landlords are going to touch benefit tenants while they can still rent to professionals. Eventually, the only option for social tenants will be slum landlords. Simply because that is the only thing they will be able to afford.
From:
m Goe
06 March 2017 11:56 AM
Brit Sixteen Sixty Four living in an alternative reality where tenants can afford to save the money required to purchase a property these days. I don't know if you heard but according to the government property prices up to £400k are 'affordable' these days. By the time you add stamp duty to deposit, legal & survey fees etc, you would need to have at least £50k in cash before you can even think about buying. Sound like the average first time buyer to you? No, me neither. And forcing rents up through massive tax increases is going to be a massive help. Right? Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
From:
m Goe
24 February 2017 14:22 PM
Entirely unsurprising when the government is doing the best it can to drive small landlords out of the market. Holiday lets are not affected by S24. I, for one, am definitely going to move my studios to holiday lets if the current assault on landlords continues. Less regulation, less wear and tear, less taxes and so it goes on. As for the current tenants who will have to find a new place to live...I suggest to you tell it to the government. Maybe they'll listen to you. Because they certainly don't listen to me.
From:
m Goe
22 February 2017 09:51 AM
Agreed. I certainly do. Why should I, as a landlord, have to extend time and resource on a training course to learn how to do the job of the border force? Particularly when - through my taxes - I am already paying said border force do to that job. You don't get a dog and bark yourself, do you? No thank you. I think I'll save myself the time and money and simply go for tenants with UK passports only. Quick, simple, save....and absolutely no training required.
From:
m Goe
14 February 2017 09:52 AM
Deluded. I own 3 rentals in London. When the tax changes start to bite I will introduce periods of vacancy to avoid the higher rate tax bracket while preserving my capital appreciation. No point renting them out just to feed the tax man, right? That means less availability for renters and more pressure on the rental market. Which can only help to increase prices. If this proves too expensive, I will consider renting them out as holiday lets (thereby completely removing them from the local rental market) or selling them to a foreign investor. Either way, there will be no additional homes on the domestic market either for sale or for rent. I appreciate that this is not feasible/affordable for the wider UK landlord community but business will find a way. I for one, am not going to be deprived of the proceeds of 20 years worth of investment and hard work because the current government has decided that my business should now be a charity.
From:
m Goe
30 January 2017 09:11 AM
You are not paranoid. This is most definitely what is going on. Corporate landlords are big Tory donors. The rental market used to be lucrative. I guess the recent changes to pension regulations and the subsequent increase in private investors have spelled increased competition for Osborne's buddies. Hence......Section 24.
From:
m Goe
13 January 2017 12:17 PM
This is hardly surprising particularly when the government with their recent changes to pensions has positively encouraged people to invest in a sector they know nothing about. Watching "Location,Location,Location" on TV does not a landlord make. And, with the advent of ever more ridiculous legislation (residency checks anyone?) and a punishing tax regime (section 24) a lot of investors will soon discover to their cost that a rental property is no longer a secure investment.
From:
m Goe
13 January 2017 12:13 PM
Funnily enough, I have been a landlord for over 20 years. And I'm the sort of landlord who actually speaks to prospective tenants as well as their previous landlords. You'd be surprised what people will tell you if you ask nicely. A bit of common sense also comes in handy. You may want to try it.
From:
m Goe
11 January 2017 11:12 AM
Having lived next to a battered woman, I can assure you that you will know by the constant rows, the shouting, the yelling, the disturbance, the police turning up on your doorstep, the dragging of the perpetrator down the communal stairwell while he is shouting and she is begging the police officers not to take him (????) etc etc. And as a landlord you are now virtually responsible for problem tenants. Thanks to the government I believe we have enough problems already, thanks very much. Like I said. I don't blame the man.
From:
m Goe
10 January 2017 12:02 PM
So he's trying to minimise business risk. Can't say I blame him.
From:
m Goe
09 January 2017 14:19 PM
As a landlord, I really resent the language used by politicians and the press when referring to private landlords. 'Private landlords POCKETED 2bn in rent.' Like there is something unsavoury about charging for what is essentially a service. 'Money should be spent on people in need rather than ending up in the pockets of private landlords.' In other words, private landlords are robbing the public purse rather than fulfilling the need which presumably is housing for social tenants. Something which in reality is the council's responsibility and which they clearly fail to fulfill. So let me just say that, as a landlord, I run a business. I provide a service. That service comes at a price. We call this price 'rent'. Unlike a lot of public services (NHS, Police, Rubbish collection) I am not forcing anyone to use or indeed pay for this service. If you don't like it, don't use it. Everybody has a choice. This being the case, I am heartily sick of the constant finger pointing and name-calling currently being flung out by politicians, the leftie liberal press (I'm looking at you, BBC) and pointless pressure groups like Shelter. When I see any of the above actually housing a single person, they can venture an opinion. Until then, I suggest they get back in their box. Rant over.
From:
m Goe
05 January 2017 09:38 AM
If the government actually took measures to enforce the existing laws we wouldn't need licensing schemes. "Newham has and enforcement team". Don't make me laugh. The council knows perfectly well that every time they force a slum landlord to evict, the tenants end up on its housing list. Not exactly an incentive to work harder, is it?
From:
m Goe
01 December 2016 13:05 PM
I'm in the same position as you, Paul, and I will do exactly the same. I have been a landlord since the early 90's. In the past I shouldered the cost of astronomical interest rates which meant I sometimes had to subsidise rental properties from my personal income, been through 2 major recessions, taken on the substantial risk posed by every additional mortgage and have always provided value for money because what is a business to me is, after all, a home to someone else. All the way through, the government has done absolutely nothing to assist and - in recent years - has piled on legislation and most recently taxation, all of which increases my costs. Well....I'm done with being bled by the authorities. So from now on, all increases in cost will be passed on to tenants, full stop. No more squeezing my profit margin. Those who can't afford it can go to the local authority. See how Mr Hammond likes being a landlord, eh?
From:
m Goe
24 November 2016 12:04 PM
Just another cost to pass on to the tenants in the form of higher rents and additional charges. Those who don't like it, can rent somewhere else. Good luck with that. The lunatics are running the asylum. Sigh.
From:
m Goe
23 November 2016 09:22 AM
Thank you, Mark. But I think I'll save myself the time and effort of reading all about it and stick to renting to UK and EU passport holders only from now on. As, I am sure, will many of my fellow landlords. I am not the border force's gatekeeper nor am I interested in becoming one. If that means prospective tenants without the above passports or indeed any passport are missing out then so be it. I suggest the address their complaints to the government.
From:
m Goe
16 November 2016 14:41 PM
Barry F, you are clearly not a landlord. Otherwise you would be aware that the cost of pursuing tenants through the courts is virtually always more costly than simply replacing the lost/damaged items. And that is providing you can find the tenants in the first place. They don't usually leave a forwarding address. Shocker. I know.
From:
m Goe
14 November 2016 16:52 PM
I have the same policy as Steve Willett. Quite happy to let the council get on with housing HB tenants. The people who live in cardboard boxes under Waterloo Bridge are living testament to how effective councils are at assisting the disadvantaged tiers of society. Maybe Jeremy should peddle down there and take a look. Always good to see how the real world works.
From:
m Goe
29 September 2016 12:44 PM
Who cares what Jeremy Corbyn says? He's never going to be PM.
From:
m Goe
05 September 2016 10:06 AM
Oh go away Labour. None of you has the sense they were born with. "too many people in Greater Manchester are .... paying rent above what they can afford." Now here's are a few shocking thoughts. Tenants could downsize. After all, I will be required to do the same if I can no longer afford the mortgage on my house. Councils could stop selling off what little housing stock they've got. Might even build some more. But why increase local authority funding when you can increase MP's salaries instead? You could force developers to build more affordable housing. Just to be clear, affordable housing is NOT up to £400k. But all that may be a tad difficult to implement. So let's just keep bashing the PRS. By the time the effects of that policy become visible, some other fool will be mayor and he can take the blame.
From:
m Goe
19 August 2016 10:00 AM
Sounds like landlords in Peterborough are now being charged for the pleasure of doing the council's work (dealing with anti-social behaviour, making sure the tenants don't litter etc) for them. You couldn't make it up.
From:
m Goe
05 August 2016 12:38 PM
How exactly is bleeding landlords dry going to benefit tenants? All this will do is drive previously legitimate landlords underground, raise rents as landlords attempt to pass on yet another stealth tax and allow rental stock quality to decline as only absolutely necessary repairs and renewals can be made. Yet another council cash cow. And let's face it. They will need all they can get. To house the tenants who will soon be homeless because their landlord is selling up.
From:
m Goe
07 July 2016 09:55 AM
This is an ad disguised as an article. Landlord Today? Really?
From:
m Goe
15 June 2016 09:49 AM
I'm not sure why this person would be referred to as a landlord. Scam artist, more like.
From:
m Goe
27 May 2016 10:42 AM
Landlords are increasingly buying cheaper homes. And this leads to more available for first time buyers. ???
From:
m Goe
20 May 2016 09:51 AM
He'd do better to compile a bad tenants list. That might encourage more people into letting property. Which may do more for the housing shortage then this old chestnut.
From:
m Goe
11 May 2016 09:14 AM
What they meant to say was 'If we help you identify the bad tenants you will refuse to house them. And we will be stuck with them instead.' You can always count on the council to pass the buck. Much easier than trying tor resolve the problem.
From:
m Goe
06 May 2016 11:20 AM
Big Surprise!
From:
m Goe
04 May 2016 10:17 AM
Brit Sixteen Sixty Four is typical of the naive and uninformed comments we have come to expect from the average member of the public. I rent property in London. The average 2-bed-flat here is now going for around £400k (and I'm not talking central London either). If I were to sell my rental properties, they would not go to first time buyers. Because the average first time buyer will never be able to afford them. Instead they will go to foreign investors with corporate lets and non-resident tax status. First time buyers, my backside.
From:
m Goe
03 May 2016 10:44 AM
If there was a proper registration/de-registration system in place which forced people to notify the council each time they move, tracking problem tenants (not to mention council tax evaders, illegal immigrants etc :-)) would not be a problem. And before you shout 'infringement of personal freedom' let me say that his is up and running in several European countries and seems to be working fine.
From:
m Goe
28 April 2016 10:08 AM
As a landlord, if a tenant trashes your property you are just supposed to suck it up. It's 'the cost of doing business', apparently. As a tenant, if your landlord treats you unfairly you are classed as the poor helpless victim of the greedy, heartless elite. Really? My heart bleeds. Renting a property is a contractual agreement between two parties. Nobody is forcing anybody to sign on the dotted line. Both parties have the same rights in the event of breach. There are clear remedies in law. Maybe Generation Rent should give tenants a slice of the same advice they are always dishing out to landlords. 'Stop winging and get on with it.'
From:
m Goe
28 April 2016 10:01 AM
“However, despite these factors, we expect the private rental sector to continue to play a crucial role in a housing market where population growth will continue for the foreseeable future according to official projections.” Tell that to the government who are busy trying to tax us out of existence.
From:
m Goe
13 April 2016 17:02 PM
Run over a small child on a zebra crossing and drive off without license and insurance and you get a year's probation. Fail to comply with regulation and you get 19 months in prison. What's wrong with this picture?
From:
m Goe
07 April 2016 09:18 AM
As far as I can see, the only purpose of landlord licencing schemes is, has been and always will be revenue raising for local councils. Having read the article above, 'I rest my case'.
From:
m Goe
29 March 2016 10:01 AM
I take it the property was in an acceptable state as, otherwise, this article would surely mention it. Which means that here we have a lady, fined almost £1.5k for......what? Not satisfying a council pen pusher and handing over some of her hard earned cash in the form of registration fees? The victim surcharge is the biggest irony of all. As far as I can see, the only victim here is the landlady.
From:
m Goe
22 March 2016 15:45 PM
Agree with Peter Lassman. Thanks to the ridiculous policies implemented by government over the last decade the risks of renting to housing benefit tenants have increased considerably. Increased risk should mean increased return. Sounds like that is what is going on here.
From:
m Goe
16 March 2016 09:46 AM
Trying to kill off the PRS then. With policies like that it's no wonder the LibDem's have become a non-party.
From:
m Goe
10 March 2016 09:55 AM
Nothing like targeting the wrong people 'Yes DSS'. Try the local councils who actively encourage defaulting tenants or the government which refuses to build social housing. Or - shock horror - those benefit tenants who default on their rents and give everybody else a bad name. Or does that not give you enough media coverage?
From:
m Goe
25 February 2016 11:00 AM
Wow, Fake Agent! Could you be any more naive? The reason housing benefit should be paid directly to the landlord is to ensure that the rent is covered. That is what housing benefit is there for, remember? Unfortunately, a lot of social tenants see it as free spending money and use it on anything but their rents. The result of this being that a lot of PRS landlords no longer accept housing benefit tenants. And no doubt, the reason why housing benefit is still paid directly to housing associations. As for landlords wanting to make a profit, of course they do. The incovenient truth people like yourself just love to ignore is that rental property is an investment. Which means that, as landlords, we have to put up tens of thousands of our own money in deposits and incur hundreds of thousands in debt to purchase a property we will eventually rent out. That is not money we've inherited from daddy, nor money we've claimed off the government but money we've worked hard to earn the old-fashioned way. You know? By getting a job and going to work? We have chosen to invest our money in property. Maybe you have invested yours in pensions. How would you like it if I said that you don't deserve to receive interest on your pension? In face, how would you like it if I said that interest should be curtailed and/or given to someone else? Not looking so attractive now, is it? Thinking about drawing your money out and investing it in something else? Well, that's exactly how most landlords feel. Which leaves me with only one question. Where are you going to live?
From:
m Goe
17 February 2016 10:45 AM
The whole landlord licensing scheme idea is a complete farce. Most council properties are in by far a worse state than most private accomodation. So here we have a bunch of pen pushers policing a sector in which they often don't come up to spec themselves. Could it get any more ridiculous?
From:
m Goe
09 February 2016 12:21 PM
"This presents a major opportunity for large scale institutional investors to step into the gap through Build To Rent" Pretty much sums up GO's policy. PRS had been making a reasonable profit in recent years. So he's driving out the private investor and handing it to his corporates mates. Thanks, George. We'll remember that when it comes to choosing the next leader of the Conservative party.
From:
m Goe
04 February 2016 11:16 AM
I agree with John. This entire initiative is clearly designed to benefit the chancellor's corporate pals by driving small investors out of the market. It has nothing whatever to do with increasing affordable housing and everything to do with providing big business with opportunities to corner one of the few remaining diverse markets.
From:
m Goe
03 February 2016 12:20 PM
The population of London has grown by over a million in the last 15 years. In the meantime, council housing has been sold off, housing benefit has been cut, banks don't like to lend and apparently David Cameron believes that £400k for a property is now 'affordable'. With all but top earners and foreign investors priced out of buying, is it any wonder rents are rising? It is the abject failure of successive governments which has gotten us into this mess. I see no reason why it should be up to the PRS to get us out.
From:
m Goe
27 January 2016 09:50 AM
Will they? I for one will be shifting to investing in property abroad. They UK is not he only country where people rent.
From:
m Goe
25 January 2016 16:33 PM
I will be doing the same. Luckily, as a London landlord, I am in a position to do so. Those who are not will simply start saving on maintenance which will ultimately lead to a deterioration of the remaining rental stock. Osborne would be wise to stay out of things he clearly knows nothing about. He's not helping here.
From:
m Goe
20 January 2016 12:43 PM
Haven't accepted council tenants for years. Wonder why.
From:
m Goe
12 January 2016 15:19 PM
Quite right. Irresponsibility should have consequences irrespective of whether you are a landlord or a tenant.
From:
m Goe
06 January 2016 10:41 AM
Hear! Hear!
From:
m Goe
06 January 2016 10:37 AM
On the face of it not a bad idea. However, when taking into account that most councils need instruction booklets to tie their own shoe laces, never mind administer, secure and monitor anyone's personal data, it's starting to look more like a disaster waiting to happen.
From:
m Goe
15 December 2015 10:39 AM
Paul Golofino, I have been a landlandy for 25 years and made it through 2 major market crashes and the deepest depression since the last war. You can pipe up when you can say the same. Until then, I suggest you keep it shut.
From:
m Goe
07 December 2015 10:01 AM
Landlords are already expected to police immigration. Now we are also in charge of detecting criminality. Would somebody please tell me what we have a government for?
From:
m Goe
07 December 2015 09:55 AM
David Wirth, I don't know if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth or if you work for Shelter. In any case, you are talking complete twaddle. This single-parent, sole earner landlady with a full-time job and mortgage of her own is certainly not a member of the 'richest & most privileged' club. Like most of my fellow landlords, I have invested my hard-earned money not in pension policies but in property. Like most of my fellow landlords, my profit margins are small and -thanks to the government's ever increasing legal/admin requirements and tenant's increasing presumption that they somehow have a right to a property they haven't paid for - are getting ever smaller. I, for one, will no longer be investing in British property or indeed British industry but will be taking my investment abroad. Which means the treasury will receive no more tax from me, another tenant will be turfed out of his home and - with the price of property today - the buyer will most likely be an overseas investor. So well done to George O and people like yourself. Give yourself a collective clap on the back. You've done this country proud.
From:
m Goe
01 December 2015 10:10 AM
As it is, investing in BTL is not really worth the effort any more unless one has a few hundred thousand in cash lying about. Add to that the every increasing % deposit, banks reluctant to lend, added admin costs due to extra legislation, ever mounting bias towards tenant's rights and now this little initiave and one could quite reasonably argue that funds would be more effectively invested somewhere else. Go on Osborne. Kill the PRS. Let's see where all those poor put upon tenants are going to live then. Because one thing is for sure. You have no social housing to accommodate them. Do you?
From:
m Goe
25 November 2015 16:03 PM
Tenants would be happy to pay an extra £142 a year for permission to re-decorate their property. Professionally re-painting an average room at the end of a tenancy costs around £200. If it wasn't so ridiculous, it would be funny.
From:
m Goe
19 November 2015 09:39 AM
£5m. Am I the only one to wonder how many council houses that would have built?
From:
m Goe
13 November 2015 10:26 AM
"“The actions of these rogue landlords are helping fuel illegal working, benefit fraud, and illegal immigration ". Nothing to do with the government letting every Tom, Dick & Abdul into the country then.
From:
m Goe
10 November 2015 09:54 AM
A tenancy is a contract and will only work if both parties agree. Not if one party's wishes are forced upon the other. Shelter need to stop the political campaigns and stick to the day job. Supporting the homeless, isn't it? Not sure they even remember.
From:
m Goe
10 November 2015 09:52 AM
John Dorman - The UK is currently experiencing a serious housing crisis. This is - in large parts due to reduction/cessation in building of social housing coupled with pronounced population growth. In other words, if the government built social housing stock instead of selling it off cheaply and got control of the borders, there would be a bigger supply in available houses. And THAT would drive the price down without any need to regulate the market. But hey! Much easier to come down on the PRS than to ask the government to do its job. And to expect people to apply a bit of common sense instead of regurgitating the clap trap our friends at the BBC trod out? That's just way too much to hope for.
From:
m Goe
06 November 2015 15:43 PM
Better late than never.
From:
m Goe
03 November 2015 09:33 AM
I guess I'll only be renting to tenants with a British/EU passport then. Simples.
From:
m Goe
02 November 2015 11:57 AM
People like Brit Sixteen Sixty Four never cease to amaze me. So a reduction in BTL will aide first time buyers? How exactly? A reduction in BTL will lead to a reduction in available rental property. This in turn will lead to an increase in rents due to further contraction of supply. Which will lead to a reduction of disposable income for prospective first time buyers. Which will in turn mean that they will be pensioners by the time they have managed to save up for a deposit. Yep. That little policy will help first time buyers no end. Don't give up the day job, will you.
From:
m Goe
02 November 2015 11:53 AM
To pursue the parents of the deceased student for the rent is a bit much and I am glad the landlord has seen sense and given up on this point. For the remaining students it's a different story I'm afraid. Yes, what happened is traumatic and yes, it is not their fault. But it is not the landlord's fault either. Yet for some reason, he's the one who should be expected to take it on the chin. He offered to allow the students permission sublet if they did not want to return to the property so he's going some way to finding a compromise. What more do they want?
From:
m Goe
02 November 2015 11:04 AM
Most councils couldn't locate their own backsides. Would I trust them to rent my property? As if.
From:
m Goe
02 November 2015 10:58 AM
@Algarve Investor - the increase in rents particularly in London is due to increased demand and decreased supply. Those - in turn - are due to the government's failure to build adequate levels of social housing while selling off existing housing stock and letting in hundred's of thousands of immigrants. But, of course, it's much easier to blame the landlords. I didn't hear anyone campaign to help landlords when the housing market crashed. Nor when interest rates sky-rocketed and hundreds of landlords went bankrupt due to the increased repayment costs. If I remember correctly, it was just the risk of doing business then. After all, everybody knows that your investment can cause loss as well as gain. Fair enough. Right now, our investment is gaining. So those who didn't raise a finger to assist when things were tough, can jolly well keep their views to themselves now.
From:
m Goe
22 May 2015 16:57 PM
Shame we never see any reports in the media about tenants who trash their accommodation and cost landlords thousands in refurbs. Or tenants who would rather use their housing benefit to pay for Sky TV than for the rent. Or those who think the furniture is included in the rent and therefore they can take it with them at the end of the tenancy. And, of course there is the little-known fact that - contrary to popular believe - the majority of landlords are not millionaires but ordinary working people with mortgages. And that most of those £5.6bn does not go towards a yacht in Cannes but towards paying those mortgages. But why bother with the inconvenient truth? Greedy, evil landlords sounds so much better, doesn't it?
From:
m Goe
22 May 2015 16:43 PM
"the majority of renters facing eviction are reported by the Ministry of Justice to be social rather than private renters." Wow! Didn't see that coming. Would that have something to do with the brilliant initiative to "teach" tenants to "budget" by paying the rent directly into their accounts instead of directly to the landlord then? Of course not. What am I thinking? It's those horrible, greedy landlords again. Silly me.
From:
m Goe
18 May 2015 17:30 PM
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Breaking News
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Video Archieve
Today 14:58
Portal Discussions
Joined Group From: Your Community
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Industry View
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Industry View
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Conversation Comment in: Interior Design
Today 14:58
×
Send a message
Message
×
Write on Wall
Message
×
Send a message
Reply to:
Message
Breaking News
Shelter offers high salary to fill ‘Activism and Advocacy’ post
Energy Efficiency - should rents be lower in poor EPC homes?
Lloyds Banking Group expands private rental portfolio again
House prices dip as interest rates force buyers to delay plans
Private Members Bill aims to prevent unfair treatment of tenants
Generation Rent wants landlords to pay if a tenant moves
Council wants landlords to back controversial leasing scheme
Mayor election hopefuls told to clampdown on Airbnbs
Rental market snapshot - that latest from Goodlord
Landlord Regulator advertises for Welsh-speaking staff
m's Recent Activity
From: m Goe
23 October 2019 10:03 AM
From: m Goe
23 October 2019 09:41 AM
From: m Goe
24 April 2018 11:46 AM
From: m Goe
13 March 2018 16:02 PM
From: m Goe
06 December 2017 10:37 AM
From: m Goe
21 November 2017 11:36 AM
From: m Goe
21 November 2017 11:25 AM
From: m Goe
07 November 2017 09:31 AM
From: m Goe
02 November 2017 09:49 AM
From: m Goe
25 October 2017 09:22 AM
From: m Goe
24 October 2017 09:42 AM
From: m Goe
04 October 2017 11:23 AM
From: m Goe
06 July 2017 09:20 AM
From: m Goe
05 July 2017 12:05 PM
From: m Goe
05 July 2017 11:56 AM
From: m Goe
26 June 2017 14:40 PM
From: m Goe
26 June 2017 14:34 PM
From: m Goe
20 June 2017 10:08 AM
From: m Goe
30 May 2017 10:12 AM
From: m Goe
02 May 2017 09:10 AM
From: m Goe
02 May 2017 09:05 AM
From: m Goe
26 April 2017 10:30 AM
From: m Goe
30 March 2017 10:30 AM
From: m Goe
23 March 2017 09:26 AM
From: m Goe
13 March 2017 15:50 PM
From: m Goe
06 March 2017 11:56 AM
From: m Goe
24 February 2017 14:22 PM
From: m Goe
22 February 2017 09:51 AM
From: m Goe
14 February 2017 09:52 AM
From: m Goe
30 January 2017 09:11 AM
From: m Goe
13 January 2017 12:17 PM
From: m Goe
13 January 2017 12:13 PM
From: m Goe
11 January 2017 11:12 AM
From: m Goe
10 January 2017 12:02 PM
From: m Goe
09 January 2017 14:19 PM
From: m Goe
05 January 2017 09:38 AM
From: m Goe
01 December 2016 13:05 PM
From: m Goe
24 November 2016 12:04 PM
From: m Goe
23 November 2016 09:22 AM
From: m Goe
16 November 2016 14:41 PM
From: m Goe
14 November 2016 16:52 PM
From: m Goe
29 September 2016 12:44 PM
From: m Goe
05 September 2016 10:06 AM
From: m Goe
19 August 2016 10:00 AM
From: m Goe
05 August 2016 12:38 PM
From: m Goe
07 July 2016 09:55 AM
From: m Goe
15 June 2016 09:49 AM
From: m Goe
27 May 2016 10:42 AM
From: m Goe
20 May 2016 09:51 AM
From: m Goe
11 May 2016 09:14 AM
From: m Goe
06 May 2016 11:20 AM
From: m Goe
04 May 2016 10:17 AM
From: m Goe
03 May 2016 10:44 AM
From: m Goe
28 April 2016 10:08 AM
From: m Goe
28 April 2016 10:01 AM
From: m Goe
13 April 2016 17:02 PM
From: m Goe
07 April 2016 09:18 AM
From: m Goe
29 March 2016 10:01 AM
From: m Goe
22 March 2016 15:45 PM
From: m Goe
16 March 2016 09:46 AM
From: m Goe
10 March 2016 09:55 AM
From: m Goe
25 February 2016 11:00 AM
From: m Goe
17 February 2016 10:45 AM
From: m Goe
09 February 2016 12:21 PM
From: m Goe
04 February 2016 11:16 AM
From: m Goe
03 February 2016 12:20 PM
From: m Goe
27 January 2016 09:50 AM
From: m Goe
25 January 2016 16:33 PM
From: m Goe
20 January 2016 12:43 PM
From: m Goe
12 January 2016 15:19 PM
From: m Goe
06 January 2016 10:41 AM
From: m Goe
06 January 2016 10:37 AM
From: m Goe
15 December 2015 10:39 AM
From: m Goe
07 December 2015 10:01 AM
From: m Goe
07 December 2015 09:55 AM
From: m Goe
01 December 2015 10:10 AM
From: m Goe
25 November 2015 16:03 PM
From: m Goe
19 November 2015 09:39 AM
From: m Goe
13 November 2015 10:26 AM
From: m Goe
10 November 2015 09:54 AM
From: m Goe
10 November 2015 09:52 AM
From: m Goe
06 November 2015 15:43 PM
From: m Goe
03 November 2015 09:33 AM
From: m Goe
02 November 2015 11:57 AM
From: m Goe
02 November 2015 11:53 AM
From: m Goe
02 November 2015 11:04 AM
From: m Goe
02 November 2015 10:58 AM
From: m Goe
22 May 2015 16:57 PM
From: m Goe
22 May 2015 16:43 PM
From: m Goe
18 May 2015 17:30 PM