x

David Wirth

3916 Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

David's Recent Activity

"It is the same way that Jewish people were treated in Nazi Germany"? Really? Landlords in UK are not subject to mass killings, herding into ghettos, slave labour, death marches, medical experiments, etc. etc. etc. Beware of comparing anything with the enormity of what happened in the Holocaust. Such comparisons are no doubt also offensive to Holocaust survivors and the descendants. Ellie should attend one of the many Holocaust Memorial Day events taking place in UK round the end of January. And of course take down her posting. Amazingly, 3 people 'liked' her posting.

From: David Wirth 02 January 2024 09:47 AM

Looks like some people are trying to force off this site those whose views they do not share. Not far short of bullying. If everyone expresses the same opinion and is not prepared to listen respectfully to differing views, consider them, and then respond to those views in a grown-up manner, then there's actually really no point to these postings. No-one learns anything. Just an echo-chamber of identical views. People become even more entrenched in their views. A playground graffiti wall. Whatever happened to a decent polite exchange of views? End of lecture.

From: David Wirth 27 January 2021 11:41 AM

Why did it keep going off, as you say, Andrew?

From: David Wirth 27 January 2021 10:38 AM

All depends what is in the tenancy agreement. It should state whether this is the tenant's or the landlord's responsibility. But isn't it being checked every year as part of the annual gas inspection?

From: David Wirth 27 January 2021 10:36 AM

Don't understand your first sentence, Sitta - all council employees are public sector, aren't they? Beware of stereotyping - many readers of Landlord Today may actually be council employees, and landlords too. "As we all know very well?' - where did you get this from? I personally didn't know that. And I still don't know that. Like every other profession, there are good and bad, I would have thought. Not sure if 'infected' and 'disease' are appropriate words to use just when the pandemic death figure hit 100,000 yesterday - bit insensitive, really.

From: David Wirth 27 January 2021 10:32 AM

In these very tragic and difficult times, this is probably a non-story right now. Especially as Labour are out of government so they actually cannot do anything except be an Opposition. We can focus on such green issues again when the pandemic has eased and the economy is in a better state.

From: David Wirth 27 January 2021 10:24 AM

'Landlords putting money bank into their own accounts?' This is fraud, isn't it? Or theft. It is not the landlords' money. Even if a tenant has - for whatever reason - not responded to an email. 'Inhumane'? Bit of a strong word, isn't it? I'd apply that to gross human rights abuses around the world, not to landlords writing an extra letter or email or two.

From: David Wirth 25 January 2021 09:45 AM

Well yes, they probably would if a landlord is made homeless. I don't think they'd ask questions about a homeless person's profession or source of income. But the article is simply about about geographical profitability for landlords. The article does not suggest landlords going into homelessness.

From: David Wirth 25 January 2021 09:39 AM

'Physical possessions were unnecessary'? Where in the Bible is that? 'Hypocrites and parasites the lot of them'? Whoaa....... I thought it was the Christian Church's influence that led to the ending of the slave trade and outlawed slavery, the ending of child labour, end to inhumane conditions in prisons, etc. etc. (And I'm not even a Christian!). Steady on, George. (Doesn't sound like the posting of a 'Good Samaritan'.)

From: David Wirth 22 January 2021 10:41 AM

Interesting photo. I suppose it bears some connection to the article. But not that much. Maybe the editor of LT didn't have much time to search for a better one.

From: David Wirth 22 January 2021 10:33 AM

Another very strange photo for the accompanying article. Same questions as before. Who are these young people? What have they to do with the article? (Are they the writer's adult children or relatives?). The public must have answers.

From: David Wirth 22 January 2021 10:30 AM

Strange photo to put with this article: What has this photo got to do with a 'Citizens' Assembly'? Who are these young ladies? Are they working in an office? - In which case, where are their facemasks (for a indoors setting)? Can they not work at home? What is so interesting on that laptop? Not sure if they're looking at 'Landlord Today', but I might be wrong. Is the young lady with the mobile phone doing social media? On landlord/tenant issues? So many questions, so few answers ...... The public deserve to know. They have a right to know. Maybe we should set up a Citizens' Assembly to investigate these questions ........... As I said, strange photo for that article.

From: David Wirth 22 January 2021 10:27 AM

No, it doesn't make it more dangerous if a home owner or tenant spends the whole lockdown in a second home. I think the article refers to people travelling outside their local area for non-essential reasons during a lockdown. Which means they could be super virus-spreaders in two areas rather than one. Or have double the chance to catch the virus from someone else - and then spread it to others in maybe two places. (Don't think it's to do with jealousy, as Robert suggests.)

From: David Wirth 21 January 2021 09:24 AM

Not sure what one learns from these extreme - and very sad - examples.

From: David Wirth 21 January 2021 09:17 AM

EPC isn't about reducing energy bills or because tenants might ask about this. It's about the climate emergency and global warming. But it's the wrong way of dealing with this. It makes no sense for tenanted properties to require EPC but not owner-occupied properties. There has to be a much better way of dealing with the emergency in terms of properties. Taking no action at all is not an option in the climate emergency. So any ideas please?

From: David Wirth 21 January 2021 09:15 AM

Why do you say smart meters are inevitable, Jahan? Just say no every time they offer to install them for you. There's not compulsory. There are no plans to make them compulsory either.

From: David Wirth 20 January 2021 10:23 AM

Thank you George. But don't look at the author of a posting ...... more important is what the posting actually states. I am actually a reasonable person. It's OK to have a different opinion ,isn't it? There's be no point to all the Landlord Today postings if everyone had the same view on everything! Hope you recover from your shock soon! Have a good day.

From: David Wirth 20 January 2021 10:19 AM

Of course it will. (Reference to heading). Lots of claims mean higher premiums next time round. It's the way insurance works.

From: David Wirth 20 January 2021 10:14 AM

Thank you Peter. At last someone is addressing the issue with the seriousness it deserves. It is not something to just make jokes about. It just indicates the desperate financial situation some of our tenants can be in.

From: David Wirth 20 January 2021 10:12 AM

'Sex with a scrubber'? Charming! It's probably more likely to be a single tenant - maybe a student - who simply can't pay her way any more and is really just desperate to stay in the property. Please don't stereotype. This is a serious issue.

From: David Wirth 20 January 2021 10:07 AM

It is clear that the person giving those quotes in the article thinks that landlords generally pay utility bills for their properties. Oh dear. So not impressed that Landlord Today is including this article. (Has anyone even heard of Glide Utilities, the company that the quoted Mr Black comes from?). Apart from that glaring error, Mr Black encourages the installation of smart meters. Is he not aware that in the past, many of these simply stopped working when the account holder moves to another energy company. Can the supply of gas/electricity be cut remotely through these without the account holders' consent or agreement? Are there GDPR implications? - who wants outside people knowing exactly when one's gas/electricity is being consumed and when it is not? Security issues too. I have no idea why the government has been subsiding the installation of smart meters. ('Smart meters are a huge benefit at a time of coronavirus'? Really? Over-egging just a tiny bit, I think. Especially that word 'huge'.)

From: David Wirth 19 January 2021 09:10 AM

Not exactly sure what the reporting of one very serious case prove. More revealing might be the number of such convictions in say a year, and draw conclusions from that. (And unless Andrew has evidence for his statement on this particular landlord, maybe he should hold back, see what happens, and then make his statement. Not everyone is the same. Unless he knows more about the history of this particular landlord than the article states. )

From: David Wirth 18 January 2021 10:04 AM

Maybe Robert could keep his comments to the objective facts as reported in the article?

From: David Wirth 18 January 2021 09:56 AM

"Anyone viewing a property should wear full personal protective equipment (PPE) and sanitise their hands. Also ensure all properties are sterilised, ready for new tenants." Full PPE? What, like a nurse in a hospital? Never read that in any government guidelines. All properties sterilised? Surely not if the property has been empty for a few days, i.e. virus has now died. What is the source of such advice?

From: David Wirth 15 January 2021 09:31 AM

Is this an article or an advert looking like an article?

From: David Wirth 15 January 2021 09:26 AM

This electricians' trades organisation states that landlords should 'take all reasonable steps to comply ' to ensure electricians' safety when doing electrical work. Of my two electricians' visits recently, neither wore a face mask inside the property or made reasonable attempts to keep two metres apart from those inside the properties. This organisation should be advising its own members, not just telling landlords what to do.

From: David Wirth 13 January 2021 09:50 AM

Munawwar: Lovely language in your posting. So nice to read over breakfast. Thank you so much for this. (It's really time people cleaned up their postings - using such language does not actually strengthen the validity of your arguments. It just turns Landlord Today into an unpleasant playground grafitti wall.)

From: David Wirth 12 January 2021 10:08 AM

What evidence do you base your statement on, David? You seem very certain. If you add: 'for sure', you must have such evidence. Please share it when putting out such a statement on a public site like LT. - But if it's just a hunch, then say so.

From: David Wirth 12 January 2021 10:01 AM

And why exactly is this a news story about an individual racist tenant in Landlord Today? Racial abuse can happen anywhere. It is always a crime wherever it happens. Maybe it's a 'low news' day today.

From: David Wirth 12 January 2021 09:56 AM

Ms Hunter's phrase "landlords have a responsibility to weigh up individual circumstances rather than have a blanket response." sounds reasonable. Every situation is different. And where LLs have mortgages to pay, one would hope the bank/building society would take a similar view with them, rather than have a blanket response. After all, the landlord companies of shops are often lowering their rentals for their suffering shop-keepers from what is stated in their contracts. Individual circumstances during this pandemic crisis - then when the wretched pandemic crisis is over and normal life resumes, then back to normal landlord/tenant practice.

From: David Wirth 12 January 2021 09:52 AM

Sorry Mark, really not the thing to put out in public five days after the Capital in Washington was stormed. Not even as a joke. You may wish to withdraw this comment. Quickly, would be my advice. (Democracy is such a precious thing.....)

From: David Wirth 11 January 2021 10:15 AM

Bad headline reporting by Landlord Today, I'm afraid. The question for the poll was "Do you think students who are unable to return to their student accommodation due to lockdown should still have to pay rent as normal or not?" - which should not lead to the headline of "Big Public Support for Students going Rent-free". Because the phrase "rent as normal" does not - if the polled answer is no -suggest "rent-free". It could for example mean 50% of rent - or whichever other proportion or arrangement can be agreed. You can do better in your headline writing, Landlord Today. The accurate headline from the poll would have been "Big public support for Students not paying 100% rent". But of course that's less newsworthy for the readers.

From: David Wirth 11 January 2021 10:07 AM

Is there? Are you sure? What is your evidence for your 'sure' statement?

From: David Wirth 11 January 2021 10:00 AM

There are rogue tenants as well as good tenants. There are rogue landlords as well as good landlords. Let's not stereotype.

From: David Wirth 11 January 2021 09:58 AM

Then don't vote for him, George. 'Landlord Today' should not be politicised. Keep to the Landlord issues please.

From: David Wirth 08 January 2021 09:25 AM

Imagine if people could post responses without writing insults.

From: David Wirth 08 January 2021 09:20 AM

Wow, what a tirade, George. Maybe it's best to contribute to this site when you're less angry.

From: David Wirth 07 January 2021 10:11 AM

George: if everyone 'unfollows' all those whose views they don't agree with, then everyone will simply live in their own 'echo-chambers' - they will only read/see views that reflect their own. One needs to also follow those whose views we disagree with: to see where's they're coming from. and the reasons for their views. And if then you still disagree, then fine, agree to disagree - without using abusive language as you have done. Present reasoned argument, not just abuse., George.

From: David Wirth 07 January 2021 10:04 AM

Rather than just quote: "two thirds believed mould to be entirely the landlord's responsibility", shouldn't Landlord Today have asked for an independent solicitor's view on whether this quote is in fact legally true and would actually stand up in court if it came to that? - before posting that whole article. Bit lazy of Landlord Today not to do this - readers of LT are after all not necessarily legal experts. I think newspapers would probably have checked this out first before publishing. It's an important issue to get right, as I've heard of tenants getting in local environment health officers to report on mould in their flats and having medics write statements on how mould is affecting their health.

From: David Wirth 06 January 2021 11:24 AM

'Change the record please David!' says Robert. But we live in an age of fake news .... e.g. 'there is no such thing as climate change', 'MMR jab causes autism', 'the moon landings were faked', 'The USA election result was fraudulent', etc. etc. etc. That's why the BBC and other organisations employ 'fact-checkers' for things that politicians and others say and put out. If people put statements as the truth out into the open on social media, they must be sure it's true. All I'm asking for is evidence (like, say, a quote), then it's absolutely fine to put out. I'm afraid fact-checking is increasingly necessary in today's society of fake news. So for the good of everyone, no, the fact-checking record must not be changed.

From: David Wirth 05 January 2021 14:59 PM

I've just been on Generation Rent's website, and it makes it clear they are referring to the current pandemic situation. So what is the evidence for your second sentence? Fact-checker please.

From: David Wirth 05 January 2021 09:41 AM

The two Andrews (above): no need for insults, both of you. Make your cases calmly, politely and rationally, please, whatever views you hold. Oh dear, not the nicest start to the New Year! New Year resolution, everyone? - how about: clean up social media like LT.

From: David Wirth 04 January 2021 10:44 AM

I wonder why Landlord Today has not named those reprehensive landlords, - as its source for the article the Daily Mail has named some of them - it should have named and shamed them - LT frequently names landlords found guilty of other offences. The article states that these landlords "could" be committing an offence - so it's not entirely clear that crimes have actually taken place, so action is not be taken. So the law therefore needs to change and be more specific in this particular case. (And of course LT again politicises its articles by twice referring to the MP being Labour - completely irrelevant.)

From: David Wirth 04 January 2021 10:30 AM

You may or may not be right. But no need to politicise this. Keep to the issue in the article please. (That applies to the article too , Landlord Today, please note.)

From: David Wirth 31 December 2020 09:38 AM

"New HMOs be built with en-suites instead of shared toilet facilities due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic"? This makes little sense, as no building company builds a new HMO as such. The term HMO refers to its use as a tenanted property, not the building as such. All rooms with ensuites seems to refer to hotels or students residential blocks, not HMOs. (And of course the reference to 'Labour' is irrelevant to the facts of this article.)

From: David Wirth 31 December 2020 09:28 AM

Charming addition to this debate, George, really illuminating in terms of the discussion. How about actually making a well-reasoned and measured contribution rather than just throw out an easy and cheap insult? (Not much of the Christmas spirit evident in your posting ...........) How about respectful responses to those you don't agree with please - otherwise this just becomes a disgusting graffiti wall. And if everyone on the blog holds the same view on everything, there's no point to this blog. It's good to share different views, politely and respectfully - isn't it? Hope you have a good day, George.

From: David Wirth 30 December 2020 09:45 AM

'Not mention of LLs' health and safety'? Of course not, LLs don't live in their tenanted properties. 'Viewing are now suspended'? No they're not - please go back to the article. (They're only suspended if a tenant is self-isolating or symptomatic - which is how it should and must be - during a pandemic.) Of course tenants will only pay what their tenancy states they must - not sure why you mention 'dreaming'. Of course there must be rules for LLs (- or did you think otherwise?) If they cause stress, please do not become a LL. Being a LL is quite a responsibility, after all. The gas and electric safety checks are a requirement for a reason.

From: David Wirth 29 December 2020 10:34 AM

Anti Covid regulations to be paused and phased due to Covid, Girish? That makes no sense at all. 'Short Clueless Politicians'? Bit of a generalisation, don't you think? (And what has height got to do with it?)

From: David Wirth 29 December 2020 10:26 AM

Sounds pretty sensible to me. But how would any landlords know? Not mention of this in the news or papers or anywhere else, as far as I know. (For example: have all letting agents been informed?)

From: David Wirth 29 December 2020 10:21 AM

I presume David C's comment is just a satire of uncaring landlords, purely intended to provoke. (Reminds me of a certain Monty Python sketch .....)

From: David Wirth 29 December 2020 09:33 AM

Very responsible of you, David. Spirit of Xmas and all that ........

From: David Wirth 29 December 2020 09:29 AM

Sounds pretty sensible to me. But how would any landlords know? Not mention of this in the news or papers or anywhere else, as far as I know. (For example: have all letting agents been informed?)

From: David Wirth 29 December 2020 09:26 AM

Thanks for the 'Merry Christmas from Landlord Today' wishes. But "Landlords will be starting their Christmas break"? Not if they are managing their own properties and their tenants rings up to say there's a major leak, or no electricity or whatever else on Xmas Day ....... The phone can ring with an emergency problem at any time. Not that I'm hoping this for anyone. Merry Christmas to all fellow-readers of Landlord Today. Hope you all have a trouble-free 2021.

From: David Wirth 24 December 2020 10:04 AM

Councils protect vulnerable children, enforce standards with rogue landlords, check hygiene standards in restaurants and food outlets, provide social housing to those in need, run schools, libraries, leisure facilities, provide refuse and recycling facilities, repair local roads and street lighting, etc. etc. etc. So I'm not 100% sure about George's description "Councils = another layer of pointless red tape filled with idiots .....". OK certain things could sometimes be done better, but let's moderate our language, cut out the insults, and instead give specific examples of possible suggestions for improvement and how to enable these. Just don't trash councils as a whole, please.

From: David Wirth 24 December 2020 09:50 AM

"We believe that grant funding should be made available" is the quote in the article. What, at a time when the economy is being trashed by the virus, huge numbers are losing their jobs, and more people are going to food banks and soup kitchens? I really don't think any political party could support this at this time. As Robert states (above), any available money should go to providing more homes.

From: David Wirth 24 December 2020 09:41 AM

Is this a news article or an advert from Target Location? I would suggest the latter. Landlord Today: please clearly indicate adverts as such, not disguise them as news articles.

From: David Wirth 23 December 2020 09:44 AM

Please stop writing Labour plan this or Labour want that (first words of heading and article). We won't have a general election for 4 years. We're not in an election campaign. No-one is writing a general election manifesto right now, and won't until 2024. Labour can do nothing right now as they are not in government. Concentrate on what the Conservatives are saying and doing, as they are in power.

From: David Wirth 23 December 2020 09:15 AM

"Anger"? (in heading). "Howl of Disgust"? (first words of article). Can we leave emotions out of it please? Emotions don't strengthen the case for or against. Just keep to the facts. (Actually there's no evidence of either of these emotions in the article. Who specifically displayed anger? Who in fact howled in disgust? Just the author's imagination, that's who.)

From: David Wirth 22 December 2020 09:19 AM

That's democracy at work. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe landlords should form a similar group to campaign for their own interests. Bit like there's a pro-hunting pressure group and an anti-hunting pressure group: each side writing to their MPs and speaking to the media to make their respective cases. As I say, democracy at work.

From: David Wirth 22 December 2020 09:13 AM

Sorry, everyone, but non-discrimination is the law of the country, as the article above correctly states. Of course landlords can 100% choose who their tenants will be - as long as they don't discriminate against any particular grouping. 'My property, my conditions'? Well yes - as long as you keep to the law. Some people still remember the signs in windows in the 60's stating: 'No blacks, no Irish, no dogs' etc. Do we really want to go back to the days when discrimination against certain groups in society was rife? Some contributors above want to discriminate but in a less explicit way - make rent £15,000 a month for certain groups, no daily curry, etc. As if that's OK. It is not. A court would take a dim view of this. Assess the individual who wants to be your tenant, not the social grouping they belong to. And keep to the law of the country. 'Drop a bomb on them'? - I just despair ............. What kind of society are we becoming?

From: David Wirth 21 December 2020 10:24 AM

Hi Michael. I did not make this allegation. It's the HMRC who stated this. One could ask them the source of their figures, and I'm sure they'll provide it. I'm just commenting on their worrying statement. (And well done for paying all your due tax.) Hi Andrew. What's your evidence for your comment that "most if not all pay their tax properly and honestly"? Fact-check needed before one can state this in a public forum like Landlord Today.

From: David Wirth 18 December 2020 18:18 PM

Most 'Landlord Today' daily news items result in quite a few 'Join The Conversation' comments from readers. A lot of these talk about rogue tenants, bad tenants, defaulting tenants, untrustworthy tenants, etc. etc. And now 'Landlord Today' posts a news item about the thousands of landlords not paying their dues in tax. And apart from Andrew, who rather defensively wants people to know he's paying all his tax when no-one's even accusing him of anything, - not a single comment or reply from anyone. Just silence. I find this very interesting. And possibly revealing.......... (By the way, I pay all my dues too.)

From: David Wirth 18 December 2020 17:18 PM

It is not the councils' responsibility to improve poor quality private tenanted properties themselves by sending in their own workers. It is and must remain the owner's responsibility, enforceable by court, fines, and in extreme cases jail. Andrew's suggestion sounds really draconian to me - not the way we generally do things in the UK.

From: David Wirth 17 December 2020 10:51 AM

No-one above recognises guide-dogs, neither does anyone recognise the real importance that pets have played for many people during the lockdown and covid-restrictions. There must be a reasonable and middle way. How about: tenancy agreement states that tenant with pet must pay for deep-clean at the end of tenancy, and damage to furniture/carpets, etc. (which inventory photos can identify). I have never heard or read of an incoming tenant with a pet allergy being affected by the pet of the previous tenant, normal clean or deep clean. Doubt if anyone else has. And of course David's posting above is completely unacceptable, even as a joke.

From: David Wirth 17 December 2020 10:27 AM

I agree with Andrew that "landlords also have the final say on who lives in their properties ". But in saying this, one must always add that a landlord must not turn down any prospective tenant on grounds of race, religion, gender, disability, or sexuality - it's the law. (Also: A recent landmark court judgment is that one cannot discriminate against a prospective tenant on the basis that they are in receipt of state benefits.)

From: David Wirth 16 December 2020 12:12 PM

Hi Robert. If a jury were asked to pronounce guilty or not guilty on a case, the judge would direct the jury to stick to the facts of the case - ignore the political persuasion of the defendant or their race or their religion. And that's how it should be. If one brings in the defendant's race or religion or political persuasion into the equation, one has to question the reason for this. Heaven forbid there might be a racist agenda. Or a political agenda. (Or is there....?) Keep politics and religion/race out of it. Stick to the facts.

From: David Wirth 16 December 2020 11:39 AM

'Furlough .... has caused resentment amongst the hard working population'. Where is the evidence for this? Fact-check please. Furloughed tenants have 'in theory more money in their pockets than before'. Where is the evidence for this? Fact-check please. If people make such broad statements, they should always state their sources.

From: David Wirth 16 December 2020 09:33 AM

I'm not sure what the article is suggesting. Is it that landlords have a free 'Never will be taken to court' card? Of course landlords should be subject to the courts if they commit major offences and ignore housing officers' demands. Because everyone has to keep to the law in this country. If a softly/softly approach doesn't work, then court enforcement is necessary. Isn't it? Even if this is time-consuming.

From: David Wirth 16 December 2020 09:26 AM

The title begins with the word Labour. The article begins with the word Labour. Can we please stop politicising issues? If 'Landlord Today' wishes to take a political stance, or has connections with the Conservative government, or receives donations from the Conservative Party and its supporters, then it should be up-front about this. Otherwise whether a council is Labour or Conservative is irrelevant. Just simply state what councils are doing and proposing and keep to the issues. Keep politics out of it.

From: David Wirth 16 December 2020 09:18 AM

'Tree huggers'? 'Clueless government jobsworth'? Oh dear. Despite all the science indicating we are in the midst of a climate change emergency, certain people think they know better than all the experts in this field who have spent their lives collecting the facts about what is now happening to the climate and to the environment.

From: David Wirth 15 December 2020 18:08 PM

Why are contributors trying to politicise this issue? Please keep to the facts of the issues being discussed. No Party is perfect. All Parties make mistakes. Keep Party politics out of 'Landlord Today'. If you want to campaign for or against a Party, there are ways of doing that. This website is not one of them.

From: David Wirth 15 December 2020 18:02 PM

Interesting responses above. You are completely agreeing to people living in properties which you own. Yet you are suggesting you are completely uninterested in their welfare once they are in - because everyone else can help - e.g. government, councils, their relatives - just not you. So if a tenant loses their job due to pandemic, or gets cancer, or has a road accident, or is a victim of crime, etc. etc. etc. - you're just not interested, it's always for someone else. Oh dear. What a lovely society we live in.

From: David Wirth 15 December 2020 17:38 PM

'Climate change con'? So you know more than all the scientists and meteorologists and experts in the field who have all come to the same conclusion? All their facts and figures and projections are wrong, in your opinion? What qualifications do you have to say it's a 'con'?

From: David Wirth 11 December 2020 10:36 AM

As Sarah rightly says, 'So many perfect people out there'. Sarah is indeed for real, Jahan.

From: David Wirth 09 December 2020 13:37 PM

Take care, Andrew. 'Mr Blair is a war criminal' sounds potentially libellous to me. Whether you like Tony Blair or not. People are held to account for what they write in social media. You need to be really firm in the legal definition of 'war criminal' and sure that TB fits this definition before you tap it out on your computer for all to see.

From: David Wirth 09 December 2020 10:52 AM

'Leopards don't change their spots' ? There are numerous examples of people who having done wrong have been successfully rehabilitated into society. The company Timpson actually goes out of its way to seek ex-prisoners - it has done so for years without problem. We humans are fallible. Are you saying that no-one should be given a second chance to prove themselves, having served their sentence? Some leopards do change their spots, thank goodness.

From: David Wirth 09 December 2020 10:45 AM

I wonder how many Landlords have landlords' insurance policies which covers non-payment of rent. I suspect it's those landlords who did not take this out who are now complaining If they did not take out this insurance, why should they expect the government to step in with bundles of cash at this very difficult time? It's what insurance is for........those unexpected and unwelcome situations.

From: David Wirth 09 December 2020 10:35 AM

But as long as the facts on each case reported are completely truthful and accurate, and important details are not omitted, it's OK surely to receive help and advice from organisations representing your situation. Landlords get equally seek advice too. (Are not the terms and paragraphs of every tenancy agreement cribbed from experts representing or acting for landlords? - i.e. equally 'orchestrated responses'?)

From: David Wirth 07 December 2020 11:32 AM

I've just counted 16 mentions of the non-English names of the offenders and others in this article. Including a number of repeat mentions of certain names. I really do hope there is no racist agenda to the article. Also - I completely fail to see the relevance of stating that the offenders are 'wealthy' (top line) and having 'expensive high-performance cars'. What is the writer of this article trying to imply?

From: David Wirth 07 December 2020 11:26 AM

Hi Kilo Charlie, - could we maybe have reasoned arguments rather than pointless insults? Thanks.

From: David Wirth 02 December 2020 10:50 AM

" It is not the landlords duty to look after welfare . It is the council and the government." Oh dear. Presumably you would not help someone in trouble or in distress in the street, as that's the job of the medical services and ambulance crews. You presumably think it is the job of the landlord to take the money and run. 'Expect Everything for free''? Sorry, you just don't have enough details about this particular case to make this statement about her.

From: David Wirth 01 December 2020 10:18 AM

'Poor little snowflake'? George - I'm sorry but you know nothing about the circumstances of this family, about the age, medical condition, and psychological condition of the boy. and whether he has diagnosed special needs. Without a lot more background information about this boy and this case, your comment is uncalled for and inappropriate. (Maybe you also think that those who attempt or commit suicide are also 'snowflakes'.)

From: David Wirth 01 December 2020 10:06 AM

Tax avoidance is indeed legal . But it is unethical. Loopholes in the regulations are not there to be exploited. People should pay their dues, not exploit loopholes.

From: David Wirth 30 November 2020 15:23 PM

David - 'those skiving, filthy crooks on benefits' - oh dear. You've obviously had bad experience. But this is a generalisation too far. (Unless you can 'fact-check' your statement, I'm afraid you really should not have stereotyped like this ......... whatever your experience. Sorry.)

From: David Wirth 26 November 2020 11:56 AM

The answer to the question in the heading is 'no'. At a time when the economy is being trashed because of Covid, the government should be helping those many who have lost their jobs, those who need food banks, not helping those who own more than one property, i.e. landlords. Sorry, landlords .......... (Why should those earning the minimum wage pay tax towards helping those with more than one property?)

From: David Wirth 25 November 2020 10:40 AM

I really don't see what the major issue is. Landlords and letting agents do checks on prospective tenants anyway. So just ask the tenant to bring along their passport/visa/residence permit, read it, take a copy, - and that's it. No big deal. How long does that take? And of course any landlord choosing to discriminate on the basis of race should have the full weight on the law on them. Entrapment can expose such landlords.

From: David Wirth 24 November 2020 10:00 AM

Yes, but you're a landlord. To verify your statement you'd need to look at what what tenants are experiencing re: their landlords, in their organisations, social media, etc. etc. - is there an organisation called 'Tenant Today'? One landlord's experience, however extensive, is not a basis for that sweeping statement. An independent opinion organisation needs to be brought in to investigate whether such a claim is right., across large numbers of landlords and tenants. Otherwise everyone is just shouting from inside their 'landlords' or 'tenants' bubble. Fact-checking is so important these days.

From: David Wirth 24 November 2020 09:14 AM

Fact-checker please, John. Just wondering what is the evidence for your statement "If Tenants were as fair minded and decent as the majority Landlords'? Has anyone ever done independent research on which group is fairer and more decent? I personally wouldn't make such a suggestion unless I knew it to be true . (Personal experience or anecdotal experience is not enough to publicly make such a statement.) It may be true, but it needs to be fact-checked.

From: David Wirth 23 November 2020 10:39 AM

This case, if it accurately described, is is a perfect case for mediation. Did the landlord and tenant sit down to try to agree a solution? The one-sided title 'Landlord Confrionted ......." could easily have been turned into "Tenant with son with special needs being evicted by unreasonable landlord". All depends which side you take.

From: David Wirth 23 November 2020 09:18 AM

You seem to be the only one making this point, David. Not even his political opponents object to him continuing in office for the time being because of the current national emergency. We cannot have people meeting, knocking on doors, delivering leaflets, attending hustings, etc. etc. etc. when people are advised to stay at home. I'm sure mayoral elections will happen as soon as the crisis allows it. It would also detract from what the main news story should be - the pandemic and how to deal with it. Just park this one for the time being .......... The democratic choice made by the citizens is just extended..........

From: David Wirth 19 November 2020 11:51 AM

Jahan, could you leave politics out of this debate please? Just stick to the merits of each issue as it arises? It would enhance proper discussion and debate.

From: David Wirth 19 November 2020 11:44 AM

Not at all. I did not even vote Labour in the last election. I just don't want Landlord Today to take a political stance - for any Party. It should just deal with each issue on its own merits and leave politics out of it. That's all. (I'll decide which Party to support at the next election when I see their manifestos and who the party leaders are.)

From: David Wirth 19 November 2020 11:40 AM

The words 'Labour Mayor' are the first two words in the heading of the article. The same two words "Labour Mayor' start the article itself. What are you trying to say? I did not know that that 'Landlord Today' was a Conservative publication. An elected mayor works for all the citizens in his/her area, whichever way they voted. We're not even in an election campaign right now. Please refer to Sadiq Khan as the Mayor please, not the Labour Mayor. (Does Landlord Today contribute to the Conservative Party?) Please stop politicising and keep to the facts.

From: David Wirth 19 November 2020 09:29 AM

£445 penalty is not enough. From the account, the investigations leading up to the fine probably cost more. Andrew (above) says 'we all know who does the fly-tipping in that area', then why is this information not given to the authorities together with the evidence/proof? (Does anyone know - why is the dumping of unwanted items known as 'fly-tipping'?) Entrapment might be helpful. Different people could be asked to ring up people who advertise to take away unwanted items - and hide a chip in one of them - when it's dumped, the chip reveals the offender. (But some people say entrapment is unethical.)

From: David Wirth 17 November 2020 09:54 AM

Andrew, you seem so certain it won't work. But mediation is always worth a try, isn't it? Some instances will work, others probably not. And the 11 years don't make one an expert? Brain surgeons, heart transplant medics, GPs, plane pilots - they don't train for 11 years to become experts and perfectly competent in what they do. Less negativity please.

From: David Wirth 16 November 2020 10:08 AM

"Pander to the tenants who will never vote Tory?" I thought governments were meant to address the needs of all sectors of the population, whichever way they voted. Are you really suggesting a new Party that 'panders' only to the needs of their own voters?

From: David Wirth 12 November 2020 11:50 AM

You can't blame tenants for trying to avoid HMOs right now. But by keeping to their own cutlery, crockery, etc. etc. and constantly wiping surfaces, handles, light switches etc., and keeping socially distanced, they can certainly cut down risks. Until this wretched virus has gone. A real pain I know ..........

From: David Wirth 12 November 2020 11:45 AM

Richard: - you state Shelter is a 'corrupt' charity - which is a strong statement to make. Possibly libellous, I don't know. Just to fact-check, what is your evidence for this statement?

From: David Wirth 12 November 2020 11:39 AM

Wow, what a tirade. ('Aren't there enough workhouses...........?')

From: David Wirth 11 November 2020 09:20 AM

'Under-insurance a massive problem for landlords - claim' is the result of research by - surprise, surprise - an insurance company. Could Landlord Today please stop giving us stories of 'research results' by the very companies that will profit from those results? How about independent research results? (If I were a window cleaner, I'd probably go looking for results that claim to show people's windows are too unclean and them publicise that .........). Just stop this please, Landlord Today.

From: David Wirth 11 November 2020 09:03 AM

'Corona-scam'? (Did tenants sign tenancy agreements in full knowledge that the pandemic would arrive and kick them out of their jobs and income and previous lives?). Oh dear.

From: David Wirth 11 November 2020 08:56 AM

Wow - not much empathy from Mark and Michael. Which tenants could have predicted this pandemic and its effects on them? How many landlords even thought of putting a sentence into their tenancy agreements stating what would happen in the case of a pandemic? Seeking a mediated solution which both sides can live with and sign up to sounds pretty reasonable to me. May not get there, but it's worth trying. Isn't it.....?

From: David Wirth 09 November 2020 10:04 AM

And why is this article the number 1 top story today? What point is Landlord Today trying to make? Has Landlord Today become a downmarket tabloid, with nice juicy stories? Come on, LT, you can do better ........

From: David Wirth 09 November 2020 09:25 AM

I think we all knew that there are probably a significant number of landlords who have insufficient knowledge of the law relating to tenancies (e.g. deposits, gas safety certificates) and their responsibilities to their tenants. Yet the article does not suggest any solution to this problem. Any ideas everyone? (e.g. should a summary of the landlords' duties and responsibilities be included at the back of every tenancy agreement - or in the least reference where these can found on a government website?)

From: David Wirth 05 November 2020 09:29 AM

Just having a nationwide 'MoT' for rented properties say every 5 years would solve the problem. A council housing employee would have to visit, check gas safety certificates (and from next year electricity too), and a quick 5-minutes look into all the rooms should suffice, looking for hazards, health risks and possible over-crowding. That's all. Repeat visit to check if problems are identified at first visit.

From: David Wirth 03 November 2020 10:21 AM

When you have needed a licence to keep dogs and go fishing, it does seem odd that no licence has been needed to rent out a property, when - through ignorance of the regulations or deliberately - there continue to be unsafe or overcrowded or squalid properties being rented out. Of course the vast majority of landlords are responsible - but there is no other way to weed out those who are not, with tenants often desperate not to create a fuss about unsafe or terrible conditions with their landlords. Sorry landlords, licencing fees - which would fund inspection visits - is a necessary evil for landlords. As renting a property is a huge responsibility requiring responsible landlords. Look at it from the side of the tenants. Think of it as a MoT for rented properties. Doesn't even need to be an inspection every year. Every five years would probably be sufficient.

From: David Wirth 30 October 2020 09:19 AM

Landlords above complain about new licensing. Surprise, surprise. This is done in the interests of tenants, not landlords. If all landlords were responsible, this would not be necessary. No-one can deny there are tenanted properties that are unsafe, run-down, and over-crowded for their size. Licences were needed to keep dogs once - so why not for people's rented homes, much more important? And why politicise licences? There are repeated mentions of 'Labour' council. Why? Completely irrelevant. Conservative and LibDem councils might also be bringing these in to help protect their tenants. It's the direction of travel. Just pay for the greater good, i.e. tenants' well-being and safety. 'Licence to print money'? More like a progressive tax payable only by those who possess more than one property.

From: David Wirth 29 October 2020 09:24 AM

"And that’s why nobody who isn’t certified as insane ever votes green?" Did I read this right, Adrian? Other people could write similar sentences for people who vote Labour, or Conservative, or LibDem, or Remain, or Brexit, or SNP. etc. etc. Could we maybe stop writing such abusive and unnecessary comments please? Just say you don't agree because ....... - that's enough to make your point. We do have a climate change emergency ........... (Which Party has never proposed a policy which was ill-advised?)

From: David Wirth 28 October 2020 13:49 PM

Who are 'Simply Business' ? What are the details of this survey, t, how can one access it - and why did they carry it out? Once again 'Landlord Today' gives no such details when it quotes surveys. The 'findings' are mostly Simply Obvious.

From: David Wirth 28 October 2020 09:16 AM

I thought a 12-month (say) tenancy agreement ends in 12 months, and then it's over (unless both parties agree it should continue). Both sides know it's a commitment for 12 months and no more. A reason to end at the end of a tenancy agreement at this point is not needed. Not really sure if the Greens understand this.

From: David Wirth 28 October 2020 09:11 AM

HMOs may not be the answer, but surely there needs to be some kind of checking system to ensure all tenanted properties are actually safe, in habitable condition, and not ridiculously over-crowded. At present you don't need need to submit to anyone in authority an annual gas safety certificate or evidence of smoke alarms, never mind anything else ........ No-one even checks if a new landlord not using agents knows anything at all about his/her legal requirements or the very basics of the law on tenancies.

From: David Wirth 27 October 2020 09:18 AM

Of course there are good and bad tenants. Like there are good and bad landlords. But this does not stop the advice being offered above from being generally good advice.

From: David Wirth 27 October 2020 09:08 AM

"I wouldn't touch a homeless person....." "That's the local council's problem, not mine". Oh dear. Not much empathy in those statements. I do hope you yourself don't fall into dire straits at some point in the future, Andrew. (By the way, Shelter is a campaigning organisation, it does not deal directly with homeless individuals .............)

From: David Wirth 26 October 2020 10:55 AM

The problem with a prison for him is that it will cost the tax-payer so much - even just one year inside would cost the taxpayer around £50,000. No, better is to confiscate this rental property from this repeat offender - and sell it on the open market, thus improving public finances.

From: David Wirth 23 October 2020 09:17 AM

Obviously not good. But strange that this landlord can presumably continue being a landlord. If he had treated pets badly or had neglected them, he would surely have been banned from owning pets.

From: David Wirth 22 October 2020 09:14 AM

"London may never regain pre-Covid appeal to tenants - rental chief" is a 'grab your attention' heading - that is just speculation. No-one can predict the situation after Covid19 has gone. You might as well have devised a heading "London may well regain its pre-Covid appeal to tenants". No-one knows. More factual headlines please ...........

From: David Wirth 21 October 2020 09:49 AM

Has anyone ever heard of the 'Lettings Industry Council' who have written this report? Who are they?

From: David Wirth 20 October 2020 09:07 AM

Sorry Paul, did I read your comment correctly? Could you clarify what you are saying? Would you like to withdraw your comment and apologise for it?

From: David Wirth 19 October 2020 09:33 AM

Of course a platform representing students will want this (which is basically the article). And of course landlords will not. But what is the view of independent people who are neither students nor landlords? One can see the problems the pandemic creates for both sides. Who'd be a politician?

From: David Wirth 14 October 2020 10:21 AM

Surprise, surprise ....... a letting agency chain (Rightmove) states that landlords need letting agents. Is this a news story or a piece promoting letting agents that letting agents have come with ..... i.e. an advert. Hardly objective!! Can we have a real new story please?

From: David Wirth 14 October 2020 09:57 AM

Bizarre photo to place inside this article. Bearded man in shorts with coffee smiling ridiculously. What is he seeing on his computer screen? Definitely not the results of that survey. (Can you operate a computer using just one hand with a cup in the other? Maybe just about.) The nation demands answers.

From: David Wirth 12 October 2020 09:16 AM

Thanks Luke. Sorry, I probably did not make myself clear. It's not the length of the average tenancy that decides whether a tenant feels 'at home' - it's the length of the tenancy as stated in the tenancy agreement. A tenant may wish to stay put for years, but with a 12-month agreement, he/she will never feel the property is their 'home', with a possible notice to quit always on the horizon.

From: David Wirth 08 October 2020 13:14 PM

Hi Robert: Fact checker please: please can you give the source of or evidence for "average length of tenancy is well over 3 years in most parts of the country" please. (So many people on 'Landlord Today' give 'facts' that support their arguments without stating where these 'facts' are sourced'.) Good if you could state this. Many Thanks.

From: David Wirth 08 October 2020 11:03 AM

Could 'Landlord Today' please, please stop referring to the PM as 'Boris' - Headline above: "You're wrong Boris'. I'm certainly not on first-name terms with him. Blair was never just 'Tony', Brown was never just 'Gordon', Cameron was never just 'David', Trump is never just 'Donald' It gives the impression of friendship/informality with the PM. 'Johnson' please, Landlord Today.

From: David Wirth 08 October 2020 09:39 AM

This actually does not help the tenant who has lost their job due to coronavirus - who would be in debt to the government instead of in debt to the landlord. Of course landlords - thinking about their rent payments - would be happy. But the normal tax-payer - many on a minimum wage - would be less happy. Even more public debt for the government to deal with, when defaults occur, when huge amounts of public debt are already being incurred due to that virus.

From: David Wirth 08 October 2020 09:32 AM

This article lambasts the PM for stating "people could only make a home out of a property they owned.", giving 'evidence' such as X% of a survey (it is not stated when this survey was done, what it was called and how one can find it....you keep doing this, Landlord Today!) of tenants redecorate their properties. Dodgy evidence and dodgy reporting, I'm afraid. Painting the walls of a bedroom or putting up curtains of their choice in the lounge is not evidence of 'making a home'. Only idiot tenants would give their time and money to truly 'make a home' when they've signed a one-year tenancy agreement and can then be evicted. If landlords really want their tenants to 'make a home' of it, they should grant 5 or 10 year tenancies.

From: David Wirth 07 October 2020 10:11 AM

People seem to be reacting to these proposals by using phrases like 'dictatorship councils', 'extortionist councils', 'milked', legalised theft', 'incompetent public sector', etc - and that's from just four people (above). But rather than react in these terms, could the same people come up with positive suggestions for how tenanted flats can be checked for health and safety hazards by independent inspectors - so that time can be called on uncaring landlords? (Many tenants would not want to complain about such hazards for fear of being given notice to quit.) We all know that unfortunately such flats do exist - and probably in far greater numbers than many of us LLs would like to think.

From: David Wirth 24 September 2020 09:34 AM

Yet it has to be admitted that some - probably a large number of - tenanted flats are substandard in terms of conditions that endanger the health and safety of tenants. And these tenants may be afraid of complaining in case they are then given notice to quit. This may apply to council social housing too. Maybe Andrew and Girish (above comments) could suggest something positive to address this. At the moment no-one independent is going into these flats to check conditions. (Not even to check gas safety certificates, never mind anything else. )

From: David Wirth 23 September 2020 11:58 AM

It is completely immoral, when there is such an acute shortage of housing and so much rough sleeping and homelessness, for properties to be kept empty for months and even years. Properties are built to be lived in, not to sit there as owners' capital. Remedy? Maybe charge double or treble council tax on properties deliberately kept empty. as an incentive to get people e.g. tenants living in them. Exceptions should be for set periods following the death, hospitalisation, imprisonment of the previous inhabitants, void periods between tenancies, or during major building works. Properties must not serve as just empty stores of cash during major housing shortages, with owners simply waiting for them to appreciate in value as time goes by.

From: David Wirth 22 September 2020 09:40 AM

Government should help landlords? i.e. Government should help those who currently own two or more homes? Sorry, but at a time of national health emergency and economic collapse with huge numbers of job losses, the priority should be to help those with no home, no income, no job, no money. (Why not give help to millionnaires too? Billionnaires too maybe?).

From: David Wirth 21 September 2020 10:16 AM

Mr Beadle suggests landlords now give notice to quit to those involved in domestic violence. I would have thought a far better course of action for a landlord would be to report them the police. Now. Not wait for the courts to have their say weeks or months down the line. (They're civil courts anyway, not criminal courts.) What was Mr Beadle thinking?

From: David Wirth 21 September 2020 09:57 AM

Who are 'Hamilton Fraser' who it says carried out the research? Certainly not an independent research company that I've heard of. Interesting that Landlord Today - whenever it publishes the results of a 'survey' - never states where to find the detailed survey results or provide a link to it, or even how the sample of responders were selected. Not impressive.

From: David Wirth 16 September 2020 12:35 PM

It should be noted that Savills are an estate agency of course, not an independent research company, and may have a vested interest in the results which they are declaring. (Why could they not have commissioned an independent research company like Gallop, etc.?) Also they are geared up for the more expensive end of the market, I think. I don't think they have too many branches in say Newham or Waltham Forest.

From: David Wirth 15 September 2020 09:15 AM

A person was convicted of criminal money-laundering and supplying drugs -i.e. nothing to do with tenancy issues. He just happened to be a landlord. This should be a non-story for a Landlord platform.

From: David Wirth 11 September 2020 08:58 AM

;'Rent-shirking'? Meaning someone who chooses not to pay rent? Someone who simply cannot pay rent is not 'rent-shirking'. They just can't pay. 'Mum's house' may be very far away from where they work or where work might be available or far from where their children go to school and may not even have a spare room any more. The term 'mum's house' and references to Bieber and Westlife are just belittling. (Attempts at jokes maybe?)

From: David Wirth 10 September 2020 09:16 AM

This appears to be an advert pretending to be a news article. Come on, Landlord Today. You should not be doing this.

From: David Wirth 10 September 2020 09:03 AM

This appears to be an advertisement disguised as a news article. Surely there should be something to mark it as an advertisement rather than a news article?

From: David Wirth 27 August 2020 10:04 AM

In a time of massively increasing job losses, a major health pandemic, economic crisis, record borrowing (£2 trillion) that somehow will have to be paid back, a landlord group now suggests that landlords be helped financially by the government ? Am I reading this correctly? So those on minimum incomes with little or no savings will now pay tax to help those who own more than one property? And I thought 'those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden' was the fair mantra of many politicians. What next? Help for millionaires who are no longer quite millionaires?

From: David Wirth 26 August 2020 10:01 AM

Of course a website called Landlord Today agree that this government move is a 'grave mistake' The clue is in the name 'Landlord Today'. However most independent commentators and those writing and speaking in the media agree with the government move. The alternative would be huge numbers of evictions and a vast increase in homelessness and rough sleeping in the approaching autumn and winter. Please remember none of us - tenants included - could have predicted this pandemic and its effects when we and they signed tenancy agreements. 'A loan to be repaid by tenants' states Robert (above). Where on earth will tenants now out of a job due to the pandemic obtain the money to repay a loan? Unemployment is shooting up at present .....

From: David Wirth 25 August 2020 10:41 AM

“Those tenants who have found themselves in financial hardship due to the coronavirus have now had time to seek alternative living arrangements without the pressure of eviction." is in the article above. Oh dear. As if a tenant who has lost their job due to coronavirus can just find another flat to move into .....with no job income. We're all in this coronavirus crisis together, LLs and tenants. Every tenancy situation is different with different circumstances on both sides. Compromise should be sought wherever possible (and I appreciate it may not always be possible.)

From: David Wirth 21 August 2020 10:31 AM

Insurance affords protection for major loss - fire, road accidents, subsidence, etc. But for the cost of a new laptop or a mobile phone it's just not worth it, especially when one's insurance claims record - and therefore future premiums - would be compromised with a single claim. Just not worth it, especially with the long list of exclusions in most policies The only insurance students really need is liability cover for cyclists (strange that this is not compulsory). Sorry, but this is a non-story put out by an insurance company which wants more customers and more profits. Landlords just need to tell their incoming tenants, students or otherwise, that their own possessions are not insured, and leave them to make up their own minds.

From: David Wirth 19 August 2020 09:07 AM

"It is now a good time to invest in buy-to-let" (your headline) sounds like a definitive statement. However the truth is that no-one can ever predict property prices. The statement is from someone involved in property who may have a vested interest in property prices rising - i.e. hardly independent. A better headline might have been "One person involved in property predicts a rise in property prices but he may be completely wrong of course" - but it's not so snappy as a headline. So how about "People don't know the future of property prices" - one can't go wrong with that, but it's hardly a startling headline.

From: David Wirth 14 August 2020 10:12 AM

Sorry Andrew, but 'unlikely to get my rent paid by people on benefits' is not the basis to justify discriminating against a whole group of people, some of whom would be perfectly good tenants. Look at the individual, not which social or economic group they belong to. That legal ruling is 100% right - even if some landlords don't like it. And if you still don't wish to take any DHSS tenants - then please don't continue as a landlord. Non-discrimination is the path to a just society where people are judged by their character, not their group characteristics. And then - if that DHSS tenant still proves unreliable - then by all means take necessary action.

From: David Wirth 06 August 2020 09:45 AM

Oh dear. The three people above still want to discriminate against potential tenants just because they are DHSS recipients. By all means discriminate against individual people if they do not the means to reliably pay the rent, or because they have a bad track record with previous tenancies, etc. etc. - but not because they fit into a certain category of person. That legal legal was made for a valid very reason. Sorry landlords, you may not like this, but it's absolutely correct. (One of my best tenants was a DHSS claimant!)

From: David Wirth 06 August 2020 09:01 AM

Not sure about a few things: - Should the landlord always report this if the cannabis is for the tenant's own use? Even the police may not be interested in arresting unless there is evidence of dealing. (- What if if class A drugs are seen in the property? Or so much alcohol on the premises that it seems the tenant has a problem? Or lots of counterfeit or illegal CDs/DVDs? ) - Should the landlord always evict if cannabis is found is found on the premises? Maybe just a warning is best, especially if smaller amounts of the drug is found. - Should the landlord be the moral guardian of the tenant? -

From: David Wirth 31 July 2020 09:06 AM

Who are 'Rentround' who gave these search results? Has anyone ever heard of them? Does a 21% increase in searches justify a comment like 'flood of positivity'? Anyway how would they know if someone searching is a landlord or not ? Best ignore this article. Sound like someone trying to talk up the property market. Look at actual property sales instead. As Mark (above) states, BTL always needs a wealth warning. If one is risk-averse, forget BTL, buy NSI savings instead. It also needs a health warning - dealings with certain tenants, contractors, complaining neighbours (and also letting agents too) can be very stressful. Definitely not for everyone. Not for anyone who wants an easy life.

From: David Wirth 30 July 2020 09:28 AM

Just wondering: should landlords who not not declare all of some of their profits from their properties to the tax authorities also be called 'rogue landlords'? As I say, just wondering .........

From: David Wirth 27 July 2020 10:51 AM

Of course the chancellor cannot confirm or deny this. If does, there will immediately be increased or lower demand in property prices, therefore immediate increases or decreases in property prices ahead of the change actually taking place. The headline was unnecessary. BTW - sorry to have to say this, but given we're entering a time of extreme economic crisis, maybe second, third, etc. etc. homes (i.e. landlords' rental properties) should have higher CGT imposed - those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden. It's only fair. I wouldn't like this myself of course - but recognise it's only fair. (If you disagree, which taxes would you like to be increased instead to raise equivalent money for the Treasury? - it has to happen! Yes of course clamp down on rich people and companies using Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, etc. etc. as tax havens and employing accountants to find all sorts of tax loopholes - but governments have been saying that for years without doing much.)

From: David Wirth 16 July 2020 09:03 AM

Of course a 'blanket ban' on DHSS claimants is discriminatory. Equally discriminatory are bans on the grounds of age, gender, sexuality, disability, religion, and race. A landlord's ban on pets is fine (except guide dogs) though. A ban on smokers is fine too. But a ban on students is not fine - it is indirect age discrimination. But 'Professionals only' is not fine - that's discrimination on grounds of social class - not illegal but thoroughly reprehensible. In the end it comes down to the individual - their ability to pay the rent with or without DHSS - their character references, their credit score, and how they interview.

From: David Wirth 14 July 2020 12:39 PM

Indeed, Andrew. But equally some very good tenants have not been able to pay their rents - due to their job or self-employment suddenly lost. Who could have predicted this pandemic and its massive consequences when they signed their tenancy agreements? Landlords: please don't rush to evict such very good tenants. It may come to it - if you cannot agree a way of managing rent payments, delaying them, whatever, - but hopefully not.

From: David Wirth 13 July 2020 09:58 AM

Sounds good for property buyers - but maybe it's not as good as it looks, because: - Property sellers may well raise their prices, wanting a share of the buyer's savings - Property prices will inevitably rise, as demand increases as result of this measure. So the buyer does not gain as much as he/she hoped. And of course it does nothing to help those who simply cannot get to the first rung of the housing ladder. Who just have to carry on renting. And there will be lots more of these, as so many jobs have now been lost.

From: David Wirth 09 July 2020 09:09 AM

People need to bear in mind that if the Chancellor does indeed lower stamp duty levels on property purchases, that then demand for them will increase - and guess what - property prices will therefore increase, so purchasers may not make all the Stamp Duty-related gains they'd hoped for,

From: David Wirth 07 July 2020 13:35 PM

Interesting that this debate has turned into a vindictive against Shelter. They are a registered charity and as such have standards to maintain. No-one seems to want to admit that they do actually do a lot of good work for the homeless. And of course they must advise those in danger of losing their homes - it's their core reason for existing. It's becoming a very sad situation when no-one has a good work to say about them. I do however agree with Daryll (above) who states that surveys should be independent, i.e. not commissioned by one side or the other.

From: David Wirth 06 July 2020 15:47 PM

Jahan says (above): "If a law was actually passed that this person is advocating then a tenant could say at ANY TIME that they feel affected by CoronaVirus and they get to stay in the property.". They would have to show proof, of course - of lost job, no other income, etc. etc. "Amazing isnt it Coronavirus only affects tenants not homeowners." Equally inaccurate. A huge number of homeowners are struggling to pay their mortgages, defaulting on their payments, and don't know if they will have to quit their homes. And if property prices fall, they're in negative equity and in even bigger trouble.

From: David Wirth 06 July 2020 09:39 AM

I wonder why the headline claim refers to the NRLA's survey results but not to Shelter's survey results which paint a very different picture. Where is the truth in all this? When were these surveys done, how were they done, and why are the results so startlingly different? No mention of any of these in the article. The public deserves more than a headline claim from just one of the two very different surveys.

From: David Wirth 06 July 2020 08:56 AM

“Over 70% of people we surveyed said they did feel safe to return to work and that their employers would provide PPE. This therefore suggests agents are worried about the market’s ability to bounce back post-Covid-19.” What has sentence one got to do with sentence two? Can't see the connection. The issue is less whether employees think it's safe - i.e. 100% danger-free - but more whether the risk is small enough, given measures taken, to venture to work. (After all, even pre-Covid it was never 100% safe to go to work - accidents, catching colds/flu, tripping, eating something bad, polluted air, etc. etc. - it's a matter of relative risk.)

From: David Wirth 29 June 2020 08:57 AM

Yes indeed - a contract is a contract. But a contract with unfair terms cannot be enforced if a judge or magistrate agrees they are unfair. And surely if a university completely closes down and locks up for months, so there is not point in students living in their student accommodation, there should be some clause in the contracts to offer a solution that is fair to both landlord and tenant. Otherwise it's just unfair to the student who took the accommodation on the very reasonable assumption that the university would not suddenly completely close down in the middle of an academic year. A reasonable assumption, I think. A contract is indeed a contract - if the terms are fair and reasonable.

From: David Wirth 22 June 2020 10:42 AM

Surely all good landlords should provide evidence of gas safety certificates, environmental certificates, soon-to-come-in electricity safety certificates, statement of which deposit holding company the deposit will be lodged in before tenants sign on the dotted line of the tenancy agreement - it's just good practice.

From: David Wirth 19 June 2020 08:54 AM

"The highest monthly rent was for properties with four or more bedrooms". Whoever would have guessed that? Bigger properties command higher rents...…. Well, well, well. I honestly never knew that. You learn something new every day! (Was the person who wrote this sentence from the Ministry of the Bleedin' Obvious?)

From: David Wirth 18 June 2020 08:49 AM

Of course. No surprises with this news. Indeed hardly newsworthy. It's what happens when millions of people lose their jobs and have less money available. (Are Hamptons International the best company to do this research and publish their results? I thought they dealt mainly with the posh end of the housing market. You won't find them in the average High Street.)

From: David Wirth 16 June 2020 11:49 AM

You may agree or disagree - but please don't use phrases like 'absolute rubbish'. Concentrate on the argument, make the case, put forward your view - but don't resort to dismissive phrases like that. It's called respecting others' views, even if they're different from yours. It's called good manners.

From: David Wirth 15 June 2020 09:45 AM

"According to a survey by the Resolution Foundation, renters are more likely than homeowners to have fallen behind with their housing payments during the lockdown." Surprise, surprise. Because they probably don't have so much money in hand to start with - otherwise they've have become homeowners. Is this from the Ministry of the Bleeding Obvious? Who are the 'Resolution Foundation' (who it states came up with this really amazing conclusion)? Has anyone ever heard of them?

From: David Wirth 15 June 2020 08:58 AM

Who on earth are 'Boiler Plan'? Never heard of them. Are they a recognised research and public opinion company? When was this research carried out? Can the results of this research be trusted given their method used? Actually the headline claim - more people are using google ….. - is pretty obvious anyway, given that so many are self-isolating or just less willing to go to letting agents - or indeed to any shops - right now in the middle of a pandemic. All forms of internet have probably increased greatly.

From: David Wirth 11 June 2020 09:18 AM

Leek United??? Who are they? Has anyone ever heard of them? Is this an advert pretending to be an article?

From: David Wirth 08 June 2020 08:49 AM

The article states: "The Labour MP appears to be ignoring the fact that a number of buy-to-let landlords face financial hardship because of the coronavirus crisis"? But for Buy-to-Let landlords, these properties are generally their second properties (or third, fourth, etc.) in their names. So this is not what one normally calls 'hardship'. Just ask those who visit food banks, etc. what financial hardship is. Government help for those who own more than one home makes no sense at all at a time of major economic crisis.

From: David Wirth 04 June 2020 09:14 AM

Reading the article, the heading "Rental market bounces back with 22% surge in demand" should actually read "Rental market bounces back with 22% surge in online searches" - which of course is a very different matter.

From: David Wirth 03 June 2020 08:53 AM

'Goodlord' is a software company. So it's really not an appropriate company to give a statement like in the heading. If it was them, it's clear. Or to state "it’s clear that agents have gone above and beyond to ensure lettings can move ahead safely and that demand for new tenancies can be handled effectively”, as quoted in the article. Better research please, Landlord Today. Many Thanks.

From: David Wirth 03 June 2020 08:50 AM

If you stole bread for any reason, then it's theft. If you were not happy with last week's milk purchase then you speak with the shopkeeper just about that, not just steal. Solicitors always advise tenants who have a complaint against their landlord to keeping paying rent. Courts won't take kindly to them if they don't. But any complaints against landlords should still always be heard. If non-payment is due to sudden unemployment, etc., then the court will always view a landlord favourably if he/she has taken a sympathetic stance (discussion on financial circumstances, maybe an offer to defer/delay payment, maybe 50% now, 50% later) - but if the landlord's position is simply 'Every Last Penny Now', no discussion, then the court will of course note this.

From: David Wirth 01 June 2020 11:43 AM

No, it's nothing to do with whether it's a service or a physical item. If you just take something without paying, it's theft. If you break an agreement, i.e. tenancy agreement which involves an obligation to make regular payments - or any kind of signed agreement - , then it's a civil matter. No-one pays fire fighters, ambulance people, refuge collectors, nurses directly, so that's really a red herring. Of course you did not agree with your tenants that they don't have to pay. But the civil court does have to check that you've complied with the law and the agreement yourself before issuing judgement against the tenant. For example - if you've harassed them - if you've entered your rented property without your tenants' permission - if you've not repaired their loo - it's only fair the court sees the whole picture relating to the tenancy before judging. But clearly this all would not apply if stealing petrol or walking out of a supermarket without paying. That's theft plain and simple.

From: David Wirth 01 June 2020 11:14 AM

Regarding Andrew Townhend's comment i.e. 'what's the difference?' The difference is: Theft (e.g. driving away from a petrol station without paying) is a criminal offence. Plain and simple. Non-payment of rent is the breaking of a signed agreement between two parties, so it is not a criminal offence. So a civil court must rule on this. And if the landlord has kept to his/her obligations as in the signed agreement and in law (this may need to be checked) , they should always get a court ruling in their favour. And that's exactly the way it should be. Fair on both parties and fair to what they have signed up to.

From: David Wirth 01 June 2020 10:38 AM

I assume that David Crisp's comments above are not serious and that he's actually not like that ….. even if his tenants are behind on their rent. 'They have been warned'? 'Sod them.'? 'Not one penny!' Oh dear...……… Maybe it's the tenants who need warning ………... (BTW: How can the Police pay a visit? - non-payment of rent is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.)

From: David Wirth 01 June 2020 10:11 AM

Has anyone ever heard of Aldermore Bank? Is this an article or an advert for that bank?

From: David Wirth 28 May 2020 08:55 AM

Has anyone ever heard of the 'Home Buying and Selling Group' (HBSG), which is quoted so much in this article? Who are they? Who do they represent? No clue given in the article.

From: David Wirth 27 May 2020 09:17 AM

Yet the government is currently paying out unbelievably vast sums to support those without incomes and who have lost their businesses - indeed half the UK working population now relies on government payments right now - furloughing, benefits, pensions, etc. etc. With so many people not working and therefore not paying income tax, no restaurants/bar/hotels open and few shops open so little VAT coming in, there has to be a limit. So now even more payments from government are suggested? Surely landlords and tenants can sit down like sensible and mutually sympathetic grown-ups and come up with temporary solutions to rent shortfalls - which won't be ideal for them individually but which at least they can live with during this time ……..

From: David Wirth 22 May 2020 10:26 AM

"90% of landlords who received a requested a request for support from a tenant had responded positively"? Of course! - the survey was done by a landlords' association! Who wants to fill in a form or answer questions when they really cannot be proud of the answers they are giving? Also - when and how was the survey conducted? - no details given. To do real research, ask a recognised independent opinion company. (This research was a bit like asking your own children: "Were you good?") Certainly the research does not merit the wording in the title 'everything possible'. Everyone knows there are good landlords and bad landlords.

From: David Wirth 21 May 2020 09:26 AM

'There has been a significant increase in the number of rental properties hitting the market after lockdown on the sector was lifted last week.' Really?? I never would have guessed!! Bit like saying Tesco's (other supermarkets are available) sell more when they are open compared with when they are closed. Or hairdressers will take more money when they're allowed to open compared with now. Yet another example of estate/letting agents trying to 'talk up' the market. Certainly nothing to justify the 'green shoots of recovery' wording of the headline. Look forward to better research.

From: David Wirth 19 May 2020 12:23 PM

Surprise, surprise! Huge numbers of people have lost their jobs and huge numbers have no income coming in from their businesses, so rent levels fall. (Figures from the Ministry of the B ..…. Obvious?)

From: David Wirth 18 May 2020 09:58 AM

Robert (posting above) may well be right. But on the other hand, people who have lost their jobs - huge numbers - may no longer want to seek to rent property as they have no income to show. Existing renters who have lost their jobs may now have to give notice they are quitting to their landlords, as they will soon no longer be able to pay their rents, even after any rent 'holidays'. The 3 Ds - death, divorce, disease (all obviously much higher now) - may also result in current tenancies being discontinued. So there is no certainty in terms of higher rents for landlords.

From: David Wirth 14 May 2020 10:08 AM

Bit odd that your local estate and complete strangers can go inside your self-isolating elderly mother's house but you still can't. Can this be right?

From: David Wirth 13 May 2020 08:55 AM

Regarding Paul Barrett's interesting contribution above, there was an article in yesterday's times analysing the advantages and disadvantages for a company of its staff working remotely at home instead of coming into the office. A mixed blessing for the company, it concluded. Pros and cons. Worth reading. (Great for cutting the crowding in public transport, though!) I suspect most people won't move to the country for this reason. It's such a major change. (Isn't the country - however nice in the summer - really boring in the depths of winter?)

From: David Wirth 08 May 2020 11:05 AM

'People looking for homes on their websites'? Don't think so. Sandbanks is such a tiny, exclusive and ridiculously expensive area, that virtually all the people searching were just dreaming, not seriously looking. Same with Belgravia ands some others, no doubt. Wrong interpretation to those searches, so the headline is - I'm afraid - fake news.

From: David Wirth 08 May 2020 09:37 AM

Who is the 'The Guild of Property Professionals' which it says carried out this research? Has anyone heard of them? Please can we have research done by trusted and independent research companies like Gallup, etc., not those with a vested interest in the results?

From: David Wirth 07 May 2020 09:05 AM

Of course such a letter is nonsense. Every case of late payment or non-payment should be treated on its own merits in terms of the tenant. "It will be my pleasure to serve eviction notices" (above)? - did I read that correctly? Surely if one has to serve an eviction notice, one does this with a heavy heart. Maybe tenants should ask their own solicitors to write to their landlords (or letting agents) with a tear-off section asking them to confirm they will fulfil their moral obligations as landlords, virus or no virus? This is getting silly...……. (If I get on a bus and touch in my card, do I ask the driver to sign a form to state he/she will do his best to get me to my destination stop?)

From: David Wirth 06 May 2020 09:43 AM

Agreed. Rents are more likely to fall rather than rise due to so many more people who have lost jobs and have little money. (Who are 'Ome' who - the article states - made that headline claim that rents could now rise? Has anyone heard of them? What was the firm evidence they used to make their claim?)

From: David Wirth 04 May 2020 09:28 AM

A Stamp Duty holiday for second-home owners - i.e. landlords? Oh dear. Really not the best suggestion when millions of people have just lost their jobs and their shops and business are losing money. Please look at the wider picture and think again at this time of national emergency, whoever came up with that idea …... The housing market will in time revive

From: David Wirth 01 May 2020 10:16 AM

Where did that quotation in speech marks in the headline of your article come from? It is uncredited, and does not appear at all in the article itself.

From: David Wirth 30 April 2020 09:17 AM

Yes, complete hogwash indeed! The headline "Sharp Rise in Demand for ….. " is just wrong. It should read "Moderate Rise in Internet Searches for …..). But this is less sensational (was it sensational at all?) and hardly interesting or significant. A complete non-story.

From: David Wirth 24 April 2020 09:21 AM

Re: previous person's posting: ".......out on the streets in time for next winter......." - I do hope you don't mean that literally ………, - even if they are 'trying it on' (whatever that means).

From: David Wirth 22 April 2020 11:00 AM

Why would a survey conducted by an eviction specialist be considered to be objective? Or even true? Surveys should always be conducted by a specialist public opinion company such as Gallup. They are independent, have no vested interest, and know how to make their samples truly representative.

From: David Wirth 22 April 2020 09:37 AM

Maybe yes and maybe no. Who knows? Not even the experts. None of the financial experts predicted the banking crisis of 10 years ago. None of the medical experts predicted such a pandemic and its effects. Maybe by the time this is all over and the economic situation is so much worse, people just can't afford the property prices of just a few months ago, so they may fall. No-one knows.

From: David Wirth 17 April 2020 09:57 AM

It's not just the £5 billion Stamp Duty receipts that the government will lose in the lockdown ….. also VAT on payments to conveyancing solicitors, home removals companies, estate agents' fees, furniture stores, carpet/flooring stores, decorators, home improvers, etc. etc. + income tax for all their lost earnings …… it's a massive amount lost ……….

From: David Wirth 13 April 2020 09:55 AM

The examples listed are to do with finance matters, important as they are. But what about health and safety at this time? For examples, should letting agents or landlords be responsible for ensuring that visiting contractors, repairmen/women maintain the highest standards of hygiene, social distancing, hands-washing, deep-cleaning surfaces/doors/etc. they may have touched, etc. I'm afraid I have heard nothing about this aspect of Covid-19 relating to tenanted properties ……………………….

From: David Wirth 02 April 2020 09:49 AM

Not sure if the government or legislation need to be mentioned in this context. Surely individual landlords can themselves much such decisions on a case by case basis. And one hopes that they would be sympathetic to genuine cases brought to their attention. Which actually should be the case in normal times too. (Who are the 'Acorn Union' anyway? - never heard of them ……..)

From: David Wirth 17 March 2020 09:10 AM

I'm not sure if I understand what this article is getting at. "The Tories are ‘courting renters’, they are simply ignoring landlords and the need to offer them a helping hand, too". Who needs the helping hand generally at this time of housing shortage and homelessness? - the hard-pressed tenants paying very high rents generally who usually just has a year's security in the property? - or the landlords for whom the property is a second (or third etc.) home and who can always evict the tenant even within the year in case of non-payment of rent, etc. It's actually quite nice to see a Conservative government adjust the balance in favour of tenants.

From: David Wirth 18 February 2020 09:30 AM

Actually tenants can do all sorts of things in their rented properties which are illegal, and/or against the terms of their tenancy agreement. Not sure why 'cannabis farming' is picked out for special attention. ('Farming' seems quite an strong and emotive word to use - wouldn't 'growing' be a better word? (I grow tomatoes on my window-cill - I wouldn't call that tomato 'farming'.)

From: David Wirth 13 February 2020 08:57 AM

Please - as a newly elected Government - concentrate on making more property available to potential renters and buyers, reducing homelessness and making rents more affordable for ordinary people. (I can't recall that pets in rental properties was a major features of the recent Party manifestos.)

From: David Wirth 07 January 2020 09:09 AM

Your headline: Tory manifesto ‘cripples landlords’ ability. Your article does not name the person or organisation who stated the two words in speech marks.

From: David Wirth 26 November 2019 09:01 AM

Great idea. They really are an eye-sore, especially when there are multiple boards from different agents outside a property. If I wish to sell an item on gumtree, etc.,or maybe sell my car, I can't just also stick up a board outside my home to that effect. So why is it allowed with property sales? Agents sometimes have them installed outside blocks where the leases actually forbid them -they just don't bother to ask or check. And their installers often fix them by driving large nails into brickwork, damaging it. It's free advertising for those agents too. Time to ban them.

From: David Wirth 14 November 2019 09:12 AM

Not sure why this is a problem as the headline seems to suggest. As long as these rental properties are looked after and well-maintained and tenants kept happy. It's all part of freedom to trade. It's just the other side of UK citizens being able to buy property abroad. Long may these freedoms exist.

From: David Wirth 11 November 2019 09:17 AM

Shame. The government has stated: "The majority of landlords provide decent and well managed accommodation." - But where is the evidence for stating this? Do local councils routinely inspect rental properties? I believe not. Letting out a property is a huge responsibility - should absolutely anyone be able to do this without check? Landlord Today's own website regularly features stories of dreadful landlords who are taken to the courts and punished. What do landlords fear from a national register?

From: David Wirth 08 November 2019 09:16 AM

Of course letting agents must keep to the laws and regulations, and 100% insist that their clients do too. If their landlord-clients do not, they must drop these landlords-clients. Otherwise they are condoning these 'crimes'. This should also apply with agents effectively condoning landlords' demanding excessively high deposits, refusal to have EPCs, not getting annual gas safety certificates, entering their rented properties without consent of tenants, etc. etc. etc. Simple sentence: "We can no longer act as your letting agent with this tenancy."

From: David Wirth 22 October 2019 09:23 AM

'Resigned to the Rental Sector' is a surprising headline, given that in many countries such as Germany, the vast majority of people are happy to rent rather than buy - freedom from large bills in terms of major repairs, ever-increasing service charges, redecoration costs, etc. The British media feed the idea that buying a property is the thing to do, a 'step on the ladder' and a great monetary investment - when actually if property prices crash spectacularly one day, there will be big money lost by property owners, negative equity, resulting increase in evictions and homeless, etc. etc. 'Resigned to the Rental Sector' is not the greatest headline.

From: David Wirth 16 October 2019 09:22 AM

Shouldn't local council trading standards be visiting - without advance notice - all estate/lettings agencies in their areas to check that they are complying with the law in terms of displayed materials, charges, training of staff, etc. - and including interviews with just a tiny number of random tenants and landlords? Bit like an OFSTED, but of course on a far, far lesser scale? Cost to be covered by fines imposed maybe? (And not being part of a professional organisation like ARLA would be a big minus point!).

From: David Wirth 16 September 2019 08:45 AM

Yet a 'no-deal' Brexit, more possible of course under the current PM, could harm the economy so much that rental values are significantly depressed.......... Did ARLA consider this when warning about Labour?

From: David Wirth 05 September 2019 13:41 PM

The research seems only to have addressed rental values, important as this is. But isn't there so much more - e.g. legislation regarding tenancies, housing policy, even whether new tax changes are progressive or regressive - to consider, before votes are cast in a general election? Socially responsible landlords need so much more to go on before entering the voting booth.

From: David Wirth 30 August 2019 09:06 AM

Surely another criteria would be to ask to prospective letting agents whether they have 'handymen' (or 'handywomen') available to fix minor problems such as fitting a new toilet seat or a new curtain rail that really don't take much longer than a few minutes, and ask how much this would normally cost. My experience is that they sometimes charge very excessively for these very small jobs.

From: David Wirth 21 August 2019 09:09 AM

Was the smashing-up of the premises done for the TV cameras? Everyone wants their minute of fame?

From: David Wirth 23 July 2019 08:58 AM

A binary YES / NO questionnaire about whether rents controls work? With no other questions (e.g. what kind of rent controls?) or space for nuanced comments? Sorry, but my vote is that this questionnaire does not work. (Unless you're trying to encourage your responders to vote NO...... but Heaven forbid..........) A more socially responsible questionnaire would be to ask landlords for their ideas on how to make rents more affordable for potential tenants and solve the housing crisis .................... This would be an ideal time, with a new PM about to enter no. 10.

From: David Wirth 22 July 2019 08:52 AM

I wonder why HMRC does not contact letting agents to obtain details of all their client landlords ........ They should have the right to do so. (Of course not all landlords use letting agents.)

From: David Wirth 08 July 2019 09:11 AM

Tax 'Bomb-Shell'? Can we use less emotive language please in your reporting? (Especially in your headlines......) Many Thanks.

From: David Wirth 05 June 2019 09:27 AM

Never understood why Lettings Agents have imposed fees on tenants. They get paid by their clients the landlords, after all. Which should cover their time in dealing with tenants plus give them profit. (After all, estate agents do not charge buyers of properties for their time in dealing with them, just their clients the sellers.)

From: David Wirth 29 May 2019 09:12 AM

Why do you describe this as 'shocking statistics'? The question was ' ...... will consider selling up', not '...... will sell up' - two very different things. Please do not over-dramatise. A survey conducted by 'Landlord Action' (who are 'Landlord Action'?) will hardly be objective and independent. Leave Gallup or another similar company to do your research.

From: David Wirth 20 May 2019 09:01 AM

The planned change seems fair. Why should a landlord retain the power to evict a tenant who keeps to the terms of the tenancy agreement. The tenanted property may mean cash for the landlord, but it's a stable roof over the heads for tenants, who will have built up local contacts, etc., maybe even local schools for their kids. I understand that landlord wills retain the right to serve eviction notices if the tenants break the terms of the tenancy agreement, if they wish to sell the property, or if they themselves wish to move into their property - so the proposed change result in a good balanced situation of fairness now. Everyone should be happy,

From: David Wirth 30 April 2019 09:09 AM

Shouldn't the requirement to inform landlords when they switch suppliers be written into tenancy agreements? (Maybe the fact that tenants do not always inform landlords is why some landlords in the end do not allow them to switch. I know from experience that it can be very difficult to find out which company is the supplier if the tenants had not informed the landlord of their switch.)

From: David Wirth 24 April 2019 09:22 AM

Just like landlords must by law obtain annual gas safety certificates, comply with Health and Safety regulations, etc., so they should check passports of prospective tenants. I have never found a problem with this - it takes just a few moments. Landlords are not thereby acting as 'border checks'- they are just ensuring that the person(s) intending to live in their property actually has the right to live in the country - as an employers would, a school, a GP practice, etc. If landlords refuse to let to someone with a foreign accent because of the passport issue, they are guilty of discrimination. Hopefully we all have a part in ensuring that the law is being upheld.

From: David Wirth 18 December 2018 08:59 AM

"Stop taxing professional landlords out of the market"? Who then should be taxed more, in that case? Those who cannot afford to buy any home at all? And of course many landlords buy their homes to let out without any mortgage or loan. to pay back. With property prices generally increasing way ahead of inflation over the long term, landlords will all win, of course. Sorry, but a progressive tax scheme demands that those with the biggest shoulders should bear the greatest burden. It's called 'fair'. I say that as a landlord myself. It's a complete privilege to be able to own more than one home.

From: David Wirth 07 December 2018 08:52 AM

Shouldn't the facts of this case be established before this is made a headline story? (At the moment it's all 'apparently', 'they claim', etc. ) And the protesters should hold off for the moment. (Strange though that landlords can legally discriminate against smokers, pet-owners, students, social security claimants, etc. etc.)

From: David Wirth 15 October 2018 09:01 AM

I had assumed 'Landlord Today' was non-political, but your choice of headline including the word 'Hell-Bent' (a quote by someone no-one has heard of and who clearly would not be an independent commentator) suggests otherwise. Can headlines please be more non-political and balanced? One might say that the socially responsible landlord would not want the right to evict tenants without reason. Leave politics to the political commentators.

From: David Wirth 26 September 2018 09:07 AM

In what way does a landlord or letting agent checking the immigration status of prospective new tenants create a 'hostile environment', especially when such checks are done on all new tenants? Does a ticket inspector on a train or bus create a hostile environment? Or a school making checks on all new pupils or a GP Practice checking on all prospective new patients? Or banks checking on those applying to open accounts? Or stores asking to verify ages of customers wanting to buy age-restricted products? Sorry landlords and letting agents, you have to play your part.

From: David Wirth 05 June 2018 08:49 AM

Given that many letting agents charge around 15% + VAT just for being the 'middle-man' in passing on rent and charging landlords excessive amounts for occasional repair and maintenance items - plus their additional 'fees' (I've heard of agents charging £100 per hour waiting time while a tradesman visits to repair something!) - , I'm not sure why any landlord would employ an agent. Internet means that landlords even can manage their properties from abroad. I used to have to sort out problems with agents I was engaging, rather than problems with tenants. Now happy to manage my properties myself.

From: David Wirth 14 December 2016 09:03 AM

Obviously many landlords must be demanding rent which is too high for the prevailing local market. As simple as that. Lower the rent to what tenants are actually willing to pay and the void period vanishes. (So obvious - am I missing something?) It's called supply and demand.

From: David Wirth 30 November 2016 09:15 AM

Given that - according to your article - a third of landlords state they intend to put up rents because of the recent change and 40% state they will not, the headline 'Landlords Likely to Increase Rents' is simply wrong and misleading. The experience of Scotland - which banned tenants' fee some time ago - suggests most will not put up rents. I suspect a significant number of landlords will simply cut out the middle-men that are the lettings agents with their ridiculous fees and deal with their properties themselves - it's easy. When I used to use agents myself, I tended to have many more problems with the agents and their management of my properties than with the tenants themselves!

From: David Wirth 29 November 2016 09:09 AM

Absolutely correct decision by the Chancellor that tenants' fee should be scrapped. As the client of the lettings agent, the client must pay the agents' fees. Also the basis of a fair society must always be that those with the broadest shoulders - i.e. those with properties to spare and let out - must bear the greatest burden. To the landlord and lettings agent the property is a cash cow; to the tenant it is the very roof above their head. The agent should be happy with the fee agreed with the landlord, end of story. This has to cover admin. costs, tenancy agreement costs, etc. etc. etc. - it always does, with plenty left over for the agent as his/her profit. The tenant should only be liable for the agreed rent and agreed deposit. Let the market determine what rents landlords wish to charge - as has always been the case. Simple, really. And fair. (Do shops charge fees for selling their goods and services to their customers? - don't think so.)

From: David Wirth 23 November 2016 16:16 PM

Bad news for the tenants in North Somerset who now have no safeguards against slum properties. Good landlords would of course have had nothing to fear.

From: David Wirth 22 August 2016 15:33 PM

Quote from article: "However, if the right to freedom of movement within the EU is curtailed during the exit negotiations, then landlords may have no other option than to end tenancies rather than facing fines and even jail time if they let property to someone without the legal right to remain in the UK". This is just scare-mongering. No-one is remotely suggesting that EU nationals already in the UK will have to leave before the UK is out of the EU - or even afterwards. It's just that after this time there may then be less freedom of movement into the UK. Why on earth should a landlord end an existing tenancy??

From: David Wirth 11 August 2016 09:17 AM

Of course landlords should pay this Capital Gains Tax as George Osborn has brought it in. "Those with the broadest shoulders should carry the greatest burden". The economy is going through difficult times, especially with Brexit. Landlords and others with money and investments should be paying their fair contribution at this time. Those landlords who complain should suggest where else the money should come from to try to balance the books. Time to fall silent and pay.

From: David Wirth 04 July 2016 09:14 AM

It seems that some landlords are objecting to the increase in stamp duty for second homes by stating it may increase the housing shortage (no evidence). Of course the real reason they are objecting is that they just don't want to pay more tax. But even the Conservatives are stating that 'those with the broadest shoulders should pay more tax' - we landlords are the richest and most privileged and of course during hard times we should pay more. Ditto the abolition of the 10% wear and tear allowance - how many employers would allow their employees to claim expenses when these may not actually have been incurred? As a landlord I will be course be worse off, but recognise these changes are just and progressive ones. Let's now be honest and not selfish.

From: David Wirth 01 December 2015 08:42 AM

Of course landlords of furnished properties should not have an automatic 10% wear and tear allowance which does not reflect any specific expenses they've made. They are in the privileged of owning second (and often more) homes. This is a tax perk which past labour and conservative governments should have got rid of years ago. This is a good and progressive tax change. (Of course landlords will not welcome it, but those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden.)

From: David Wirth 14 August 2015 12:36 PM

I'm surprised that 46% of tenants who did not attend check-out claim they did not know of the time and date of this. Surely a landlord should not just be stating a date and time for the check-out - they should be agreeing a date and time with the tenant. (It would also be helpful to inform the tenants in advance that all drawers and windows will be opened and closed, all smoke alarms tested, all lights turned on and off, etc. etc. so they are not overly offended when this happens. And indicate in advance that there will be a cost applied for any non-working bulbs, smoke alarm batteries, etc. which may include a notional figure for going out to purchase these.)

From: David Wirth 29 July 2015 09:05 AM

Breaking News