x

Neil Moores

Property Manager

2591 Profile Views

About Me

Involved in property management for 25 years

my expertise in the industry

brief spell as an estate agent and then a letting agent and then 20 years of hands on property management work

Neil's Recent Activity

To be fair, Generation Rent seem to be sending a positive message to their tenants and how they should approach their landlord about having a pet. They mention that the deposit cant be used for fair wear and tear if is NOT related to the pet damage and that is correct. I didn't see anything in their advice that suggested that they should be able to house a dog in a 1 bedroomed flat. I accept pets if the conditions suit and, unfortunately for tenants, I now charge a slightly higher rent as I am unable to take extra deposit for potential pet damage and to allow for future issues created by dormant flea eggs and the like. if the government is so confident that allowing pets as a default should become the law then I presume that they would feel comfortable underwriting losses from pet damage that exceeds the deposit held. It would be a simple process of the TDS (other agencies are available) making a decision that defines the amount any of the damages that are deemed to be pet related so that their decision can be used in order to claim this money back from the government.

From: Neil Moores 04 May 2021 09:04 AM

Thames Valley Police will, very shortly, determine that this is a civil matter.

From: Neil Moores 30 April 2021 10:00 AM

Has anyone in government considered the fact that the majority of flat leases usually state that pets are not allowed or can only be allowed with the Freeholder's consent? I very much doubt it.

From: Neil Moores 15 April 2021 09:15 AM

Whilst I appreciate the open letter being sent on our behalves I really wish that they would stop referring to "tax breaks being lost due to section 24 of the finance act" and call it what it is..."legitimate taxable interest expenses being disallowed....." An expense is not a tax break. Tax breaks are reductions in tax payable on profits, usually when a government is trying to encourage people to do something in particular....such as ISAs for example. Deduction of necessary expenses incurred to provide a property for rental is NOT a tax break.

From: Neil Moores 08 April 2021 10:00 AM

We used to have an F on a property which we were going to (and subsequently have, 3 years later) demolish once we gained the required planning permission. It had no wet heating system and single glazing so we had been renting it out to a young couple for 50% of the usual rent, because of that. In the last 2 years before we achieved the planning permission and demolished it the flat was empty because we had to serve notice on the couple or spent a huge amount of money getting it up to the right level, prior to demolishing it. The couple were not happy and neither was I. The irony was that it would have been perfectly acceptable for me to live in it.

From: Neil Moores 25 March 2021 08:50 AM

Everyone is ignoring the Elephant in the room....that being that Banks and other lenders who will NOT want to lend on properties where there is no right of possession. They certainly didn't want to prior to the introduction of Assured Shorthold Tenancies, which were brought in in order to encourage investment in the domestic rental market because of a shortage of properties available to rent. Indeed, when I considered the option of offering 5 year tenancies myself, my Bank advised that it would be in breach of their covenants and that they would not alter them to accommodate such a change. As I understand things it would appear that my Bank is not unique in this regard.

From: Neil Moores 20 October 2020 09:29 AM

I agree with George Dawes. Tenants not paying rent but not being evicted saves the government loads of money.. If the tenants were evicted that would be a different kettle of fish as the local authorities would have to scramble around for emergency housing and the costs that go with that. In the medium term the super wealthy and big business can pick up the scraps, ready for the future. Not all the scraps though, so there will definitely, in the long term, be a much reduced supply of rental property.

From: Neil Moores 28 September 2020 08:50 AM

In answer to Jill's question. You ask the tenant to leave and hope that he/she does. If you have not given the tenant formal notice already then you will have to give 6 months' notice or hope that your tenant plays ball. I would not start a tenancy with anyone at present where there is a deadline that is important to me, for vacant possession.

From: Neil Moores 10 September 2020 08:48 AM

"A landlord in England can now only ask a tenant to leave during the fixed term if they have certain reasons (‘grounds’) to do so, including if tenants are behind with their rent payments (‘in arrears’), renters have used the property for illegal purposes, such as selling drugs, or if they have seriously damaged the property." When was this ever different? It has always been the case that a property owner cannot ask their tenant to leave during the fixed term.

From: Neil Moores 25 August 2020 09:33 AM

We have stopped taking on many tenants who we would previously have taken a chance on. Those with zero hour contracts or less permanent income for example and definitely anyone relying on housing benefit to help with the rent. We would previously have decided each case on its own merits but we now have no idea whether or not we could be stuck with the wrong decision for years, not knowing how long we will be kept from evicting non payers. I can certainly see the scenario where a tenant in receipt of housing benefit decides to keep that benefit to spend on food (which is NOT being given out for free by the Supermarkets) , rather than give it to the owner of the house that they live in, knowing that there is nothing the owner can do about it. Therefore we won't take the risk.

From: Neil Moores 24 August 2020 09:09 AM

There is only one way to regulate rents and that is for there to be enough housing to go round. If the taxpayer had to pay more money, allowing the government to provide more quality housing at lower rents and to the extent that more people could qualify to rent them then private properties would then also require lower rents in order to keep the demand from tenants.

From: Neil Moores 13 August 2020 08:56 AM

We only have a a few evictions to deal with as most of our tenants have been very co-operative. Some are in difficulty and we are helping them to get through it, with one or two accepting our offer to leave their tenancy early and move in with family as they did not want to build up a debt. In terms of the ones that will end up in court, in each case they just chose not to leave at the end of their tenancy and stopped paying the moment the eviction ban was announced. I asked them to clarify their situation in terms of furloughing, universal credit etc. 2 didn't respond and the other 2 said 'mind your own business, the law says we don't have to leave and you cant make us pay. One of them specifically quoted Shelter's material as the inspiration for his stand. Very much a shame that, as a rental company, we will decide on future policy based on the idiots who spoil things for everyone else.

From: Neil Moores 01 June 2020 13:05 PM

Universal Credit recipients receive help towards their rent. To my knowledge, and I'm happy to be corrected as I am no expert, Universal credit does not help with mortgage payments, so there should not be the same requirement for people to receive additional help with rent. Also the Government (and that is ANY UK Government, not just the current one) does not want people repossessed from their mortgaged home as they will end up as tenants, possibly then obtaining state help with their rent. If people are receiving help towards their rent, which Universal Credit tenants should be, then they should be able to pay some or all of their rent. They might not receive all of their rent and they might have reduced income because their partner is working but that the presumes that they still have sufficient income to cover all or some of the rent. They might have to sacrifice some other luxuries. I am always perplexed that people discuss withholding rent to cover necessities such as food. I have always considered the cost of housing my family, and myself, to be right up there alongside food on the necessities list. I wonder if we will see people marching out of Tesco with an unpaid trolley full of food, declaring that they are saving the money spent on food to allow themselves to pay for their housing?

From: Neil Moores 25 May 2020 14:10 PM

So......... a growing number of buy-to-let landlords are switching to short-term lets, as a consequence of skewed policy that favours holiday homes over long-term properties to rent. The famous phrase "No Sh*t Sherlock" springs to mind!

From: Neil Moores 24 February 2020 10:18 AM

Another misleading headline. Female workers do not pay more in rent. They pay a higher percentage of their income in rent. They also pay a higher percentage of their income for a glass of wine, a new bike, or Gym membership etc. etc. but I would be surprised if we saw headlines that female workers pay more for their train fares than male workers or more for a kilo of flour. By all means highlight the gender pay gap but please don't use headlines that are factually incorrect.

From: Neil Moores 23 September 2019 10:25 AM

At last. Common sense

From: Neil Moores 10 September 2019 08:48 AM

I have a very good friend who has about 50 highly geared properties rented out. He built the portfolio by buying and refinancing to create deposits for his next property purchases and intended to keep hold of the portfolio for many years, He employs a maintenance team to keep everything up to and above proper standards. He will pay more in tax than he makes in profit, probably this year and definitely next year. If he sells then the CGT bill is larger than the equity in his property. He says that he is not looking forward to the conversations next year with the tax office when he will be asked why he didn't put some of his income aside to cover his tax bills, and is confident that he will end up speaking to an advisor who wont actually believe that his tax is more than his profit. He will end up bankrupt and homeless in the end, and will struggle to find a property to live in because no-one will want to rent to him with his ruined credit position and their own fears that if he fails to pay then they will face higher costs in chasing the rent than they can recoup due to the fees ban. You couldn't make it up!

From: Neil Moores 08 May 2019 10:00 AM

BREAKING NEWS....REALLY?

From: Neil Moores 06 March 2019 08:51 AM

Of course it make sense but can someone think up some rules and regulations in one go please? Not over a hundred bits and pieces of rules and regulations being thrown at us over a successive governments.

From: Neil Moores 25 January 2019 08:59 AM

This smacks of an heavily edited article with the important bits missing. I am presuming that the Judge balanced the value of the Tenants' losses against money due to the Landlord.

From: Neil Moores 10 December 2018 09:02 AM

Clearly evicting Tenants who are paying their rent regularly and on time would be ridiculous. However Banks are working on percentages. They know that their borrowers are much more likely to get into arrears whilst lending to Housing Benefit Tenants, in part due to the changes in direct payments and Universal Credit, but also due to local councils advising such Tenants to stick it out in their properties when they owe thousands and are being evicted for it, building up Landlords' losses and costs. If the "fault" eviction process was speeded up there would be much less of a problem for landlords, which in turn would make lenders more comfortable, and would even lead to landlords being happy to offer much longer tenancies.

From: Neil Moores 22 November 2018 09:10 AM

This year we took a flat off the market. It is a flat above a shop and the previous tenant had really liked living there because the rent was about 35% under market value. This reflected the lack of a wet central heating system, double glazing and various other matters which increased the cost of living there but not by anywhere near as much as the reduction in rent. We had bought the property a few years ago and have been trying to obtain planning permission to knock down the shop (and therefore the flat) and rebuild something modern and more practical. We are still fighting over planning so the property is sitting empty. A friend of the outgoing tenant desperately wanted to rent it from us as the rent was so cheap. We had to inform her that we were not legally allowed to rent it to her at all, even if the rent was halved, without doing works which would eventually be undone by demolition. I hope she found somewhere. She was very tight on cash and told me that she would prefer to make the decision herself as to whether to rent a cheaper property and be frugal with the fuel, or be forced to pay more rent for a property where she wouldn't have to make that decision but would never be able to afford in the first instance. Food for thought

From: Neil Moores 06 November 2018 08:50 AM

Not a shocker this one. My business partner and I have sold off quite a few properties where the mortgage interest was close to the gross rent as we new the new rules would have us paying more in tax than we made as profit. One unfortunate family had to move their children to a different area and new schools because there was nothing else around. We even offered to loan them 10% of the deposit if they could buy it from us but the lawyers and the lenders all said that this breached mortgage lending rules. Another successful couple of government initiatives in stooping people from staying long term in homes they want to live in!

From: Neil Moores 18 December 2017 17:48 PM

It is exactly these sort of stories that persuaded me, and therefore my clients as well, to deliberately avoid letting to anyone who relies on benefits to pay their rent. I'm sure councils think they are helping people to have accommodation when, in fact, they are doing the opposite.

From: Neil Moores 08 November 2017 09:26 AM

Further to Andrew Ancell's comment. Mortgage valuation fees are paid by the tenant but are done for the benefit of the lender, not the borrower, and I've seen cases where the lender refuses to show the valuation to the buyer so we have to presume that they will be banned too shortly, as will those legal fees which are incurred protecting the interests of the lender too. Don't hold your breath though.....

From: Neil Moores 03 November 2017 10:21 AM

Breaking News