x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button
Paul Barrett
Paul Barrett
9336  Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Paul's Recent Activity

Paul Barrett
Housing Hand is completely INCORRECT. Govt fully expects the PRS to subsidise feckless tenant lifestyles. It knows it will be years before most evictions are carried out. It simply DOESN'T care if this bankrupts LL. It is Govt policy to get rid of LL. Therefore Govt will ponce of LL facilities for as long as they can force LL to do so. They know that LL will do their best to use whatever resources they can to keep their properties going despite not receiving any rent for years. If eventually a LL gives up then for Govt that is success.............one more LL got rid off. Helping Hand is being incredibly naive if it believes the UK Govt will do anything to assist English LL to receive rent. Of course Helping Hand is totally correct in their assertion that tenants should receive Govt loans to pay their rent......................will NEVER happen!! The longer Govt can keep tenants poncing off LL the more money Govt saves in TA costs. Govt knows it WON'T suffer electorally if it keeps on hitting LL. English LL in particular must be aware that they will receive NO assistance from the UK Govt and plan accordingly. For many it means selling up as AST tenants are no longer worthwhile. But that is not so easy to achieve if the tenant refuses to vacate. Many LL are in a death spiral as when they run out of resources to subsidise the feckless rent defaulting tenants they will be truly stuffed. Many LL can only remain to be impoverished by their feckless tenants. Govt WON'T even make it possible to sell up. They will make sure the feckless tenants are able to ponce of the LL until eventually the LL achieves repossession. Govt has always facilitated tenants poncing off LL to the tune of about £9 billion every year courtesy of the dysfunctional repossession and Civil Recovery processes. Except now tenants will be poncing off LL for even longer. AST letting has really had its day especially for leveraged LL. If a LL can't easily recover a rental property from a feckless rent defaulting tenant then there really is no point remaining an AST LL. We have effectively returned to the sitting tenant days

From: Paul Barrett 29 September 2020 04:56 AM

Paul Barrett
@seb forbes Fortunately I am far from foolish and am able to source full rent paying occupants. However I accept that potentially new occupants could well stop paying rent. So currently I consider I am living a charmed life. I intend to ensure that my circumstances remain charmed. This I can only realistically achieve by selling up and investing in different types of residential accommodation. This will result in my occupants being made homeless unless I am able to achieve full retail price whilst they are still in occupation. The issues that have arisen for the PRS must be giving many LL pause for thought as to how or whether they intend to continue. I hope that the PRS substantially shrinks to be a less leveraged but higher charging industry This means millions of homeless tenants but quite frankly I simply don't care about the plight of tenants. Govt is bullying LL to leave the sector so it is they that will be causing a reduction in private rental stock. Like many LL we are if we wish perfectly able to achieve the same if not more returns by reducing our assets. So fewer properties but better income. LL will be victims of this Govt bullying but it is tenants that will be the far bigger victims of such bullying. The only issue is very few dopey tenants will realise or appreciate that Govt efforts to eradicate LL directly impact on them resulting in them struggling to source appropriate rental accommodation. Personally I care nothing for the plight of tenants. It is not my fault that Govt is attempting to put me out of business. But one thing I will be sure of and that is my income will not suffer. It will just come to me by different strategies. There is more to the PRS than being an AST LL.

From: Paul Barrett 26 September 2020 16:40 PM

Paul Barrett
@seb forbes Most LL understand the concept of risk. Every other business in the UK is permitted to withdraw their services from consumers. This is NOT the case with LL who are legally compelled to provide services for free. This cannot be right. The fact that a LL being able to stop immediately providing a service if not paid renders the consumer homeless is no responsibility of LL. If someone is starving and can't afford to buy food from a supermarket the supermarket is NOT legally obligated to provide free food. Currently the risk to LL of being unable to remove rent defaulting tenants is inordinate. This is hardly a fair risk though of course it is now a risk that LL must be cognisant of. The logical outcome for many LL would be to de-risk. Selling up or delveraging is a logical response to the increased risk of not being able to get rid of rent defaulting tenants in a timely fashion. LL won't be suffering losses in selling up. Prices won't be reducing by 20%. If anything prices are slightly increasing. So LL can still sell up. Yes there would be a CGT bill to pay. In light of what will surely be increased CGT bills it might be worthwhile LL selling some properties and increasing their financial resilience. It makes financial sense for LL to reduce the numbers of highly leveraged properties. This I intend to do. I consider the industry standard of 75% LTV far too high. 50% LTV should be the maximum allowed for BTL. Or rather BTL should be based on what could be funded by HB. That might reduce leverage to 30% LTV. No bad thing in my book. It would of course be devastating for tenants who would see massive reductions in rental stock availability. That would just be TOUGH. LL only have a duty for themselves to financially survive. If that causes tenant homelessness then that is of no concern or responsibility of LL

From: Paul Barrett 25 September 2020 16:26 PM

Paul Barrett
@markwilson Yet again you have to be taken to task about your stupid comments. You must stop referring to LL as speculators. LL are business investors mostly for the long term but that would be irrelevant. LL are business investors like anyone else who chooses to invest in a business. Most such business investors use leverage to start their business. Very few businesses are able to grow from the start without leverage assistance. LL are no different. Most business investors are termed as entrepreneurs and as such it is perfectly reasonable to describe LL as such. Knowing your weird left- wing views you would probably describe entrepreneurs as speculators. That would just confirm your weird perspective on anyone who strives to succeed in business. You seem to have a weird idea that society will be able to control a private LL property. This will never happen directly though of course the ridiculously lengthy repossession process and the current eviction ban very effectively gives control to Govt of the LL private property assets. That will only be a temporary phenomenon. Relatively normal service will eventually resume. The small LL will continue though certainly not in the current numbers. Leveraged LL in particular are extremely vulnerable to the dysfunctional eviction process. So it will be these issues that cause a reduction in the numbers of small LL. There will NEVER be a situation where the Govt will be able to force LL to accept UC tenants at the outset of a tenancy. LL of course are not permitted to discriminate anyone who has 'protected characteristics' Currently ANY tenant who relies in full or in part on HB is NOT included within those protected characteristics. The fact that there are many tenants reliant on HB is irrelevant as far as a LL is concerned. If that means those tenants are rejected by LL who prefer not to take on UC tenants that is their choice. No particular tenant has the right to utilise private assets if the owner doesn't wish to let them. The domestic status of any particular tenant is IRRELEVANT. It is not the fault of any LL if certain tenants are reliant on welfare. In a free society which is what our one purports to be private assets are still able to be controlled by the owner. Govt clearly intends to make things even more difficult for small LL. That is their political prerogative. However don't underestimate the tenacity of the small LL. For the little man property still remains in their investor timeline a superior investment than other forms of business investment. It will take even more extreme actions to force the small LL out of business. So your desire to see the end of small LL I suggest will be frustrated by the determination of small LL to remain in business. They will never be forced to take on UC tenants against their will. Govt could never try to impose this as it would be against the HR of LL to force them into contracts they didn't wish to enter. Essentially such tenant types will never be permitted to control the private assets of those who don't wish to let to them. If that day ever occurred Communism would have arrived. I know in your deluded world that is something you would welcome but the vast majority of the UK population do not want Communism as a societal model. Until that very unfortunate day if it ever arrives private citizens like LL will be able to let their private assets to whom they so choose irrespective of the domestic effects on such applicants etc. However I do agree with you that the direction of travel is certainly moving towards effective sequestration of private property. As such small LL in particular will need to take view on whether private letting is a viable business model anymore. This in fact was the case about 45 years ago. It certainly ISN'T impossible that the PRS could return to those bad old days. You may be delighted by such a prospect but I can assure you that millions of tenants would not thank you at all as millions of rental properties are sold meaning a total loss of that stock to existing and future tenants. Don't imagine for one moment that such sold ofc stock would be bought by FTB or tenants. Those buyers could buy now but for various reasons don't. Supply isn't an issue. Affordability is. LL won't be selling off cheap. They like me will sell for full retail price. There are already signs that many LL of the smaller variety are indeed progressively selling off. This does not auger well for tenants who need an increasing not reducing rental supply to keep rents lower. Your weird enthusiasm for fewer small LL will result in ever increasing rents. Few tenants will thank you for the results of your weird ideological stance.

From: Paul Barrett 20 September 2020 19:53 PM

Paul Barrett
Unfortunately Andrew you couldn't be more wrong. S24 states exactly the opposite to what you have stated. Of course what you states makes complete sense. Unfortunately for mortgaged sole trader LL S24 is COMPLETELY NONSENSICAL!!!! But that won't stop HMRC demanding S24 taxes. Where LL are supposed to find the monies needed beats me? Get down the garden centre they might be selling magic money tress!! So according to the BBC only LL were able to avail themselves of and I quote 'GENEROUS TAX RELIEFS'; as opposed to EVERY other business in the UK that is allowed to offset finance costs against income to hopefully produce a profit to tax!! S24 requires no profit. But it does require tax to be paid on fictitious income. Perhaps mortgaged sole trader LL will at last realise how ludicrous is their position. By their actions Govt prevents tenants from being evicted. LL need rent but can't evict to source rent paying tenants. How pray tell are such LL supposed to pay such S24 taxes!!!!!????? NOBODY especially the useless NRLA has even mentioned this ridiculous situation. HMRC will find that many LL cease trading having sold off their properties. They will put their own home in another name. They will hide any cash proceeds and they won't be paying any S24 taxes. HMRC can bankrupt the LL. In about 1 year the former LL now potless ..................allegedly will be discharged. So Govt loses out on S24 taxes. You really couldn't make all this up but this is the reality. I pointed this out 5 years ago. What I stated then has now come to pass. Haven't seen any signs of Govt logically abolishing S24. Of Govt won't because S24 is a principal tool to eradicate mortgaged sole trader LL. I'd say Govt is well on it's way to succeeding. The eviction ban just hastens LL destruction. Welcome to the brave new world of the PRS. Please let there be some numpty newbie LL that I can flog my properties to. You are welcome to the brave new PRS.........NOT!!!

From: Paul Barrett 18 September 2020 23:32 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 18 September 2020 12:08 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 17 September 2020 11:00 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 15 September 2020 13:58 PM

Paul Barrett
I'm afraid yet again LL commenting DON'T seem to appreciate that the UK/English Govt seeks the destruction of private LL especially those with mortgages and trading in their own name. That was why S24 was introduced. There is simply no way that the UK Govt will support LL in anyway that will prevent them from being forced to sell up or be bankrupted. CV 19 is for Govt a further policy like S24 to get rid of more LL. Why would any LL imagine that Govt will do anything to assist such LL to prevent their eradication!? There are some seriously deluded LL out there. Of course all LL are totally correct that there should be such Govt assistance but I can assure you all it won't be happening anytime soon. It seems to me that many LL seem to imagine that they are wanted by Govt. Surely LL must by now realise Govt wants you gone. They are hardly going to help you to stay!!! The calculated risk of BTL has fundamentally changed because of making repossession even more protracted. The costs and reserves involved effectively render the BTL business model unviable unless possible to obtain RGI on the tenants or a guarantor. Finding tenants or guarantors that can qualify for RGI are as rare as hen's teeth. Without RGI a LL faces massive losses that they would need to finance. Few would have sufficient reserves to achieve this. You'd need about £30000 and that would be lost never to be recovered. All caused by one feckless rent defaulting tenant. It just isn't worth doing BTL as long as rent defaulting tenants can't be got rid of easily.

From: Paul Barrett 14 September 2020 17:27 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 12 September 2020 16:33 PM

Paul Barrett
I do consider and essentially agree with you that the calculated risk is now far too risky even with exceptional yields. If a LL cannot obtain RGI then the reserves required to cover for just ONE feckless rent defaulting tenant are massive when you you consider it could easily be 2 years before a tenant could be evicted. It is because of the current and probably future inability to get rid of rent defaulting tenants that cause me to decide to eventually leave the AST PRS. I simply do not have the enormous reserves that would be required to manage the outrageous Govt actions on preventing eviction. Only by a whisker have I not been bankrupted by these outrageous Govt policies. For me no amount of yield would ensure my survival in the event of rent defaulting tenants none of whom apart from one have I ever been able to achieve RGI on. The calculated risk goalposts have changed and I have determined the risk is simply too much to bear. This is nothing to do with the intrinsic viability of the business model. It is simply by Govt preventing evictions renders the business model unviable. There are other adjustments to the repossession process coming soon which make the situation even more difficult. Not being able to have a quick chance of replacing a rent defaulting tenant with a rent paying one renders the whole BTL business model unviable. It was bad enough before when my 5 evictions took an average of 10 months to achieve but now it is simply ridiculous. So I do contend that in light of all these circumstances the leveraged rental business model is very risky unless you have very deep pockets to cope with the even more dysfunctional eviction process. Those who do not have substantial reserves to cope with the dysfunctional eviction process quite frankly shouldn't be investing via BTL. LL have to get tenant selection correct EVERYTIME!! When NOT if it goes wrong they will be faced with massive costs if RGI is unachievable. So I believe as you suggest that the leveraged letting business model is now too risky for any reasonable calculation to be made.

From: Paul Barrett 10 September 2020 14:00 PM

Paul Barrett
I suggest that the eviction ban may well be ended in September. But what Govt will do is bake in the 6 month notice. So from Sept 20th 6 months notice will be required. It could easily take a year from the expiry of the 6 month notice to achieve eviction. 17 months!! I wonder how many LL could support mortgages for that long with no rent coming in? Of course as we all know rarely is a property ready to rent the day after a tenant has eventually been evicted. You could easily add on another 3 months before the property is ready and new tenants sourced. So 20 months!!!!! Govt won't need to have a formal eviction ban in place just needs to impose 6 months notice. Of course as this all plays out we will be nearing abolishment of the AST and S21. Wonder what happens if S21 is abolished and a S21 eviction hasn't been achieved yet!!!?? DOESN'T bear thinking about. Think about this to a large extent RENT has been paid courtesy of furloughed wages. When redundancy occurs many LL will be facing issues with tenants who won't be able to pay rent and will need UC. We all know how long that takes to sort. Can you imagine millions of new claimants. The UC process is dysfunctional at the best of times. Add a million or so new claimants; it will be months before LL know even whether a UC claim for much lower rent has even been successful. I believe if Govt ISN'T going to assist tenants to pay their rent arrears then Govt really needs to impose compulsory forbearance on lenders for mortgaged LL suffering from rent defaulting tenants. To have NO effect on the LL credit status at all.

From: Paul Barrett 04 September 2020 17:49 PM

Paul Barrett
@andrewtownshend Yep I get the revenge aspect. But knowing how ineffective even a CCJ is I doubt I would bother with a CCJ. To me it would just nean even more costs that a rent defaulting tenant has caused me Indeed I haven't bothered with a CCJ for 2 months of arrears for a now vacated tenant. Firstly I would need to trace him which costs a lot. I am not prepared to waste more resources on him. Frederico Dias a former and possibly now a working Ryanair pilot. Owes me over £2500. Promised he'd pay me like they all do; but of course one small payment then he stopped. My losses are just part of the £9 billion in losses that are mostly caused by rent defaulting tenants every year. I consider letting to tenants is no longer a viable business model if one has a BTL mortgage. Unencumbered LL obviously are more resilient to feckless tenants. BTL LL are very vulnerable to feckless tenants. A risk I am no longer prepared to tolerate. A shame for tenants as my selling up will remove more rental properties from availability. But there we are failures of Govt to enable LL to quickly repossess in event in particular of rent defaulting makes the business model no longer viable for me as an encumbered LL. I accept that there is little I can do about this. However I have to say I am really not that bothered about effectively being forced out of business by ridiculous Govt policies I will convert my capital into one hoped for 4 bed resi property which will be my technical PPR home. Need to investigate how PD rights might be used to increase the size of say a 3 bed property.. The prices of 4 bed properties in the areas I desire I believe are out of reach for me. But certainly if unable to source a suitable property I will have to consider less suitable areas. But I have noticed that there are too many properties; rooms for rent. There is a massive supply over demand. This makes sourcing lodgers not an easy thing. When furloughing ends I believe there will be a massive shrinkage in demand. Even selling is difficult as there are too many properties for sale and again not enough demand from those that can afford them. All very gloomy!

From: Paul Barrett 02 September 2020 22:57 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 01 September 2020 18:21 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 31 August 2020 23:04 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 30 August 2020 10:25 AM

Paul Barrett
@stevenmills There will not be millions of homeless tenants. It will take at least 2 years to evict. During that time HB will be claimed. Many LL could survive on LHA rent. It will take a long time for LL to be able to repossess. By then quite a few tenants will have been able to catch up on arrears etc to the point that many LL will cancel the repossession process. I'm afraid your delight that things might be calamitous for LL is just rubbish. There will be no reset etc. Property prices will continue to increase. Property is still the best investment even in turbulent times. Anyone investing has a long term view. 20 years or more. This is a short term blip. Nothing in the overall scheme of things. The simple facts are that there is still too much demand for the limited available stock. So no bubbles bursting anytime soon. Govt cannot afford a property crash. Property is what politically gives the semblance of a successful economy. Govt won't wish to compromise this market. So IR will remain low for decades. What pragmatic LL will do though is to reduce their exposure to leverage or substantially reduce it to become far more resilient to feckless rent defaulting tenants. But there will not be instant evictions. This is the vile propaganda disseminated by the likes of Shelter and GR who refuse to state actually how long it takes to achieve repossession of a rental property. What will happen though is LL will start to reduce the numbers of properties they have so that they can afford rent defaulting tenants. HB should always be achievable though. Many tenants will have to move to cheaper areas. But the rental sector will still prosper as there will be tenants who can afford market rents.

From: Paul Barrett 28 August 2020 06:34 AM

Paul Barrett
If repossession is successful there will be other rent paying tenants. Just because some can't or won't afford the rent DOESN'T mean others won't. There may be 4 million unemployed soon. It will take about 2 years for LL to repossess. In the meantime tenants will apply for HB. That will reduce the rent debt somewhat. LL will at least receive HB which is better than nothing. Who knows by the time eviction is to occur the tenant might have recovered things to the point that the LL DOESN'T bother repossessing. LL might not receive market rents but most will receive HB. LL will still be able to let their properties. Maybe not for the rent they have been achieving. But anything is better than nothing!! There will be no bubbles popping. Rental property is still in much demand. If many properties are repossessed by lenders they will simply let out. This is what lenders did in the 90's. So no empty or squatted or burnt out properties. Squatting in residential properties is now a criminal offence for which you can be arrested. There will be difficult times for all but nothing like you have quoted. In fact things won't be anything like you have mentioned. By the way the only way to reduce the bubble is to find and deport the 2 million illegal immigrants. Start building millions of houses. Stop all immigration apart from students and those with skills that are needed. That way demand will be reduced and supply increased. Then eventually an equilibrium will be reached. That will take about 10 years

From: Paul Barrett 28 August 2020 03:06 AM

Paul Barrett
It would be useful in this debate to look across the Irish Sea to assess what is happening in the Irish PRS. Currently there is a housing crisis mostly caused by the Irish version of S24 introduced several years ago and now being abolished. This resulted in many LL selling up. So as can be seen the impact of bonkers attacks on LL just results in fewer properties being available for tenants. Paying rent DOESN'T prevent tenants from buying. It is their inability to save a deposit and to earn sufficient income. To meet lender requirements. The inference never overtly mentioned is that if there were fewer rental properties that magically tenants etc would be able to afford them! This shows extreme naivety on the part of those that believe this. For such properties to become affordable property prices would need to reduce by 50%. If that occurred it would lead to economic collapse in the UK. I'm afraid like it or not the economy depends on residential property values. No way would banks lend if properties reduced by 50%. Most of them would cease lending if they haven't been bankrupted. Those who wish to buy can still do so. But they need to choose cheaper areas. If the 10 million immigrants that have arrived in the past 10 years were deported magically there would be millions of available properties. It is MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION that is to blame for the woes of GR etc. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to build sufficient properties to meet the demands of the existing population and immigrants. Controlling immigration would alleviate the pressure on the housing market. It is most GR that advocates mass immigration. Then they wonder why property is expensive and scarce? Talk about thick or what!

From: Paul Barrett 26 August 2020 19:24 PM

Paul Barrett
@robertbrown Yep I'm not after any sympathy I am fully prepared to be involved in the cut and thrust of the PRS. But if I am very effectively prevented by Govt from operating my business then it isn't really a level playing field anymore. Inability to get rid of rent defaulting tenants is the biggest issue for leveraged LL. It undermines the very concept of BTL. If I was able to get rid of rent defaulting tenants quickly and then was subsequently unable to source new tenants well that would be my lookout. That would be an acceptable business risk as far as I was concerned. I'm not asking for any Govt subsidy just the chance to operate my business. The risk of not being able to get rid of rent defaulting tenants just makes the whole business proposition unviable. Of course if it ever came to such unviability due to 4 rent defaulting tenants I guess I could auction all 4 properties off. I would no doubt receive sufficient to repay mortgages but unlikely to receive any of my invested capital back. Yes this could easily happen to me and many other LL if we cannot remove rent defaulting tenants quickly to give us a chance to source suitable rent paying tenants. For me to support 4 mortgages in the absence of any rent is unviable. I could probably just about manage if I had one property. It is therefore my aspiration and intention to achieve such. Personally I consider this is highly unlikely to be achieved. I consider I will be actually very lucky to get out of AST lettings with my original capital preserved. I fear this will not be the case. The eviction ban has revealed to me how precarious things are for leveraged LL. I'm sure there must be some LL out there who like me have multiple leveraged properties that aren't receiving any rent. That isn't me .......yet but I do wonder how these affected LL are managing. Do they have magic money trees!? Cos I DON'T!

From: Paul Barrett 26 August 2020 16:35 PM

Paul Barrett
Has it not occurred to many LL that Govt seeks your eradication!? You really need to get with the programme. The Govt wants you GONE. It is not the slightest bit interested in your financial woes. Sad to say but Govt is using CV19 as a further opportunity to get rid of LL. LL need to get real. Perhaps time to sell up unless you can afford subsidise feckless tenants for possibly years. This is my advice to LL. Get rid of rent defaulting AST tenants by whatever means. Then take on single unrelated lodgers. DON'T bother advising a BTL lender as it will be breach of lending conditions. But no way will a lender find out. Stay at least once per month in your home as far as the lodgers are concerned. No problems in removing rent defaulting lodgers. Do not use AST anymore Do not let to DSS even as lodgers. Do NOT let to more than 4 UNRELATED occupiers otherwise you will need to comply with MANDATORY HMO LICENCING There are plenty of desperate unrelated single occupiers looking for shared accommodation. Forget single household AST. The only way to attain control is via lodgers or to become unencumbered to avoid lender repossession. FHL is another avenue. Nothing to stop multiple occupiers called Smith. Perfectly possible for multiple Smiths to occupy a FHL for years! There are ways and ways. Personally I would have no problem signing up to a FHL contract every month. Rent the same as an AST. Be interesting to see how many LL would be able to convert from BTL to FHL mortgages But LL be under NO illusion Govt will NOT assist you at all. Make your plans accordingly

From: Paul Barrett 24 August 2020 23:00 PM

Paul Barrett
@robertbrown Yep clearly you are in a very good place as you you have arranged things much as I would ideally do. But the vast majority of little LL with BTL mortgages do not have the same resilience as you. The prevailing lender criteria is clearly and has been too high. In hindsight I suggest gearing should be no more than LHA can afford including other costs. This would have the effect of reducing gearing to levels you have achieved. Of course if this was a required lender criteria very few could afford to be BTL LL due to the required large deposits. I believe this would be an excellent criteria which would decimate rental stock and leave millions homeless which would be great news. Govt achieves it's objective of removing vast numbers of mortgaged LL from the PRS and remaining newly unencumbered LL find their properties much in demand with higher rents easily achievable. Unless properties are being retained for legacy purposes then it makes sense to take a current CGT hit now as it will definitely be increasing. There is no way that future yields will ever match the increased CGT rates. Of course if you consider nothing is to happen to CGT then maintaining the status quo would make sense. I consider that CGT is going to be massively increased on 2nd properties. I know therefore that I would if you will be panicked into selling properties at current CGT rates My pessimism about all things PRS has always been proven correct. Not that I take any comfort from that. But the threats to mortgaged LL are simply too high to remain mortgaged. Reducing to unencumbered status remains for most LL the best method to ensure financial resilience in the face of feckless rent defaulting tenants along with the increasing difficulty in getting rid of them.

From: Paul Barrett 22 August 2020 02:05 AM

Paul Barrett
I'm not sure why it is the case but as far as I am sure the UK seems to have extremely onerous eviction regulations. These facilitate occupancy by rent defaulting tenants. This cannot be an acceptable situation. Why this remains the case I can't imagine. I could conjecture that it avoids Councils becoming involved as they know it could easily take a year to evict. But I'm sure when the eviction regulations were devised it was never intended to take many months to a year to achieve. But things are as they and for all practical purposes repossession won't be achieved for at least 1 year minimum. How this is viable for mortgaged LL beats me. I know I'd be bankrupted as I don't have a magic money tree! It seems very strange they have done this but in a totally unexpected burst of pragmatism the Welsh Govt is now offering loans for tenants to pay rent while at the same time banning eviction for further months. Now I contend that the Welsh Govt is so naive that they seriously expect tenants to take up their offer. Tenants aren't that stupid. They know they can evade paying any rent at all. Civil Recovery is all but impossible. If I was a rent defaulting tenant NO way would I take a Govt loan to pay my rent. I know it would be highly unlikely for a LL to attempt Civil Recovery and I know how difficult it is to achieve. So I know I could evade rent and wait to be evicted. This just proves how naive Govt is especially the dopey Welsh one. Good intentions maybe but completely naive. Tenants should have been avoided with rent paid directly to LL and tenants billed for it. Then the Welsh Govt can attempt Civil Recovery when everyone defaults on repaying the Welsh Govt for their assistance!!

From: Paul Barrett 19 August 2020 23:04 PM

Paul Barrett
I believe that BTL LL are finally realising the BTL business model is extremely vulnerable to feckless tenants. In theory it works great. But stops being so when you have rent defaulting tenants. It was bad enough before the CV19 thing but now with Govt assistance the already dysfunctional eviction system has been made worse. It really does come to the point of why bother being a BTL LL if your clients rob you of rent money? Repossession of rental property is being made impossibly difficult. Problem is the Govt has no intention of assisting LL in any way. It's ideological stance is to get rid LL. It is hardly going to do anything that would assist LL to stay in business. Govt looks upon these issues as an additional way to get rid of some more LL. I'm afraid LL must accept that they are on their own and if they cannot or are not prepared to subsidise feckless tenants then they need to stop being LL. This is what Govt is hoping for. Quite frankly the market needs to massively shrink. There are simply too many rental properties available depressing rent. This has been highlighted by the return of many properties to the long term lettings market. Previously such properties were being used for short-term lettings. Well that particular market has disappeared. Many LL adopted a short-term letting strategy as a way to afford S24 taxes. Returning to long term lettings doesn't really assist the S24 problem. I'm afraid like it or not it makes sense for many LL to sell up. You could say that Govt is taking advantage of prevailing circumstances to further get rid of more LL. Govt has obviously been greatly assisted by CV19 but there is no way Govt will lose this opportunity to further eradicate even more LL. There isn't much LL can do as Govt is nit interested in the woes of private LL. It seeks to use and abuse LL which you have to say they are being very successful at. The striking difference between a Socialist Spanish Govt and a British Tory one is quite overwhelming. The Spanish Govt is supporting private LL by ensuring they are being paid their contractual rent if tenants can't or won't pay. Here in the UK Govt suggests LL have conversations with their tenants to address arrears!!!! Then they have the cheek to prevent LL from getting rid of rent defaulting tenants!! For me the game us up on BTL. You need very deep pockets to risk being a BTL LL. My pockets are very shallow! I intend to not be a LL ASAP! It is the only way I can avoid being robbed by feckless tenabts.

From: Paul Barrett 19 August 2020 12:23 PM

Paul Barrett
When yo say Banning HMOs Do you mean only those subject to Mandatory HMO Licensing? Rent capping obviously wouldn't work as LL are rentiers seeking profit. They won't bother if their income possibilities are restricted. If you did ban 5 occupier or more HMOs where would they live? I understand your sentiments but perhaps not fully thought through. Personally I believe probably like you that at least the 2 million properties lost to RTB need to be restored as a bare minimum. Govt could easily go onto the open market and buy back the 'family silver' Obviously BAN all RTB. Personally I resent my taxes being used to fund tenants to buy property cheaply. I have no objection in principle to RTB PROVIDING that the properties are sold at FULL MARKET VALUE. That would take off the shine somewhat of RTB! But there is no doubt that a massive increase in Social housing is required. The profit motive is not appropriate as LL will never price their offers at rents Govt wants to pay. It would be best to reinvest in mass social housing. Have an effective 100 year Govt mortgage for such social housing. The PRS is not an appropriate form of tenure for the many dysfunctional in society. It would be desirous if the PRS reduced to 7% of the housing market. Govt needs to get out there buying properties on the open market. I'm sure they'd get lots of LL wishing to sell to them. I have 4 ready to sell to them at the right price! Remember a live-in LL with a 4 bed house and 3 lodgers would be banned under your suggestion. Perhaps only HMOs with 5 or more occupiers would be your target.

From: Paul Barrett 17 August 2020 19:40 PM

Paul Barrett
So the end of landlordism. I'm fine with that. Most LL could sell up and buy residential properties taking in lodgers. They only need to stay at their various homes minimum once per month. No S24 No problems removing rent defaulting lodgers. No deposit regulations No family lodgers All lodgers to be unrelated singles. No more than 4 lodgers so avoiding HMO mandatory licensing. I say great let LL become live-in LL. Have 4 homes then stay in each of them once in a month. A live-in LL could easily potter around a house once per month. LL would make far better returns being live-in LL of multiple residential homes. Of course that means no more tenant families just unrelated singles or possibly couples but they would need to let 2 rooms. If not the live-in LL strategy then FHL etc. LL don't need to be AST LL but tenants sure as hell need them to be so. If every LL converted to residential homes potentially unencumbered there would be millions of homeless tenants. The singles would be OK as they would be the lodgers that would have a healthy selection of homes to choose from. Far better than a HMO. A proper home. Multiply 3 x lodgers and you get more monthly rent than a single family. Round my way no problem with getting £600 per room. So for your basic 3 bed semi...............£1800pcm Knock off bills would be about £1550. Nice! LL would become a load of Rigsby's staying in their various homes once per month minimum. It is very hard for Govt to detect how many lodgers may be staying at an OO property and whether or even how much they might be paying the live-in LL. If LL converted to lodger LL Govt would lose billions in taxes. Of course it would millions of properties become available for all the homeless tenants. Trouble is they won't be able to afford to buy them. That is why they are tenants!! Govt should be very afraid of the lodger strategy. There is no law that prevents an OO having as many homes as he can afford. Each can have lodgers. Of course most LL tend to have one home as that is all they can afford. I would hazard a guess that many LL could sell up their BTL or unencumbered rental properties and buy outright at least one 4 bed property. No point in having a 5 bed as then subject to stupid HMO Mandatory Licensing regulations. Conventional landlordism doesn't need to exist for LL. The lodger strategy would be just as effective. All the live-in LL needs is a small suitcase to travel to each of his homes once per month. No LA to pay. No Selective licensing though potentially could be required to obtain an Additional Licence. But still in the overall scheme of things far more profitable. I guess you could have family lodgers but I doubt many would appreciate living with their LL and of course the rent would be per room so I can't see how a couple and two children could afford the rent. So I say yes the end of landlordism. We can all become Live-in LL and have advantage of the tax free £7500 Room For Rent Allowance. This what I will be doing if I can achieve sufficient sale proceeds from the sale of my BTL properties. BTL lenders would have no business! Sell any shares you might have in such lenders. Any homeowner owning multiple homes can be a live-in LL of each of them. I doubt there will be a shortage of single unrelated lodgers!

From: Paul Barrett 17 August 2020 10:48 AM

Paul Barrett
The last thing LL should be doing is investing more. Financial resilience is the name of the game. Leveraging at more than can be afforded by LHA rates is a risk too far. If I was to remain a LL that is what I would be doing. LL must surely realise that there is no more calculated risk. If your tenant stops paying rent for WHATEVER reason and you can't get rid of them there is NO calculated risk The risk is immediately real! The CV19 crisis has revealed to many leveraged LL how vulnerable they are. A LL has to get it right everytime. One rent defaulting tenant could bankrupt a LL. The idea that BTL can continue the same old way is for the birds. Of course there will be many chancer LL continuing the same old way. Their choice of the risk. Sensible LL will reduce business risk. This can only be achieved by substantially reducing leverage RGI even where possible no longer seems to protect LL due to exclusion of certain causes like a pandemic. That makes it pointless. If LL wish to guarantee income preservation then they need to reduce leverage that LHA can afford. The calculated risk strategy no longer works. The risks will occur so LL need to ensure their business is resilient to these. There are still far too many rental properties available. The threat to capital values remain. LL would do well to offload as much as they can to reduce leverage on other properties. With all the additional cost burdens that LL have experienced and will experience the BTL proposition no longer adds up. Resilience is the name of the game. Tough if it means fewer rental properties available. LL need to plan for survival NOT expansion!

From: Paul Barrett 14 August 2020 18:45 PM

Paul Barrett
UNFORTUNATELY despite I reckon every LL agreeing with you it is clear that Govt policy is to ensure that tenants are largely untroubled by feckless rent defaulting. I DON'T remember Govt putting in place regulations that allowed people to fill up trolleys at supermarkets and be able to walk out without having to pay!! Govt has determined that it is perfectly acceptable for tenants to be given the opportunity to rent default and still use rental accommodation. No consideration has been given by Govt as to the effects on the viability of a property if the LL DOESN'T receive the contractual rent. I consider as you that Govt is conspiring in theft from LL of legitimate rent. I would go as far as to state that Govt is engaging in criminal conspiracy to deprive LL of legitimate rent receipts or preventing LL from trying to obtain rent from other tenants the LL may source. All we have are mealy mouthed words from Govt that LL should engage with their tenants to resolve payment issues. All the talking in the world won't pay a BTL mortgage payment. Most BTL lenders will be considering LPA receivership after two such missed payments. All the talking in the world won't resolve the mortgage payment problem. I have NEVER come across a LL who has a magic money tree. Clearly Govt must believe LL have such trees as how are LL supposed to psy mortgages without any rent!? Does Govt seriously not recognise that 50% of the PRS is mortgaged and that this 50% has very effectively housed millions that Govt chose to have nothing to do with. Well now Govt expects this to be achieved without any rent being paid!!!!!!!???? Why is it only the PRS that is being forced by Govt regulation to provide services for free risking the very viability of that accommodation!? Surely this is counter-productive? DOESN'T Govt need those LL to house those tenants!? Govt must realise that LL will eventually refuse to house for free. The whole point of being a LL is to make as much PROFIT as possible. If LL are effectively being prevented from achieving this by Govt then there really is no point in being a LL! The PRS is the only business in the UK being forced by Govt to provide their services for FREE. Govt seems to believe this is a sustainable proposition. I believe they consider that LL will do whatever it takes to keep a property afloat. For that reason alone they feel they can presume the LL will discuss with tenants their arrears. What a load of twaddle. I have a flat now vacant for 2 months. I will not be taking on DSS tenants. If no normal tenants with RGI appear I will be selling. I am simply not prepared to let and then not be able to evict. So potentially this will be first property I sell with the remaining 3 to go over the coming 3 years. I refuse to be used as a FREE accommodation service by Govt. I'd rather keep the properties empty. How that assists tenants I have no idea. I am simply not that desperate to take on DSS tenants. I'd rather sell!! But like it or not we LL have to accept that Govt will do everything in it's power to prevent LL from profiting from their investments. They intend to use those private assets to house people for free. They can achieve this due to the dysfunctional eviction process. Govt intends to make it even more dysfunctional. I believe the only way for LL who wish to remain leveraged to survive is to reduce the LTV such that the LHA rates could pay for the BTL mortgage. For most LL that would mean massive payments to mortgage accounts which would be difficult to achieve as most lenders restrict how much a mortgage debt may be reduced by annually. LL are caught between a rock and a hard place. I can't see LL subject to rent defaulting tenants surviving. Made even worse by Govt ensuring the eviction process remains ever more dysfunctional. When you consider what the Govt is doing to the PRS especially those mortgaged LL the business proposition is extremely suspect to say the least!! Personally I can't wait to stop being a BTL LL. I know Govt is trying to eradicate me. I'd rather eradicate myself on my terms rather than the Govt's

From: Paul Barrett 12 August 2020 17:43 PM

Paul Barrett
@philipdrake I have noticed a tendency of us good LL going on various flights of fantasy. I am just as much to blame for these as well as others. There is NO way that Shelter or any other agency would accept such responsibilities as you suggest. Whilst they will never admit it these agencies know full well the fecklessness of tenants. They know these tenants cause massive rent losses to LL who they know have little chance of civil recovery. Therefore it is expected that LL take the hit for feckless tenants. Empowering LL to receive rent direct via Shelter etc will NEVER occur. The losses to the public purse and alleged charities like Shelter would bankrupt them. The Govt etc relies on LL taking the financial hit for feckless tenants. Feckless tenants cause LL over £9 billion in losses every year. I believe this figure includes social tenants as well. But make no mistake rent defaulting is in the billions of pounds. This is a massive loss of GDP. Unfortunately society seems to consider that rent losses caused by feckless tenants is something that private LL should rightly suffer from. This attitude that seems to pervade all of society DOESN'T seem to extend to any other business. For some reason ripping of LL is deemed as socially acceptable. Indeed Govt itself participates in this. LL no matter how good they have to accept that is the case and manage their business based on the fecklessness of tenants and the difficulty of getting rid of them and civil recovery of rent arrears. The current eviction process fundamentally undermines the viability of letting. LL must understand how fundamentally the dysfunctional eviction process damages the BTL business model. These circumstances are scheduled to become even worse. There will be no assisting LL now or in the future. LL should never be surprised by tenant fecklessness. It is essential that it is factored into the letting business model. Few LL have ever done this and mostly they gamble they won't end up with a wrongun. Most LL gamble successfully but significant numbers lose the gamble to feckless tenants. Personally I cannot afford the risks anymore so have little choice than to give up being an AST LL. Only a fundamental change in the eviction process in cases of rent defaulting would persuade me to stay. I am pragmatic enough to know that no Govt would ever facilitate this for LL. The cost of feckless tenants to the public purse would be enormous. So LL we have to get real. We are on our own and no assistance will be forthcoming EVER to combat feckless rent defaulting tenants. All lettings need to be considered for viability via this simple prism. The question every LL needs to ask themselves for every tenancy they have. Can they afford a feckless tenant?? If not and also not prepared to afford it then really they should stop being LL which is exactly the determination I have made. I intend to try to become a lodger LL which is a business model NOT subject to the same risks as the tenant business model. I suppose one should add the caveat to the lodger situation that is a case of NOT yet are lodgers on a par with tenants. But you wouldn't trust this Govt NOT to give lodgers similar rights to tenants. Lets HOPE NOT!!!

From: Paul Barrett 10 August 2020 00:07 AM

Paul Barrett
Electoral Roll registration has nothing to do with OO rights. It is simply the case that a lodger may never become a tenant as long as the property is one of many homes for a LL. There are few LL that can afford multiple resi properties. But if they can they are entitled to as many lodgers as they want especially if unmortgaged. Lenders normally state no more than 2 lodgers to prevent potential HMO status. Nothing to do with fear of lodgers being converted to tenants. There are now HMO Mandatory and Additional Licensing schemes which effectively prevent lodger numbers This is why I state 4 bed properties are the maximum needed as it avoids the HMO Mandatory Licence which makes most properties unviable. This is why many 5th occupants have been booted out to avoid HMO Licensing which cannot be achieved unless at considerable unworthwhile expense. I believe that with mass unemployment many OO will see taking in lodgers as an excellent way to achieve tax free income. Yes loss of privacy but needs must and all that! It is a national scandal that so many spare rooms are available but underutilised. Perhaps economics will force OO to take in lodgers. A good thing in my book as it promotes workforce flexibility and mobility. Indeed that is why the Govt originally introduced the RFRA. Fewer rights hasn't prevented the lodger industry from flourishing. I would contend exactly the opposite has occurred! Lodgers are good for the economy. I have never removed a lodger. They all vacated on their own accord having given the requisite notice. As AST LL downsize to multiple resi properties lodger renting will become far more popular. The main reason being LL can get rid of rent defaulting lodgers easily. It is the inability to do this with tenants that is causing myself and other LL to get out of the letting to tenants game. It simply ISN'T worth the risk of being landed with a feckless tenant. Getting rid of feckless lodgers is comparatively easy!!

From: Paul Barrett 08 August 2020 22:21 PM

Paul Barrett
M d you are simply wrong No Police Officer could prevent an OO their property rights. What you suggest could undermine the whole RFRA strategy. I can assure you it will NEVER happen. The law is very careful when it comes to residential properties. To convert residential to tenancy rights is an extreme measure. I can assure you that OO will never face their properties being converted to tenanted properties. A live-in LL may have as many homes as they wish. Not many can afford more than one. A LL may have lodgers in each of their homes. Of course only one property would attract the RFRA although that is uncertain as it has been mooted that occupation by a live-in LL OO could reside one day every tax year to ensure lodger income tax free status. I would suggest that for most LL the most they could afford will be one other home. The RFRA may be used for the other property where lodgers occupy. No Council will be able to change the status of lodgers. In practice few LL will be able to afford an additional residential home. I might be able to if combined with a resi mortgage. But this won't be easy for many LL. Indeed with a resi mortgage there is usually a stricture of no more than 2 lodgers. Based on the prices of 4 bed houses I doubt I could afford a 3 bed. But even a 2 bed is tax free lodger income. I visit once per month minimum. In my case that would be about £1700 pcm after all bills. No S24 etc. So as a lodger LL even with 2 lodgers far more profitable than BTL. I currently reside in a home where I will be taking on 4 lodgers who as couples will be paying £2000pcm. I stay there once per month. All bills in my name. The fact that I rarely stay at the property as I stay as a 'guest' elsewhere most of the time DOESN'T convert my lodgers to tenants!!

From: Paul Barrett 08 August 2020 19:48 PM

Paul Barrett
@ m d Finances permitting of course it is very easy to be a lodger LL owning multiple homes. Live in it once per month and the occupants can never claim to be tenants. I'm not a rich LL and will struggle even to attain one 4 bed home. But I aspire to be one. Govt will never introduce tenant regulations for lodgers. Providing a lodger LL can afford multiple residential homes there is nothing preventing this. Obviously affording multiple residential mortgages would be a bit of an issue. But if you consider those LL with say 15 BTL properties they could convert to lodger lettings reducing to about 3 residential properties potentially all unencumbered. I know this is what I would be doing if I had 15 BTL properties. The industry average of 75% leverage is clearly totally dysfunctional. The most it should be is 25% if you factor in LHA as the only income on a worse case scenario. Basing BTL on market rents has been revealed as a dodgy business model due to the dysfunctional eviction process. I contend BTL lending should be based on what the LHA rate is for that property. That would provide excellent financial resilience. Using this strategy would have restricted growth in the BTL market. I know if this had been the case I would have needed far more 'skin in the game' and would consequently only been able to afford 2 BTL properties. But with such large deposits required few LL would have been able to invest. As you intimate many BTL LL haven't factored in extreme financial resilience. In light of the eviction ban etc this can be seen as somewhat naive. Few LL have considered every tenant as a feckless one which is what they should have done. The dysfunctional eviction process supports such tenant fecklessness compounded by additional Govt actions preventing even this from processing. As you suggest financial resilience will be something that LL will need to consider afresh. Some will like me consider BTL no longer viable as eviction is to be made harder not easier. For me becoming a lodger LL if possible will give me financial resilience. Even with 4 occupiers I can sleep on the sofa once per month to ensure my lodgers remain lodgers. The only slight hassle is effectively I become an HMO LL. Though lodgers are far easier to manage as they have few rights. For me providing they comply with the lodger agreement they won't be removed!! Same as tenants really but tenants knowing they can't be got rid of easily take the p. Lodgers can't do this as the live-in LL is in charge not the lodger. I'm surprised Govt DOESN'T just make all lodger lettings tax free. It would result in many BTL LL converting to lodger lettings. This would result in many BTL properties being sold.

From: Paul Barrett 08 August 2020 17:46 PM

Paul Barrett
Surely it is lenders being feckless!? In light of things now lenders perhaps should have only lent what the LHA rate could afford. It seems the industry average of 75% LTV is now feckless. But irrespective of that tenants signed a contract which they should comply with. They should have resources to pay rent in the event of sudden income loss. In light of what has occurred I wouldn't consider it unreasonable that the PRA insists that any BTL lending must be supportable by LHA. They should certainly insist on this for all new lending. Of course this stricture would essentially destroy the BTL sector. I'm fine with that. I personally wouldn't mind selling off properties to reduce to one that LHA could support. I reckon for all my costs to be met by the available LHA would require me reducing to about 20% LTV. LHA rates for my flats are about £700 Out of that with no profit element I would need to deduct £200 in SC and GR. Plus an amount for repairs Then the ridiculous S24 taxes. I reckon out of that lot I would be left with about £350 to support a mortgage. With such an amount my LTV would need to be reduced massively. It seems relying on tenants to comply with their contracts is indeed feckless. Govt supports tenant fecklessness. It won't allow LL to try and operate their business. That is feckless in itself. LL certainly need to make themselves far more resilient. The only way most LL can achieve this is by selling off properties. Certainly if I was wishing to remain in the AST PRS I would now reduce my leverage to that which could be afforded by LHA and to cover costs. My rents are currently double the LHA rate. That just about services all my costs. Clearly I am in a very vulnerable position. Whilst being currently profitable I fully appreciate how tenuous that situation is. Based on what LHA can afford if I was staying in the PRS I would be working to having no more than about 20% LTV. If LL adopted such sensible financial resilience strategies there would be mass tenant homelessness but that would be just tough. Leveraged LL have now seen how exposed they are. The current lender criteria needs to be revised to reduce leverage to that which can be supported by the prevailing LHA rate for that property type. This CV19 crisis has fully exposed the flakiness of relying on rent to pay mortgages. I believe for business resilience it should be the object of LL to substantially reduce leverage mostly achieved by selling off properties. Remember LHA is like a guaranteed Govt contract. There are of course all the well known hassles of LHA but still if LHA is payable and supports a LL business then that is better then nothing. It is just LL will need to rejig their business so that LHA will get them through things until they are able to charge market rents. That of course would result in LL being far more profitable as their leverage would be far less. That would mean tenants would have resilient LL who could survive on LHA rents. But achieving this will mean a vastly reduced PRS and many more homeless. That is fine with me. I DON'T object to being forced to be more financially resilient It will just be tough on all the tenants who won't have so many properties to choose from. In extremis perhaps the PRS should return to how it used to be. So cash only. The BTL sector houses about 3 million. If LL start to reduce to unencumbered status who will house those tenants!?

From: Paul Barrett 05 August 2020 19:31 PM

Paul Barrett
I would add that the supposed 'hostile environment' is nowhere hostile enough. If I had my way I would target diverse areas as that is where most of the illegal immigrants reside. The fact that most of these illegals are from certain racial groups is irrelevant. It make little sense targeting areas where predominately people of white reside compared to people of colour. There are estimated to be about 2 million illegal immigrants in the UK. Remove those and that would free up a lot of properties. Illegal immigrants are keeping rental prices high. The UK is struggling with supplying legal occupants with sufficient housing as it is. The rental market and OO market is severely distorted by illegal immigrants. Ideally they should be found and deported. There appears little Govt will to do this. I believe that many EU migrants will return to home countries as most of the low wage and low skilled jobs they did have disappeared. Wages have increased in former Communist countries to the point that for some of the countries the wages are near UK levels but of course accommodation is far cheaper in these countries. I can see there will bee more availability as the migrants return home. They will of course retain the right to live and work in the UK but for many it won't be worth it. The big problem the UK has is that it has a viable workforce to do these migrant jobs but currently that workforce comprises of feckless welfare scroungers. Somehow the Govt needs to find a method to force these scroungers to work irrespective of whether they are better off or not by working. Getting feckless welfare scroungers to work is the biggest task that Govt needs to address. There are millions of job vacancies that should be filled. The workforce is there. They just need to be forced to fill all these vacancies. It will save taxpayers billions in welfare costs in supporting feckless welfare scroungers.

From: Paul Barrett 01 August 2020 18:00 PM

Paul Barrett
AirBnB is based mostly on fraudulent usage of properties. Councils have seen how there has been a surge of AirBnB properties return to the long term lettings market as CV19 collapsed the AirBnB market. I predict that every Council will require that any AirBnB listing will require a licence.. This will give the Council opportunity to verify that the lister isn't engaged in fraudulent activity. There are very few circumstances where AirBnB is legal. All Councils need to do to eradicate most AirBnB listings is to have the lister provide written proof that the following give permission for AirBnB at the property. So; Lenders Freeholders Leaseholders Tenants LL Insurers Councils Very few AirBnB listers will be compliant with the above. LL will be forced to remain in long term lettings which for many LL won't be viable. A lot caused by S24 which is why many LL used AirBnB. There are clearly still far too many letting properties. It would make financial sense to flog some off to FTB especially the ones that would cost a lot in time and inconvenience in achieving EPC C status. Get rid of those lemon properties now and de-risk. Councils do not wish to see residential properties used for AirBnB. There are more than enough businesses able to supply accommodation which of course pay vast amounts of business rates. Whatever way you look at it AirBnB is of great detriment to Councils. They will therefore do their best to restrict or eradicate what is mostly a fraudulent enterprise. The Scottish Govt has been very successful in clamping down on AirBnB though they still have much to do to control the listings as they still are occurring in significant numbers. It really won't be that difficult to identify all the fraudulent listings.

From: Paul Barrett 30 July 2020 16:45 PM

Paul Barrett
@michaelfoley & terry sullivan I would suggest that your sentiments are totally correct and are shared by most other LL. Govt wishes to eradicate small LL. There won't even be that much homelessness as rental stock declines. Most of the homeless will be the hospitality workers with their flakey jobs who will simply return to the parental home. There won't be any jobs for them so they might as well return home to mummy and daddy There will be a much reduced demand for rental properties. Govt doesn't care if it creates more homeless Most of the new homeless will be reabsorbed into their previous domestic circumstances. There will be more crowded parental residential properties so overt increased homelessness won't be visible. It surely must be obvious to LL that Govt is attempting to get rid of the private LL class even if this does result in increased homelessness. Quite frankly there is nothing LL can do to combat this Govt LL eradication policy. The best that LL can do is to become unencumbered or convert to residential mortgages and take in lodgers. For those wishing to let to tenants rather than lodgers then going unencumbered would be the most effective way to combat Govt LL eradication policies. But LL must be under no illusions that Govt seeks the destruction of the LL class. It would much prefer that only large corporates provided private rental accommodation. All Govt policies are being directed with this end in mind. Personally I can't see how Govt can be prevented. The only viable defensive strategy I can come up with is to convert to having lodgers in multiple residential properties where this is possible. If not perhaps FHL. But remaining an AST LL with a mortgage looks increasingly unviable.

From: Paul Barrett 25 July 2020 23:09 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 25 July 2020 18:35 PM

Paul Barrett
Indeed far better to remortgage and stick a couple of storeys on the property and take in at least two lodgers. I guess potentially you could have two additional storeys and a loft extension. So 3 lodgers at say £650 pcm each. Every property sort of becomes a townhouse. It would mean lots of residential properties being HMO compliant. But that shouldn't be a problem. Nobody would bother selling. They would just rent where they needed to be but return home once a month to see everything is OK with their 6 lodgers at £650pcm each. Everyone get a house it will be your forever home and moneymaker. I wonder how many OO will declare lodger income in excess of £7500!!!??? LL though will have lots of solid tenants as most of them will be OO just renting where they need to be and unwilling to sell to get done for a big CGT bill. There would be a massive boom for jobbing builders as everyone stuck additional storeys on and took in lodgers. Would kill the HMO market with tenants converting to lodgers. Just imagine your average 3 bed semi with 2 storeys and a loft extension!! Six multiples of £650pcm from lodgers. OO could afford to give up work and live off lodgers income from 5 rooms. Definitely a great way for asset rich but cash poor OO to sweat their property asset. No point in downsizing. Upsizing would be the key to more lodger income but in the same property. Of course with everyone upsizing all the 3 bed semis become 6 bed properties making the cheaper properties for FTB an extinct property type. Silly old Govt they really are quite thick. For the oldies they could rent abroad in a nice sunny place and have a live-LL manage the lodgers Don't think Govt have fully worked their ideas through!!!!!! Of course lenders would love OO remortgaging to add value to their properties. Such value will increase far more than the cost of adding 2 storeys and a loft conversion.

From: Paul Barrett 24 July 2020 11:25 AM

Paul Barrett
I'm afraid chaps that despite all comments so far which you are all justified in making and are totally correct the Govt doesn't give a a damn about the human rights of Private LL They know they can do what they like to LL and the public won't be interested at all. Govt knows that most LL will do whatever it takes to avoid repossession. This will involve where possible LL accessing private resources to support mortgage payments where rent isn't being paid. Govt is relying on this situation to keep rent defaulting tenants in the rental properties. LL will be desperately attempting to raise the finances to pay mortgage payments for as long as it takes to evict the rent defaulting tenants. We are talking years to evict here. There is simply no way the County Court or even the HC services will be able to cope with the massive backlog in cases. Even during normal times it would take 10 months or more to evict. With the circumstances as they are there is no way the CC and HC will even be able to get to a normal situation for years. It is inevitable that many LL simply won't be able to resource mortgage payments for what could easily be years to achieve eviction. Such LL will be bankrupted ending up homeless themselves. Repossessed properties rarely achieve market prices. LL obviously DON'T wish to damage future business prospects so it could be that such LL have to use any profits they have made over previous years to ensure their mortgage payment histories are kept correct as paid in full and on time. Lenders won't be aware of any issues providing LL keep the mortgage payments going. This is what LL will wish to achieve. Govt knows all this which is why they are totally justified in expecting tenants not to be evicted anytime soon. Plus they know making the eviction process even more difficult will just enable struggling tenants to live for free for far longer. LL to survive must expect to have to pay tens of thousands of pounds to keep mortgage payments going. Of course even more galling a situation will be for those S24 LL who will be expected to pay tax on fictitious income with a fictitious income. Of course they won't be paying any tax on rental income as there wont be ANY. But S24 taxes will still be payable. So we will now have the ludicrous situation for S24 LL only where if possible they use their own resources to make the mortgage payments and also have to find additional resources to pay the S24 taxes!!! The world has gone f#####g mad!!!! This is an outright attack on LL as a business community. To me this is unprecedented Govt action against a business community that through no fault of it's own is being prevented from trading normally. Govt has no care if it bankrupted every LL. This could happen. Surely all businesses should be allowed the ability to trade? LL are simply being prevented from even attempting this if they cannot get rid of non-paying clients. We LL can shout as much as we like we will be ignored by Govt. I have or will have 2 vacant properties. No way will I let them to tenants. I may take on lodgers as I occupy both properties. But I simply CANNOT risk letting without RGI and none bar one of my occupants has ever been able to qualify for RGI. I look upon the current rising market as a great opportunity to sell up. It is no longer viable to be a mortgaged LL with such a useless eviction process now being even more useless if that were possible. Time for LL to become unencumbered where possible and if not time to sell up. The sector is being placed in an intolerable position. Manifestly unfair of course but Govt and society at large simply doesn't care. LL if you never realised it you surely must know now that you are on your own. Many won't make it. The PRS is due a major reset as to who bothers remaining a LL. Unencumbered LL stand a good chance of surviving and prospering. The next few years will be desperate times for LL

From: Paul Barrett 23 July 2020 16:18 PM

Paul Barrett
@markwilson You are of course totally correct. For ANY LL to consider that tenants should abide by their tenancy contracts is so last year!! As you suggest most normal LL consider this is the correct way for all tenants to behave. But as you suggest us LL fools that believe in what now seems to be such an outdated concept then yes we are so many dinosaurs!! For me it is difficult to see how it is worthwhile being a private LL if the State effectively sanctions rent defaulting. This makes letting residential property an unviable business proposition. I'm sure many supermarkets would go out of business if shoppers took trolley loads of shopping with them without paying. Those supermarkets would become dinosaurs as well for the sheer temerity of expecting shoppers to pay for what they take off the shelves. Indeed you could say that ANYONE who expects to be paid for what they provide in any capacity is a dinosaur!! But getting back to LL only. Surely if a LL wants to remain a dinosaur and NOT a bankrupt one then many will have little choice than to leave the PRS. So how does that assist tenants!? Will magically a new sort of business LL spring up that won't mind being ripped for rent etc!? Somehow can't see that concept attracting many newbies. So taking what you suggest to it's logical extent ALL LL should give up because they persist in expressing dinosaur attitudes that expect a LL services to be paid for! How quaint!! Clearly the new way of LL operating should be to offer free rent etc. Far fairer on the poor old tenant!!! Perhaps in your fantasy world this is how much of business will operate....................lots of FREE stuff for everyone!!!

From: Paul Barrett 20 July 2020 10:01 AM

Paul Barrett
I believe major cities will become veritable ghost towns. WFH will be the way work will now change. Employers have direct empirical evidence that their business activities have hardly been constrained by WFH and many business have actually seen performance improve with WFH. There will be a massive decanting of city office workers out to where they reside. It makes economic sense to get rid of the expense of city centre office buildings. I believe there will be a change to a sort of hybrid way of working. So that perhaps once per week workers will commute to an office building somewhere. Such an office building doesn't need to be in expensive city centres. Office buildings on or near the M25 will be where such offices will locate to. This will enable people to drive to work saving fortunes on very expensive train fares. LL would do well to consider the merits of WFH workers. It would be the case that LL should consider making properties effective for WFH workers. I believe that for LL with houses the attractions of their rental properties will be greatly enhanced if they have a shoffice at the end of the garden. Whilst WFH is going to be an increasing desire of many renters the facts are that working within the current domestic environment won't be feasible in the long run UNLESS there is a suitable separate area that can be made into a study etc. With a mostly dead space at the end of a garden it makes eminent sense to construct a shoffice. This would be very attractive to those WFH tenants. Anecdotal opinion seems to suggest that if no suitable separate space within a property for WFH that having a separate workspace from the residential property would be desirable. It has certainly changed my perspective. I was considering a giant garden shed. In light of the CV19 crisis and WFH I have now concluded that a far better offer would be for a property with a shoffice. More rent should be achievable for such circumstances. I would still have a smaller garden shed/s for 'stuff'. WFH will result in massive savings of expenditure for workers. You could easily see savings of about £8000 per year. We could see the situation where WFH tenants are able in about 4 years time to have saved sufficient for a healthy deposit. This will give opportunity for tenants to become OO. We could see a massive shift of spending in city centres to poorer outlying areas. This will be very good news for such areas. It will unfortunately be very bad news for businesses dependent on the daily migration of workers into cities. Essentially city centres will become veritable ghost towns. LL should give great attention to the requirements of the WFH tenants. LL should invest in HOUSES outside the M25 etc. Ideally near railway stns so access to London could relatively easily occur. Govt will have little alternative than to renationalise a no longer PROFITABLE rail network. Without commuting office workers the rail network can no longer be profitable. The service needs to be nationalised and operated as a public service as efficiently as possible but with profit no longer being the main aspiration of the service. Taxpayers should subsidise the rail infrastructure as an affordable transport methodology for all. PROFIT should NOT be the guiding mantra for the rail service. There is no doubt that LL need to consider a major reset of their business from city centre flats to houses etc out in the 'sticks' About 300 years ago the migration of country dwellers to the cities began. It seems that this situation is to be reversed with the WFH method of working. Those involved in servicing all the needs of office workers must expect to be out of business. They simply won't be needed in the numbers that they have been traditionally required in. I would also suggest that for those tenants with children having a shoffice would be of great assistance for children as quiet place for homework to be completed. So such a shoffice used during the day as an adult workspace and then for children in the evening to carry out homework.

From: Paul Barrett 19 July 2020 20:22 PM

Paul Barrett
@markwilson Oh! Dear you really do live in an alternate world than the rest of us. Seriously do you honestly expect LL to charge less than achievable just so some feckless welfare scrounger can afford to live in a big city!? Tenants normally have to live according to their means. This was something that HB were able to do and which enabled them to live anywhere in London and receive in HB whatever the rent was. This meant that feckless welfare scroungers because of their effective welfare wage could afford to reside in expensive areas. Obviously this situation was unavailable for those who engaged in full time work and who inevitably had to commute long distances to reach work in London. Then eventually the Govt saw sense and determined to introduce some realism to the welfare wage. It has now been capped at reasonable though I consider still far too high amount. If I had my way welfare would be limited to what a single person on a minimum wage who also had to pay Council Tax would earn. That would be a fair welfare wage. Consequently as is the case with those not on welfare but on minimum wage they can't afford to live in expensive areas so they MOVE to cheaper areas. This financial discipline should be the same for welfare scroungers. The OBC does NOT include Council Tax support. It should be the case that all tenants whether on welfare or not are economically cleansed from expensive areas to cheaper ones. Or call it living within one's means. People moving from expensive to cheaper areas has always occurred but not always to those on welfare as they have had their unrealistic fantasy welfare wage paid to achieve a lifestyle far in excess of what hard working people have been able to achieve. Those on welfare are still in the upper 25% of income earners in the UK. It remains the case that if the feckless lazy welfare scrounger does 16 hrs of work per week then the OBC is lifted and any welfare required is granted. This is why you see Romanian gypsies selling the Big Issue. Apparently it qualifies as a job. They aren't stupid. They know that for just 16 hrs sitting in a High St that there is no OBC for them. The OBC is an ENTIRELY appropriate welfare wage cap. If median rents outstrip the welfare wage in certain areas then the welfare scrounger will need to move to cheaper areas just like someone not on welfare may have to do. My views are the views of most of the population and certainly most LL. You seem to have your own little bubble of a fantasy world. You seem to support unlimited welfare so that welfare scroungers can afford to live a lifestyle not open to normal workers. Why should a welfare scrounger who can't even be bothered to do 16hrs work to evade the OBC be given even more welfare so they can stay in expensive areas!!?? As for this scaremongering of eviction. Due to the the totally DYSFUNCTIONAL eviction system and massive backlog in cases it will be about 2 years from August this year before any tenants the LL wishes evicted will be so. Inevitably for those LL experiencing rent defaulting tenants they will be bankrupted by lenders repossessing long before an inevitable 2 year eviction process has concluded. Of course many LL will try to retain their properties by doing whatever they can to keep paying the mortgage in the absence of rent. But for many LL this will be impossible and they would need to sell. But of course they can't sell with a rent defaulting tenant still occupying. So a lender will repossess bankrupting and making homeless many LL and of course the tenant. And you seem to support this!! For many LL such an intolerable situation won't be acceptable and many rent defaulting tenants for whatever reason will find themselves signing a tenancy surrender document before being escorted from the premises mostly during the dead of night!! LL will simply not allow themselves to be bankrupted by feckless rent defaulting tenants. There are plenty of affordable rental properties in crappy godforsaken Northern towns. That is where the welfare scroungers from the big cities should go. The properties are perfectly decent and affordable within the OBC. It is just TOUGH if these welfare scroungers have to move to these cheaper areas. They will create their own new communities which are only as they are due to economics. Reduced welfare and higher median rents must inevitably mean the welfare scroungers have to MOVE. The answer is NOT to increase welfare wages to then have the ability to live in those expensive areas. You seem to believe this should be the case. I'm sure the rest of the population would love a wage increase to live in expensive areas. However back in the real world there won't be many pay increases for many for the next 10 years at least. You seem to believe the welfare scrounger should be ring-fenced from hard economic reality. You are very much in a minority who believes such bonkers ideas.

From: Paul Barrett 18 July 2020 17:58 PM

Paul Barrett
@anthonytownshend Yep you could have gone down that 50 property route and most likely you would have been highly successful especially managing things yourself. But just imagine despite all your best endeavours you had been faced with 50 rent defaulting tenants. No ability to remove them and probably 50 mortgages to service at 75% LTV. Even if you were able to obtain mortgage deferments for all the properties that would have irrevocably damaged your credit rating and would have a significant effect on future business plans. There are probably many LL that have bern lured by siren voices of 75% LTV mortgages. They are in deep trouble with rent defaulting tenants that will take at least another year to evict. Of course if it wasn't for BTL there would be mass homelessness. Risk taking LL have with BTL provisioned the accommodation so desperately required by millions of tenants. They are now being systematically crucified by Govt and Councils. Had BTL LL adopted your no doubt far superior business strategy then rents would be far higher and also resultant far higher homelessness. But you are looking after no 1 and I consider your business model far superior to BTL. The risks of BTL have never really been acknowledged but it is a fact that rogue tenants cause over £9 billion of losses to the PRS annually. Most of these losses are caused by rent defaulting. Your business model doesn't mean you won't ever face a rent defaulting or otherwise wtongun tenant but you will NEVER face the risk of repossession. LL like me consider your business methodology as a far safer way to proceed. If that means we reduce to one property then so be it. Being leveraged at 75% LTV is now far too risky. Even if you were leveraged at 15% LTV on your imaginary 50 properties I doubt you would be able to meet monthly mortgage commitments if all the tenants rent defaulted. Personally I now aspire to do as you do. But it has to be stated that without brave risk taking BTL LL millions would be homeless. Unfortunately Govt considers those risk takers as beyond the pale and seeks to eradicate them For such LL retrenching to the position that you currently hold makes far more business sense.

From: Paul Barrett 17 July 2020 21:08 PM

Paul Barrett
In light of all the grief that LL are being given I can see the leveraged PRS shrinking to almost nothing. 50% of the PRS is supremely financially resilient as it has no leverage. Though of course it would suffer from rent defaulting tenants and the DYSFUNCTIONAL EVICTION process. But at least there would be no risk of repossession! There isn't much Govt can do against deleveraged LL even though they would dearly love to. I suppose RENT CONTROLS would hurt but I doubt sufficient to cause those LL to sell up. Taking rent income from unencumbered properties is still better than selling and putting the money in a savings account. After of course having paid a very substantial CGT bill!! It is really only the leveraged rental sector which has anything to worry about. It would be wise for LL to aspire to become unencumbered. The CV19 eviction ban etc has exposed how vulnerable leveraged LL are. We all understand the power of leverage. Well that only works when it can be ensured you have rent paying tenants. That is far from guaranteed now. I believe the PRS will need to become far more resilient and that can only come by LL selling and becoming unencumbered. Carrying out this strategy will result in a much reduced PRS. That will be good for the LL but very bad for tenants. But it must be an inevitable response to the constant Govt and Council attacks on the PRS as a whole. I believe the leveraged PRS houses about 3 million tenants. If this sector of the PRS withers away there will be significant homelessness.

From: Paul Barrett 17 July 2020 17:56 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 17 July 2020 12:42 PM

Paul Barrett
@jimmywatkins You may be happy I'm leaving the PRS. My occupants aren't. They like me and my circumstances. But I don't care. Govt wants me gone and I'm happy to go. I will become a lodger LL making about the same profit. Personally I will be glad when I'm all sold up and am rid of tenants. But I won't be paying any tax of any sort as a lodger LL. Personally I can no longer tolerate the stress of potentially being bankrupted by feckless tenants as I rely on mortgages to maintain the properties I have. Whilst I make good profits it has become increasingly tiresome to keep the whole show on the road especially when Govt and Councils conspire at every turn to put me out of business. I care not for the millions of homeless as LL leave the PRS. It won't be my fault. But I know I have been a very good LL providing an excellent service for a decent market rent. It seems that no matter what I do I'm not wanted. As a lodger LL my life will be substantially easier and more PROFITABLE. So my main objective of rent seeking and subsequent PROFIT remains. I accept that opportunity for CG across multiple properties will be gone. I will have to be satisfied with tax free CG on the lodger property. No CGT with my PPR. If Govt made it worth my while I'd sell up tomorrow. Trouble is it isn't easy to exit the PRS. Believe me I won't miss tenants at all! As a matter of fact I support your sentiments as far as OO is concerned. I would abolish MMR for a start. I would have lenders offer IO mortgages for a term til age 90. I would have lenders offer 95% LTV I would make it that NO repayment vehicle was required beyond that of selling the mortgaged property. I would restrict BTL and LTB mortgages for no more than 60% LTV. Using these strategies would give those wishing to become OO an advantage over LL. I would much prefer there to far more homeownership. Govt needs this as it will need to rob the asset value built up over decades to pay for Care Home fees. Plus a mortgage tends to stop people from striking. Having people mortgaged up to the eyeballs makes for a supplicant population. Which I totally agree with. I would far rather a substantially reduced PRS. A big problem for the likes of you is that large deposits haven't been saved. My strategy gives unfair advantage to OO. I consider that good. OO should always have more advantage than investors. Sadly Govt won't facilitate this. But for me there are too many negatives that have occurred since 2015 and still coming to remain in the AST sector. The CV19 issue has seen Govt throw LL to the wolves. Enough is enough time to go and make some more occupants homeless!!. My changed business methodology will be bad news for family households but very good for singles. I intend to have my lodger household as like a proper home with all the home comforts I can provide. My lodgers shouldn't want for anything!!!

From: Paul Barrett 16 July 2020 20:58 PM

Paul Barrett
Whilst what you suggest is admirable the problem is we LL operate in a very harsh environment. Consequently we have to be very careful who we let to. There is far more to the letting conundrum that the ability of a tenant to be allegedly able to pay the rent. The major problem for LL is the COMPLETELY DYSFUNCTIONAL EVICTION PROCESS. It is this which guides LL as who they wish to risk letting to. It is also the case that for LL it is of no interest what the circumstances of prospective tenants are. It is nothing personal just business. We LL are NOT social housing where potentially the things you have mentioned would be considered. We are in the game to make PROFIT. If you can't afford our offer..........TOUGH!! Of course that doesn't mean LL lack empathy towards yours and other difficult circumstances. But it does mean we are NOT prepared to use our capital to subsidise such difficult circumstances. To me all a tenant is; is a PROFIT unit. If I make little or no PROFIT from my tenant profit unit then why bother being a LL!? Of course that doesn't mean that I try not to provide the best service I can. I do endeavour to provide the best service I can and am successful in achieving this to the extent that former tenants return to me. But despite your potential merits you must recognise that a LL may deem you as a significant business risk and choose not to offer you a tenancy. But what you CANNOT presume to do is to tell a LL on whom he should risk his capital on. That is for individual LL to decide. Every LL will have differing perspectives on who they consider are good business risks. You actually seem quite good ones. I have a vacant 2 bed 1st floor flat £1900pcm fully inclusive. Want it!? If you qualify for RGI or have a guarantor that could be even better. You must also remember that LL have their master they have to satisfy. Namely their lender. Lenders will not offer forbearance to mortgage defaulting LL. LL have to be ever so careful and pass onto tenants the harsh lender attitudes. Miss two mortgage payments and they will repossess. So you can see why it is important rent is paid!!!

From: Paul Barrett 16 July 2020 18:21 PM

Paul Barrett
@jonwilson Please advise on what illegality I am proposing. I believe I know far more about regulations than you. Which is why you need to pay attention to my words. If you did you would know there is no illegality. If you wish me to educate you then happy to enlighten you. After all we want ALL LL to understand regulations. However where perhaps you and I may be in agreement is that ALL LL should be licenced and required to undergo CPD training once every 5 years. LL licence for 5 years should be no more than £150. Tenants have the right to expect their LL has undergone a Nationally accepted level of training. I also believe there should be a LL licence for those who take in lodgers or regular 'guests'. There would of course be different licence knowledge with the nation states. But if a LL has properties in all 4 countries then 4 licences would be required. I am all for COMPULSORY LL education. Indeed I contend that no new LL should be allowed to become one BEFORE they have undergone suitable CPD training. However my knowledge is up to date as far as I am concerned. But I accept nobody can know everything which is why I would not object to CPD training with a licence issued afterwards. I have undergone a similar CPD process with HGV training. Cost me £250 for 5 days of training. I have been a HGV/PSV driver for 30 years. At no point did I consider the CPD useless. Far from it. I have no issue at all with being licenced every 5 years once I have passed the CPD training. Introducing such would remove the many hundreds of thousands of criminal LL that currently operate in the PRS. There are many LL that don't consider themselves az criminals. A classic example is where a LL lets to HB tenants in direct breach of mortgage conditions. That LL is committing FRAUD. Another one is where a residential property with a residential mortgage has a tenant where no CTL has been sought is FRAUD. There are about 300000 of these fraudulent LL types. I could go on further about the FRAUD that continues on a regular basis. LL licencing would reveal all this fraud which is why there will NEVER be a comprehensive LL licensing scheme.

From: Paul Barrett 15 July 2020 22:57 PM

Paul Barrett
I'm afraid your perspective on being a LL is completely flawed. We normal LL are subject to normal business practices. That is we seek to maximise our hoped for PROFIT as best as we are able. You may call that greedy; normal people don't. Where I do agree with you regarding what might be termed GREEDY LL is where such LL do not offer a decent product for top money. Most good LL offer quality propositions and are totally justified in seeking to maximise profit from that asset. LL like you who choose not maximise rents depress overall rent levels. But that is fine we LL know there are LL not operating as proper businesses. We understand this affects our market rents but that as they say is simply business. If I had a preference I would much prefer hobby LL like you didn't exist. But we are where we are and of course you have every right to conduct yourself as you do irrespective of the negative depressive effects your less than business like methods have on the market. But good LL offering a good product have every right to attempt to achieve maximum rent. You may call that greed I don't. It is the case that people like you are never willing to indicate at what point they deem a LL to be greedy. I'm sure we agree that maximum rent for a poor product offer is greed. We all know the LL types who have these poor product offerings. Few of them have traditional British names. So as a LL who offers an exceptional product I charge market rents. That doesn't make me a greedy LL. Oh! and as far as any reliance in any omnipetent being I have no belief in any fantasy figure. Religion is so much bunk. If people choose to have such bonkers religious beliefs then fine just as long as they don't try and impose their beliefs on ME!!

From: Paul Barrett 15 July 2020 20:42 PM

Paul Barrett
@davidcrisp You assert that as a good LL you are a little right of centre. I have to say I totally disagree. If you are that must make me an extreme Fascist!!! Something if this was the case that I would rejoice in. However from what I have seen of your posts you are a good LL with a positive attitude. You also seem to expect that tenants comply with the terms of their AST and that if they don't you expect to be easily able to remove them. Now for the life of me I can see nothing remotely right-wing in the way you conduct business!! Quite funnily and I think I may have regaled LL Today with this little story. I was attempting to assist someone on FB to source a rental property. Anyway it came down to methods of operating. I advised that in the very rare event that I accepted DSS tenants I would require the UC to credited to a tenant Credit Union account so that the FULL CONTRACTUAL RENT was paid to me before the tenant could access any remaining UC. This person accused me of being a fascist for this operating methodology!!!! This just confirms to me that many of these DSS tenant types are feckless. But certainly neither you nor I could in any way be accused of being right-wing as all we are is wanting tenants to pay the FULL CONTRACTUAL RENT on time. Since when is paying for a service meant that service provider of whatever type is considered right-wing!!!!??? Believe me you aren't right-wing at all. You just expect to be paid for the service you provide and that tenants conform to AST conditions.

From: Paul Barrett 14 July 2020 22:28 PM

Paul Barrett
@lee holland Yep you are thick. You university types are the thick ones. Divorced from reality and steeped in ridiculous left-wing ideology. It is not for me to have resources to cover for feckless rent defaulting tenants. Of course if such rent defaulting tenants surrender their tenancy then I accept that is a business risk I have exposed myself to. But by my business nous I reckon I would be able to source new rent paying tenants. But of course I can only use my business acumen if I have a vacant property to offer. This wont be possible if FECKLESS rent defaulting tenants refuse to vacate. I'm afraid you are typical of supposed intellectuals who don't live in the real world. You may have sufficient resources to cover for FECKLESS tenants. Most LL DONT!! It is tenants that are feckless in not having sufficient resources to pay their rent in cases of sudden income loss. A LL is not feckless if he doesn't have the resources to subsidise feckless tenants for free for months on end. LL fully understand the business risks but it is the dysfunctional eviction process which conspires against LL operating effectively. Many more LL will be selling up as the eviction process is made even more difficult. It is NOT for LL to put resources aside to cover for feckless tenants who refuse to vacate when they can't afford the rent for WHATEVER reason. It is IRRELEVANT why LL become LL. The deal is they buy a property and let it to a tenant who pays RENT. Simple concept that many tenants fail to comprehend. The idea that it is perfectly acceptable to consume an asset for free seems only to apply to LL. Why!!?? Why are LL the only ones forced to provide private assets for FREE!!?? Your ideas are idiotic and you have made yourself look even more stupid by your revealing of educational achievement which clearly hasn't educated you at all in the ways of the world. What a waste that education has been on you!! Oh! and as an aside if I ever suffered sudden income loss I have sufficient resources to fund my normal monthly domestic commitments for about 4 years. I would hope during that time that I would have been able to garner alternative resources. But because I'm not feckless I am able to cope. As you can imagine that means a quite boring lifestyle but needs must! .Something few feckless tenants are prepared to do which is why they are in the state they are in. What a LL does with rent is IRRELEVANT. But it is for the tenant to pay the rent they agreed to for at least 1 year.

From: Paul Barrett 14 July 2020 19:54 PM

Paul Barrett
Surely a LL considers each tenant from the perspective of business risk. These risks change. Under normal circumstances I would never at the outset of a tenancy take on a DSS tenant. But if as things are then I would not evict a DSS tenant even though it would breach my current ridiculous mortgage conditions. The lender would never find out. Though of course I would be taking a massive business risks as if a lender found out they could financially destroy me!! As an aside I believe Govt should ban immediately any restrictive conditions that lenders and insurers have for DSS tenants. However if the now DSS tenant converted from perhaps a Professional tenant then I would still evict if the FULL CONTRACTUAL RENT wasn't paid. Substantial numbers of former professional tenants would be able to make up the difference between HB and the rent by secret cash payments to the LL. Obviously they wouldn't be able to do with the DWP knowledge as that would result in less HB being granted. The DSS is not concerned about any other payments as all they will pay is the UC. For many savvy people they will remove any savings and hold as cash. Having savings just subsidises Govt welfare. Now as far as DSS tenants at the outset of a tenancy no way will I ever do so. This is because my East Herts District Council require a valid AST to be provided by the tenant before they are assessed for HB!!! What sane LL would EVER issue an AST in such circumstances. Personally I have nothing against DSS tenants per se. It is the completely dysfunctional UC process I have issues with. For me UC is a BUSINESS risk I choose NOT to take at the outset of a tenancy. I have a lovely vacant 2 bed flat. No way will I take on any DSS tenant. Pretty IRRELEVANT though as the LHA rate is less than half what I charge!! LL are discriminating against the DSS system NOT the tenants themselves who are mostly good people. As an aside from this post the most effective way to persuade LL to take on DSS tenants is to change the dysfunctional eviction process in cases of rent defaulting only. Indeed the S21 process could be retained but only for FAULT BASED RENT DEFAULTING. But I would have no Court interference. At the expiry of a 2 month notice the tenants would be removed by the LL with Police assistance if necessary. Of course if rent was paid before the notice expired then the LL would withdraw from evicting. This being the case it should be the case that 2 months rent is allowed as a deposit. Any more than this creates a Premium Tenancy which no sane LL would EVER want. It is largely the dysfunctional eviction process in cases of rent defaulting that causes most LL to decline HB tenants

From: Paul Barrett 14 July 2020 15:07 PM

Paul Barrett
Are you really that thick!!?? It DOESN'T matter what the reason is for sudden income loss it is for the user of the services who wishes for those services to be provided to make provision to still be able to pay come what may. The traditional method has been savings. But due to the feckless lifestyles of tenants very few have at least a year's worth of savings. Having this level of savings would give tenants a very effective level of security to be able meet normal monthly commitments. Invariably after a year a tenant would have been able to source a new job though in light of how things are looking perhaps 2 year's of savings would be better. It is clear that feckless tenant behaviour is only as it is due to the dysfunctional eviction process which is 100% in favour of the tenant. We also albeit for an allegedly temporary period have Govt suspension of that useless eviction process. Govt is effectively sanctioning mass tenant rent defaulting. Why for example did not Govt state that for any tenant in receipt of furloughed wages that Govt would directly pay the LL the FULL CONTRACTUAL RENT out of the furloughed wages!!?? Believe me tenant behaviour would rapidly change if in the event of rent default a LL could boot out the tenant 14 days later. This is what happens in Australia and they don't tend to have long eviction cases.......................funny that!!! Your feckless attitude is indicative of what many in society believe. This is only for LL. They expect and indeed consider it a right that they should be immune from eviction if they can't afford the rent for WHATEVER reason!!! Nobody presumes that other parts of business should be expected to provide free services and yet idiots like you DO!!!!!!!! BONKERS!! Oh! Incidentally I have a great reputation amongst my tenants. Indeed some have returned to me after changed circumstances. So my reputation continues to be excellent. Though of course I readily accept that I may not be exactly flavour of the month with the 5 tenants I evicted for rent DEFAULTING. I can live with that!! Also unfortunately because of all the anti-private LL policies I intend to leave the AST sector making about 16 people homeless. It finally came that another idiot posting on here finally fell for my trap. A certain Mr Edmunds castigated me for selling up making people homeless yet many people including probably him don't want LL to be LL..................but they don't want LL making people homeless by selling up...................Catch 22 sort of!!!

From: Paul Barrett 14 July 2020 14:40 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 14 July 2020 06:17 AM

Paul Barrett
So what about the LL like me that are terrified of bankruptcy resulting in my being made homeless!?? As has been suggested feckless rent defaulting tenants could have saved for sudden income loss for WHATEVER reason. Or they could have taken out income protection policies. The reason these feckless waster tenants DON'T do this is they know that due to the dysfunctional eviction process and the equally dysfunctional civil recovery process that it will be at least 10 months before the LL manages to have them evicted. They know there is little chance of the LL bothering with Civil Recovery so that effectively feckless tenants can live rent free until evicted. The LL might possibly be able to obtain UC HB element payments directly but woe betide 'clawback' possibilities once tenants have been evicted. This CV19 issue has exposed how feckless millions of tenants are. They simply can't be bothered to have resources to cover for sudden income loss. The PRS by it's very nature can NEVER be secure. That is the WHOLE point of it! It gives the LL or should do flexibility to determine what he wishes to do with his investment assets. All tenants must surely be aware that they reside in private rental accommodation for as long as the LL wishes that to be the case. For most tenants they have tenure security on the basis that their LL wishes to remain in business and that providing the tenant complies with ALL aspects of the TA the LL offers security of tenure. Fail to comply for WHATEVER reason and the LL is perfectly justified in terminating a commercial agreement with the tenant. This termination usually occurs as a result of the tenant failing to pay rent. It is IRRELEVANT why or how this occurs. LL are NOT free money trees for feckless tenants. A tenant who for whatever reason cannot afford to pay for the services a LL provides should offer to surrender the tenancy to the LL. It will then be for the LL alone to make a business decision on whether a continuing business relationship with the tenant is desirable. Every situation will be different with the difference being it will be for the LL to decide what he wishes to do and NOT the tenant dictating to the LL by REFUSING to vacate when given appropriate notice to do so. There are many hundreds of thousands of LL that are TERRIFIED of how they will manage as they can't get rid of rent defaulting tenants to give them the opportunity to source ones who will. No LL has the right to expect his ability to source rent paying tenants will work but he must have the ability to offer to treat. With a rent defaulting tenant refusing to vacate the LL CANNOT conduct a normal business. This simple situation TERRIFIES many LL including me. We have lenders to satisfy and believe me if they DON'T receive their monthly pound of flesh they will very quickly take the property asset away from the LL. Such a situation for a LL would be devastating for a LL. The feckless tenant meanwhile just sources another mug LL of which there are many.

From: Paul Barrett 13 July 2020 15:41 PM

Paul Barrett
Be aware that some of the best RGI policies are from DAS. They white label their RGI product with lots of LA providers and others. DAS policies are good policies but the necessarily stringent criteria means few can qualify. Since this CV19 thing it may well be that RGI isn't as effective as it used to be. Insurers will naturally be pricing in a future pandemic into their business models and most likely increase pricing or reduce scope of the RGI. As with most things and especially in light of the CV19 crisis you need to shop around to obtain the best deal for your circumstances. I don't believe you should rely on anything that was stated before CV19 hit. Which is why you should really ignore everything I have stated and do your own research. So much might have changed. I am going by the way things were from years ago. That information is probably out of date by now. So check with ALL providers Have a look on propertytribes as they partner with a few good reference and RGI providers. But really anyone who has or has had RGI etc needs to come at this with a clean sheet of paper. The providers must have reacted as far as their product offerings are concerned. I doubt very much that RGI requirements and conditions are less than they were. I suspect they will be far more rigorous and policy conditions not as good as they used to be You can't really blame the RGI insurers. This CV19 has exposed them to massive claims. It is fortunate for them that many idiot LL that could have qualified their tenants for RGI didn't bother. So there shouldn't be many RGI claims. But many LL will now see the error of their ways and obtain RGI where they can. You can't blame insurers from tightening up on referencing criteria and quality. Just to give an example of the losses compared to premium income an insurer could suffer. For an £89 RGI annual premium it cost them over £10000 to evict etc. Best £89 I ever spent. Now imagine me multiplied by about a million. RGI claims could bankrupt RGI insurers. So not unreasonably underwriting criteria will be enhanced!!

From: Paul Barrett 09 July 2020 15:31 PM

Paul Barrett
@irina wood Nope I do all my own tenant sourcing. Agents are useless. Cost me thousands. There simply aren't sufficient tenants of quality that can pass RGI checks. Consequently I am fully exposed to rent defaulting tenants and the dysfunctional eviction process. I have no alternative. But now have some good occupants though now struggling to let a vacant property. I was planning when one became vacant to sell off but then CV19 came along!! So this has slowed my hoped for exit from the PRS. Effectively I'm trapped into remaining a LL for the time being. Rents seem to have reduced and certainly don't reflect S24 costs. Such rent levels won't even pay the mortgage. As I never remove occupants unless they rent default I'm stuck being a LL until the property occupants choose to vacate. My properties are in Bishop's Stortford. There is now a reduced market as many properties were taken by cabin crew. There are far fewer of them currently!! I tend to take on Ryanair. Fortunately I had no easyjet! But I consider that with declining demand tenants are seeking lower rents. That simply isn't viable for me especially because of S24. Then add all the other recent costs imposed on the PRS and the business viability is suspect to say the least. One 4 bed house with lodgers would make far more business sense for me. My risks of wrongun tenants would be gone as lodgers don't have the same tenure rights. It is also far easier to source single occupants prepared to rent a room rather than a whole flat But personally I'm done with tenants. I will be having lodgers only once I have been able to sell up and reinvest in one house. I tend to use spareroom; word of mouth and ads on noticeboards. Haven't used a LA in over 10 years.

From: Paul Barrett 09 July 2020 12:26 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 07 July 2020 13:40 PM

Paul Barrett
@davidcrisp As terry states very succinctly You don't!! The PTB are scheduled to make eviction even more difficult Just one of the many reasons I will be selling up. It must be apparent to most LL by now that Govt intends to use LL spare assets and capital to subsidise feckless tenants. This saves Govt and Councils fortunes. No way will Govt make eviction easier. They know that this is not electorally damaging as there are more tenant votes than LL ones It can therefore hit LL as much as they like with total impunity. LL must realise they are on a loser all the time. They may well consider it appropriate to amend their business models. Rent defaulting is the biggest business risk for LL ESPECIALLY leveraged ones. With a completely dysfunctional eviction process LL have an effective dysfunctional business model if letting on an AST. This means for many LL that their business isn't really viable. I've come so close to bankruptcy myself. I don't have a magic money tree to pay mortgages if tenants rent default for whatever reason. I am simply not prepared to suffer this level of risk anymore. It just isn't worth it. I'd far rather have a reduced but more stable income than risk maximisation of my portfolio which could collapse immediately if all tenants stopped paying rent. Fortunately my lot were furloughed and they have now returned to work. But too close for comfort for me. Not prepared to suffer these financial risks anymore. I'd rather less but more stable income. I'm selling up!

From: Paul Barrett 07 July 2020 13:24 PM

Paul Barrett
As LL clearly what you state makes sense. But ALL LL must be aware Govt will NEVER make eviction easy for whatever reason. Why would they!? Govt knows that electorally LL are not a threat. They know that tenants hold the electoral power. Therefore they know hitting LL won't damage any electoral opportunities. Govt will make LL bear the costs of dealing with rent defaulting tenants. The longer they can ensure LL bear all the eviction and rent defaulting costs the better for Councils who won't be required to house until eviction by bailiffs. This is the simple reality of being a LL. If you cannot afford a rent defaulting tenant every new tenancy then you shouldn't really risk being a LL. Of course we all do risk everything if we are leveraged LL. Perhaps in light of the sudden realisation by LL of what feckless tenants can do perhaps the BTL game is not as many LL thought it was. Certainly no way to achieve Financial Freedom!!! Being a leveraged LL is for risk takers only. Just be aware that the eviction process is 100% in favour of tenants. Yes you will EVENTUALLY get rid of them. But you will only survive providing you have the resources to pay the mortgage for about a year and then most likely refurb costs along of course with all the associated eviction costs. When you add up these possibilities the BTL business model is a very shakey one. It is only the useless eviction process which causes this situation. Govt actually intends to make it even more difficult to evict...............if that were possible!! The CV19 crisis has just highlighted these difficulties. The business proposition just DOESN'T add up anymore if that business is very effectively prevented from removing rent defaulting tenants for nearly a year. No business would last long if for a year services were consumed and not paid for. This unfortunately is a LL reality as many are starting to find out!

From: Paul Barrett 06 July 2020 12:37 PM

Paul Barrett
Social housing is all very well but the problem with it where available is that it always goes to those deemed to be in the greatest need. This means the chances of a single white male achieving social housing is precisely ZERO. It is illegal immigrants that are given such social housing. Social housing should be based on the queue not on alleged need. That would mean new entrants to the country would be way down the list and would have to use the PRS wherever available. I would also remove the 400000 EU migrants that are currently occupying social housing. They should be using the PRS which would leave the 400000 social housing properties available for sole British Nationality citizens. The Council House Waiting List needs to return. This will inevitably mean that few new entrants would ever achieve social housing with so many British Nationals wanting such social housing That is as it should be. The whole point of the OBC was to enforce on feckless welfare scroungers the same cost considerations as normal working people. Gratifyingly this has forced many of these feckless welfare scroungers out of expensive areas where HB would previously pay in HB whatever the rent was. Enforcing an effective maximum Welfare Wage was ENTIRELY appropriate. This by the way doesn't include any Council Tax assistance. So that means the maximum Welfare Wage is actually far more than the OBC. There is also very little mention that the OBC may be easily avoided by the feckless Welfare scroungers. All such a scrounger has to do is do an alleged 16hrs of work per week. This then facilitates UNLIMITED WELFARE. This is why 90% of Big Issue sellers are Romanian Gypsies. All they have to do is stand on a street 2 days a week for 8 hrs each and then COMPLETELY UNLIMITED WELFARE awaits them and their very extended families. So the feckless welfare scrounger can avoid being economically cleansed from expensive areas. They just REFUSE to do so because they are FECKLESS. As such these feckless are forced by the correctly applied OBC to MOVE to cheaper areas. Just because you are on welfare DOESN'T give you the right to reside in expensive areas. Personally I would reduce the OBC including Council Tax benefit to the income someone on minimum wage would achieve on a 42 hr working week. It CANNOT be right that a worker struggling on a minimum wage for 42 hrs per week is far worse off than a welfare scrounger who achieves a far superior lifestyle without needing to do any work. It should NOT be the case that LL are able to charge market rents and expect the taxpayer to pay such enormous amounts of HB in expensive areas. Welfare scroungers should be subject to the market just as those not on welfare are subject to. There are hundreds of thousands of properties available for welfare scroungers; just NOT in expensive areas. There needs to be a massive economic cleansing of welfare scroungers to cheaper areas of the UK. These are the circumstances that normal workers are subject to. I do NOT support HB being increased nor the OBC being lifted to enable the feckless to afford market rents in expensive areas. The OBC is more than adequate if the HB tenants MOVE to areas where the OBC will afford rental properties in those areas. There seems to be an acceptance by some LL that the OBC should be lifted to enable affording of their market rents. That concept I fundamentally object to. For every property that a LL provides for a feckless welfare scrounger means one fewer for a hard workin tenant. LL should NOT be facilitating the housing of feckless welfare scroungers because they can achieve income as the OBC is lifted to enable LL to receive market rents. If markets rents are able to be paid within the OBC then fair enough. Inevitably though this will be in cheaper areas. Having said that I personally still wouldn't take on HB tenants because of the dysfunctional HB system. I would NEVER accept direct payment as long as the 'clawback' policy exists. We also have the ridiculous situation where the HB element of UC is the last payment calculated within the OBC. This gives the impression to thick welfare scroungers that this is all they have to pay. The idea that they may have to use any of their other benefits to pay the agreed contractual rent doesn't even enter their tiny minds. Because of course this is what the intention of the OBC was. To enforce domestic financial rigour on Welfare scroungers. There is an issue as well that LL receiving HB are being subsidised by the taxpayer. We all know this is a ludicrous idea but the vile propaganda spewed out by the vile left continues. To avoid such propaganda LL should endeavour to NOT let to HB tenants. These tenants should be housed by councils. It is NOT the responsibility of the PRS to house those on HB. LL seek PROFIT which is NOT a requirement for the social housing sector.

From: Paul Barrett 01 July 2020 16:27 PM

Paul Barrett
I struggle to source good quality occupants i.e. those who can pass the necessarily stringent RGI requirements for themselves or a guarantor. It therefore remains the case that whilst my occupants are still OK and paying I am very vulnerable to rent defaulting occupants. I'm simply not prepared to continue with such circumstances. It really isn't worth the additional yield. I would feel far happier with reduced yield by way of reduced LTV following property sales. Indeed had the LTV maximums been 50% I would be in a far securer position as I would have fewer mortgaged properties. 75% LTV is simply too high especially when considered in the light of the eviction ban. I would have no issue in all new BTL mortgages being a maximum of 50% LTV. That would enforce prudence on LL. Of course it would result in a vastly reduced private rental stock which would mean many hundreds of thousands of homeless tenants. That would be a very good thing as those rental properties remaining would be able to achieve far higher rents. If anything this CV19 crisis has proven that leverage above 50% is very risky when Govt gives the ability for feckless tenants to stop paying rent and an eviction ban imposed. Even 50% LTV looks risky in this situation. Reducing or eradicating leverage is a key business imperative for such LL if they wish to achieve business resilience to avoid a lender ever repossessing their properties. But I do believe tenants and FTB should be allowed IO loans so that LL could offload rental properties to these aspirant OO. This would immediately achieve 2 Govt objectives. To reduce the capacity of the PRS and to enhance the purchase of residential properties. It is clear that having vast multiples of BTL properties is a very risky business strategy. To have far more resilient portfolios must make business sense. Mind you with reduced rental stock Govt doesn't have any plan as to where all the homeless tenants are supposed to live. But that won't be a LL problem. Those remaining LL would surely be inundated by desperate tenants seeking to source a very scarce rental property.

From: Paul Barrett 30 June 2020 17:48 PM

Paul Barrett
I'm afraid like it or not Govt intends to use LL as social housing until the LL gives up. They know that LL will do almost anything to retain possession of their properties. But I believe a tipping point has already been reached. It will take time for LL to sell up. It will take me 4 tax years to sell up which is my intention. There will be a steady decline in the numbers of rental stock though I believe LL numbers will remain roughly the same. Just many LL will downsize their portfolios to unencumbered properties. This will ensure financial resilience for the next pandemic situation. At least no chance of being repossessed by a lender for mortgage payment defaulting!! If only Govt would allow IO mortgages with no repayment vehicle required and mortgages til age 90 the market would take off. LL could then sell off into what would be a highly liquid market But of course Govt wants mortgages to be paid off so that when care home fees need to be paid the Council can force the sale and rob the equity value Whereas all the feckless waster tenants will have theirs all paid for by the Council. Doing this would potentially facilitate tenants to be able to buy. IO mortgages are key to the ability of OO to buy. Govt shouldn't concern itself with the market 40 years from now. Most in Govt will be dead by then. MMR is very effectively preventing aspirant OO from buying. If LL can have IO mortgages with no repayment vehicle then so should aspirant OO. After all both would tend to repay mortgage debt by selling the property. OO to downsize and LL to liquidate business assets to leave the PRS. Perhaps the MMR should be adjusted to allow IO mortgages but with a 25% required deposit. So basically the same mortgage terms as LL have. Level playing field then!!

From: Paul Barrett 29 June 2020 11:02 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 27 June 2020 01:10 AM

Paul Barrett
Large deposits are all very well but NO sane LL would ever accept more than 2 months rent as a deposit under the old deposit regulations. Obviously there is now a 5 week maximum now. In case LL weren't aware that under old regulations if a LL took more than 2 months rent as a deposit they created a Premium Tenancy. This would allow tenants to change aspects of the tenancy. Which is the only reason I never took more than 2 months rent as a deposit. This is maximum amount of deposit Govt should have mandated. Plus they should have allowed an additional Pet Deposit of say 2 weeks of rent. These would have been the maximum deposits allowed which coincidentally would prevent a tenancy from being converted to a Premium tenancy with the additional Pet Deposit being excluded from being considered as part of the main deposit ensuring no Premium Deposit was created. But dopey Govt didn't do this. So now on principle I do not allow pets. 5 weeks deposit is totally inadequate to cover for rent defaulting and damages. 2 months deposit was inadequate but certainly slightly better than 5 weeks. For tenants with pets Govt by its stupid deposit regulations is now responsible for many pets being put down. Many LL would accept pets but NOT if they are unable to achieve an additional deposit over and above 5 weeks of deposit. Govt by it's actions is preventing tenants from having normal domestic circumstances. Pets are a major part of tenant lives. Now tenants are being discriminated against through no fault of their own by LL who have no alternative than to discriminate if separate pet deposits aren't allowed.

From: Paul Barrett 26 June 2020 15:31 PM

Paul Barrett
Everyone keeps wittering on about how they will in future insist on guarantors. The simple facts are that very few tenants are able or willing to have a guarantor. Even if one is available they are still pretty useless from a cash flow perspective. A LL may eventually recover rent owed. Trouble is that would take years by which time a lender would have repossessed the property in the absence of rent to pay a mortgage. Even with a guarantor that usually works for the initial AST period. Few guarantors are on the hook for as long as the rent defaulting tenant is occupying before being evicted. I have never seen any form of guarantor deed which is legally watertight to keep a guarantor liable for as long as the the tenant is occupying. It would be best to have RGI on a guarantor though very few would even qualify. The facts are that most LL have little alternative than to take a massive business risk and hope they don't need to evict. This rarely works out as the many LL who suffer collectively every year about £9 billion in such losses mostly caused by rent defaulting tenants can testify to! Being a LL is in fact a very risky business due primarily to the increasingly dysfunctional eviction process and this is even BEFORE the AST and S21 are abolished. So if LL consider things are problematic now just wait and see the deep s### you will be in when S21 and the AST goes!!!!! It has now become an impossible situation for leveraged LL compounded by recent events. If Govt at a whim can sanction rent defaulting preventing LL from evicting then it really is game over for the BTL sector. It is based entirely on the ability of a BTL mortgage to be paid for by rental receipts. Few LL are capable of servicing mortgage payments for extended periods without rent. It is simply outrageous that very effectively Govt is presuming that ALL LL will do whatever it takes to service the BTL mortgage payments. I just don't believe that this would be achievable for the vast majority of BTL LL. It is inevitable that there will be mass LL repossessions with many LL being bankrupted Eventually any tenant of a BTL LL faces the possibility of being evicted by a repossessing lender rather than a LL. Either way the tenant still ends up homeless. Plus the LL could end up being homeless as well. Many LL will now consider that the risks are too high and get rid of mortgaged properties to leave a reduced number of unmortgaged rental properties. Yes there would still be the same rent lossess but repossession would be avoided as no lender would be involved. In light of all the eviction problems it makes far more business sense to be an unmortgaged LL. Trouble is if mortgaged LL chose to attempt to achieve unmortgaged status there would be mass homelessness as many rental properties would need to be sold for the LL to achieve unmortgaged status on remaining properties.

From: Paul Barrett 08 June 2020 11:49 AM

Paul Barrett
What an idiot you are. You must be one of those idiot socialists that believes they have the right to spend other people's money. Where do the likes of you get off!!?? It matters not how many properties a LL owns or as is the case with 50% of the PRS are owned by the banks with the LL owning about a 25% share of the property value. If the mortgages aren't paid the LL could be bankrupted and made homeless. That is hardship. What isn't hardship is ANYONE on welfare who are considerably richer than many who bother working FULL-TIME. There are LL reliant on rental income for their own income as they do not qualify for UC due to having assets worth more than £16000 Basically your comments just prove your complete ignorance to the genuine hardship that LL are suffering currently. Owning leveraged property doesn't make you rich. If rents aren't paid then very quickly hardship for the LL occurs. You are typical of the idiots especially Labour MPs that believe all LL have pots of money to subsidise feckless tenants. These tenants should have savings instead of indulging in feckless spending. Now idiots like you expect LL to pay for free accommodation that tenants are now having because they refuse to pay rent rather than offering to vacate. People like you always seem only too willing to support fecklessness rather than shining a light on feckless behaviours which lead to tenants not having the resources to meet their normal monthly domestic costs. Believe me if the eviction process wasn't so dysfunctional tenants would ensure they had savings knowing that if they didn't they could be very quickly booted out. The complete false scaremongering that is being disseminated by idiot Labour MPs that tenants face eviction very shortly is basically lying. If you start the eviction process with a S21 it could easily take a year to eventually evict by County Court bailiff. So eviction June next year!! Hardly an immediate eviction. You must be surely aware that any mortgaged LL unable to pay the monthly mortgage payments because no rent is being paid will find their properties rapidly repossessed by lenders. It is only the facility of mortgage deferments that has has prevented many lenders from repossessing. BTL loans are considered to be Commercial Loans and are UNREGULATED. Therefore BTL lenders have no compunction about repossessing if the LL misses 2 mortgage payments. You clearly know nothing about the financial costs of being a LL and if you did you would realise how stupid your comments are. Govt cannot prevent lenders from repossessing which is what will occur if LL are unable to pay a BTL mortgage. Such a repossession would take about 3 months for a lender and not a year that it would take for the LL. Resulting of course in the tenant being evicted by the lender. You should state the truth and not some propaganda to assuage your weird socialist views. But of course people like you don't want the truth to be told because it would mean admitting LL do face extreme hardship due to rent defaulting tenants no matter how many properties they own. The only risk a tenant faces is having to return to the parental home. They certainly won't face bankruptcy which can occur very quickly for a LL or at least wipe out all his capital. Why do you believe feckless tenants should have the ability to inflict this on their LL!?

From: Paul Barrett 04 June 2020 09:56 AM

Paul Barrett
Surely it should be the case that tenants ensure the LL has the opportunity to operate as an effective business!? So what tenants should do is invite the LL round to discuss matters. Or do it over a video call. So the tenant fully declares all their current circumstances. The tenant may be able to make some of the rent etc. It will be for the LL to make a business decision on whether he wishes to retain a tenant who after all remains liable for expensive things like Council Tax and utility standing charges. If the tenant vacates then IMMEDIATELY the LL is liable. So tenants should offer to vacate IMMEDIATELY but leave it for the LL to decide if they wish to retain the tenant. Quite a few LL will wish to retain tenants as there will be few new tenants currently. I think perhaps tenants should state they will remain but leave IMMEDIATELY the LL has sourced a replacement. That gives the opportunity for the tenant to source another LL if indeed their LL does wish them to leave. In the vast majority of cases tenants will be able to pay something which would probably be far preferable than just vacating leaving the LL liable for all the empty property costs. Lets us say a LL has 5 properties with the tenants all offering to vacate IMMEDIATELY. The LL agrees and now has 5 lots of Council tax Tv licence Utility standing charges Broadband To pay. Not an inconsiderable amount. I doubt there are many tenants currently seeking new LL. So perhaps in the overall scheme of things for many LL it makes business sense to retain tenants even if not receiving the full contractual rent. The point being that invariably the tenant might resume normal work and then arrange with the LL to catch up on rent arrears. I seriously doubt even if the tenants offered to vacate that LL wholesale would accept such an offer. LL are far more pragmatic than that and the idea that LL would engage in mass requests for tenants to vacate is for the birds. Most of the tenants currently rent defaulting wouldn't under normal circumstances be rent defaulting. LL are practical people who would much prefer to discuss with tenants their situation and wouldn't normally respond with a knee jerk reaction to require the tenant to vacate. But it should be for the LL to determine whether they wish to retain a tenant and NOT for a tenant to force the situation by refusing to vacate if required by the LL. EVEN if the tenant isn't paying rent they are acting as a sort of property guardian and if the LL is unable to source new tenants leaving the rent defaulting tenant in place could be the wisest business decision for the LL. Obviously every tenancy will be different and LL would need to take full regard of each tenants particular curcimstances. So quite frankly even if tenants offered to vacate I doubt that many LL would want that to occur. There are many sides in owning a rental property. Being paid rent is just one of them albeit a very significant one!! But I say to tenants do the honourable thing and offer to vacate if the LL after discussion doesn't wish to retain you. My contention would be that many tenants would pleasantly surprised that in the majority of cases their LL wouldn't wish them to vacate. Just give the LL the opportunity to make a business decision.

From: Paul Barrett 04 June 2020 01:01 AM

Paul Barrett
Potentially many more new lettings could have been achieved. As it is there can't be unless all the rent defaulting tenants vacate. Many LL are facing bankruptcy unless they are permitted to at least try to evict quickly so that they have a chance to source tenants who will pay rent. It is simply outrageous that LL are being forced to continue to house rent defaulting tenants. Govt should simply announce that at the end of the eviction ban all rent defaulting tenants must vacate properties if the LL wishes that to occur. Any tenants refusing to vacate to be removed by Police IMMEDIATELY. This will give those rent defaulting tenants the opportunity to source cheaper lodgings so even more new rental activity could occur. The rental market has changed. Tenants need to accept the situation and adjust their domestic circumstances in light of what for many is considerably reduced finances. It cannot be allowed that for many LL they are facing year long eviction processes with tenants refusing to pay rent. Before an eviction occurs many properties will have been repossessed by lenders forcing many LL into bankruptcy. Govt by it's ridiculous eviction ban is making a bad situation even worse and is effectively conspiring to put many LL out of business. LL must be given the opportunity for price discovery which is not possible while rent defaulting tenants are still occupying rental properties. Effectively a large proportion of the rental market has been suspended. This distorts the market in total. Govt simply cannot be permitted to make so many LL bankrupt. If Govt really wants to assist tenants then it should provide loans to tenants to enable all rent arrears and future rent to be paid. Such loans could then be recovered over say 5 years from tax code adjustments. It should not be for LL to subsidise feckless rent defaulting tenants which is what Govt is effectively doing by it's incompetent policies. All LL ask is to be given the chance to operate in a realistic market which can only be achieved if rent defaulting tenants can be removed quickly. To date it seems that this situation will remain for many months. It is simply appalling that Govt by it's incompetent policies will be putting many LL out of business or causing extreme financial distress for those LL able to survive. I'm sure this effective persecution of a minority is against the UN human rights. The Govt should be sued by the UN for what will be a destruction of vast parts of the PRS. When will Govt realise that LL are in the game to make money and NOT to provide FREE accommodation!!!

From: Paul Barrett 03 June 2020 14:05 PM

Paul Barrett
For the vast majority of us little people in our investment timelines property remains a far more effective investment vehicle than anything else. Especially residential lettings property of all types. Granted there are issues as regards being able to get rid of rent defaulting tenants. But there are ways these problems may be solved albeit requiring tenants of far higher quality than LL have traditionally accepted. It just means LL have to be super cautious when it comes to taking on tenants. This is the hardest part of lettings. FHL obviously doesn't have the same risks but it does involve risking void periods which is why many LL prefer normal residential lettings on AST. Rent controls will be the catalyst for the leveraged part of the PRS to disappear. So no more BTL mortgages as it won't be possible with rent controls. As and when the new penal regulations are introduced I'm not sure that BTL will be seen as viable anymore. S8 would need to be massively improved to give lenders the same confidence that S21 has done. I am very surprised at lenders still offering high LTV BTL mortgages. With the increasing difficulties of getting rid of duff tenants I would have thought lenders would have reduced maximum LTV to no more than 50%. Surely lenders are aware of the enormous financial distress that many LL are in following their tenants refusing to pay rent. I would consider that many LL are selling up and consolidating much reduced debt with fewer properties. Many LL are simply remortgaging with existing providers who are desperate to hang onto their market share. So no new mortgage searches will be evidenced. With millions soon to lose their jobs there will be massive turbulence in the property market as many OO are bankrupted and repossessed. The economic realties of this CV19 haven't hit yet. Everything is in suspended animation. When employers have to contribute to furlough ed wages that is when the redundancies start. Employers will be requiring massive changes in contracts and working practices. The situation with BA will be replicated across industry. Employers need to be able to pay less for more flexibility. This makes such employees not very good mortgage or tenant risks. There will in coming months be floods of distressed property sales. Those rich LL will be able to buy with no mortgages required. It is my contention that the BTL sector will massively reduce. Many fomer BTL LL will just become unencumbered ones. There will perhaps be a mass exodus of Londoners to far away from London as they are allowed to WFH. Commuting daily into London for many London workers will be a thing of the past. Such a major change in working practices will cause massive upheavals in the property market. I predict that coastal areas will see a large uplift in values as Londoners evacuate out of diverse London to the far less diverse coastal areas. As long as it is possible to reach London by train within say 2 hours those are the areas that will see value uplift. LL I reckon will be planning to sell and then invest in coastal areas which are currently vastly undervalued. If you want to avoid polluted cities then coastal living has its merits. There will be no return to the BTL industry as it was. It will remain very subdued to the point of eventually disappearing apart from remortgage business. BTL only really works with quality tenants. Vast numbers of tenants have proven how feckless they are. To not even be able to sustain loss of income for a few months just proves how tenuous most tenant finances are. LL need far better tenants than these if they are to financially survive. It does seem that across society as a whole there is very little financial resilience. This has been fully exposed by this CV19 crisis which has revealed how precarious the letting business model is. It is hardly surprising therefore if BTL mortgage searches have declined so much. Lots of LL are considering their positions!

From: Paul Barrett 02 June 2020 11:20 AM

Paul Barrett
There is much hyperbole about the eviction process. Shelter etc NEVER accept that the vast majority of tenants do NOT vacate at the expiry of S21 notice. It would be great if they DID!!! Nope most LL know that as soon as a tenant receives a S21 notice they will STOP paying rent and will wait to be evicted. Rather than leaving things until the tenant has vacated it will be possibly worthwhile the LL issuing a Money claim online once there have been 2 months of rent arrears which is 1 month and 1 day where rent paid in advance monthly. The LL has an impossible situation to attempt civil recovery. But at least while the tenant refuses to vacate following expiry of a S21 the Civil Recovery process will have been commenced. As it takes so long to evict tenants via the County Court and with the increasing prevalence of refusal by DJ to allow LL to escalate to HCEO then LL could easily escalate a CCJ to HCEO. With the rent defaulting tenants refusing to vacate HCEO should be able to locate bank and savings account to apply 3rd party charging orders or to attend the property facilitating access for HCEO with keys. Then the HCEO will be able to enforce further etc. All this can be done while the tenants refuse to vacate. It is perfectly possible to add to a CCJ further rent defaults etc. Few tenants would expect to receive a CCJ before being evicted. Of this might incentivise them to satisfy the CCJ as they will have 30 days to achieve this to avoid it being registered with the Registry Trust. I think it is worthwhile pointing out to new and existing tenants that if they default on 2 months rent then they will have a CCJ registered against them if they fail to pay those rent arrears. So suggest that tenants should have sufficient savings in place in case of sudden income loss. The last thing these tenants would want is to have a CCJ registered against them. It therefore would be sensible for feckless tenants to have financial resilience to be able to meet their monthly domestic financial commitments. It is clear from the many comments in MSM and on this site that many tenants are completely feckless regarding their AST contracts as something that are purely discretionary. No LL can afford to operate a business model where the consumer of the service considers they have every right to consume a service without paying for it!!

From: Paul Barrett 01 June 2020 22:12 PM

Paul Barrett
Multi-faceted I am not partisan especially. Usually am but I try to understand and appreciate other perspectives. I do all with the best of intentions to provide a good accommodation service at market rents. Quite a simple business model you would think! But for many they wish SMALL private LL would all disappear down a hole. A not very practical solution to accommodation shortages! I have no issue with being forced to professionalise. I had to do it as a lirry abd coach driver. Cost me £390 to do 30 hrs of CPD without which I cannot drive for money. Have to do it once every 5 years. I really don't see that as too much of a burden. Of course licencing will never hapoen as there are thousands of fraudulent LL out there who would never pass licencing criteria. Just a smalm example. How many LL are letting to DSS tenants in breach of their mortgage conditions. They ard all fraudster LL. They would not pass a licencing requirement to have the correct mortgage product and conditions for the type of tenant they have. Associated with that little issue is whether as required by lenders the LL has the correct insurance. If the lender bans DSS tenants how can the LL have DSS buildings insurance? That means the building is insured for the wrong type of tenant. Now let us presuppose the LL didn't bother advising the insurer of DSS tenant occupation. In the event of total loss and the insurer finds out the tenants were DSS they will reject the claim. If the lender fi ds out which they surely will they will call in the loan. How would that work for the fraudster LL who has an uninsurable hole in the ground remaining!? Mant LL wilm ve required to advise their lender that their tenants arr now in receipt of HB. Will the lender require the LL to evict as mortgage conditions state no DSS!? If required to evict or the lender calls in the loan how to evict when it could take years!? So many things to trip leveraged LL up.

From: Paul Barrett 30 May 2020 06:56 AM

Paul Barrett
I do believe that LL need to adjust their BTL business model such that in the event a tenant is unable to pay the market rate that LHA will at least cover all costs. This means reducing leverage to that which could be afforded by LHA. It would mean LL having to sell off some properties or to pay off vast chunks of mortgage debt. This maybe unpalatable for many LL but it must make business sense to know that worse case scenario the business is supportable by LHA rates. Sweating residential letting assets to the maximum is all very well until the tenants stop paying the market rent for whatever reason. Having the backstop of LHA to cover a LL business model would be a wise move by LL. I know there would be massive attendant costs for many LL to reduce their leverage. But I see little alternative as bankruptcy awaits LL unable to meet the costs of their letting assets. Doing all this will actually result in far better yields for LL though of course it would mean for many LL including me sacrificing the possibilities of CG across multiple properties. The chances of CG for at least the next 10 years is precisely zero. My properties are worth no more than they were 10 years ago. It could easily be 20 years before property values exceed those in 2008. I'm afraid like it or not LL need to make themselves far more financially resilient. LL should aspire to become unencumbered as soon as they can. As this CV19 situation has shown being a leveraged LL based on market rents rather than LHA rates is too risky. LHA if qualified for is effectively a Govt wage which will always be paid. LL need to base their leverage on LHA rather than market rates I also don't get why these LRU groups believe that paying costs for ILLEGAL ECONOMIC MIGRANTS is the correct thing to do!!!! Simply beggars belief!!

From: Paul Barrett 29 May 2020 20:23 PM

Paul Barrett
The demand by tenants is still there. But if they won't pay their contractual rent they will have to leave. Alternatively LL will just have to accept LHA rates and that is if their tenants qualify for LHA. LL are unable to determine price discovery for their assets if unable to remove rent defaulting tenants quickly. Leveraged LL are the most at risk. Heavily leveraged LL will be bankrupted if LHA is insufficient to service all costs. I predict that the PRS will shrink by at least 40%. These will be leveraged LL. Those unencumbered LL will be in a better situation even if they can only achieve LHA rates. Many tenants would be better off surrendering their tenancies and returning home. There are simply too many rental properties available at rates that LL want. Few LL will be prepared to let at LHA rates. A massive shrinkage in the PRS would be most welcome. The economy will suffer mightily with nowhere to rent as LL sell up. There will be about 5 million unemployed soon. They simply don't all need to rent. They can return to the parental home. Leveraged LL will be under extreme distress. Time for leveraged LL to deleverage and ideally become unencumbered with far fewer properties. The time has come for a massive contraction in the leveraged PRS. Of course it will mean mass homelessness but that won't be the fault of LL. Reducing the BTL sector while increasing the unencumbered sector would be a far better business model than the current very precarious BTL one. Anecdotally I am able to assess the distress being experienced by LL. MX have stated that most of their time has been spent dealing with mortgage holiday applications. This just proves my contention that LL are running very risky BTL business models. To have just 2 months for extreme financial distress to occur just proves the BTL business model is unviable. BTL LL are nowhere near enough financially resilient enough. Things are gonna have to change

From: Paul Barrett 29 May 2020 19:35 PM

Paul Barrett
Some of the comments on here seem to be confident that they will be able to seek recovery from student guarantors. I would suggest that such LL are being extremely naive. Attempting civil recovery from guarantors is no easy situation. Just imagine the situation where both parents have been made redundant and are now receiving UC and Oh! yes any supposed equity in their residential property has been wiped out. How may a LL enforce any guarantor agreement!!!!???? It can take years to enforce guarantor obligations. If the LL is unable or unwilling to service the mortgage payments before guarantors can be forced to then the property will have been repossessed by lenders years before. A student guarantor is NO guarantor of anything. Only if there is a RGI policy in place would there be sufficient liquid cash from the RGI company to prevent repossession. I don't know many parents that would be prepared on a joint and several basis to be guarantors to the student tenants in the household. If student tenants are facilitated the ability to just void their student tenancy because of whatever excuse will be the day the PRS stops letting to students. The whole point of LL letting to students is for enhanced profit. If this is put at risk then student LL won't bother being student LL. As other LL have commented they have bern able to replace their student tenants very easily with professional tenants. Any property used for students is easily made suitable for professional tenants. Many such proverbial student properties are usually in ideal locations for such professional tenants. I predict that many student properties will be converted to professional tenants as HMO. Such professional tenants will provide far more tenancy certainty than student tenants. I believe that many existing student LL will be reviewing their student portfolios with a view to withdrawing from the student market. It must be a nightmare being a Scottish student LL. Students will find availability of suitable property is substantially reduced. This will have been entirely the fault of feckless student tenants. There will be many changes in the PRS.. Student lettings will be just one of the them.

From: Paul Barrett 26 May 2020 21:27 PM

Paul Barrett
Absolute twaddle you talk. Both parties entered into a civilly binding contract. Nobody forced either of them to do so. The LL did so on the basis that the contract would be fulfilked. The tenant did so on the basis that the LL would provide the contracted services. If either party withdraws from the contract without mutual consent then the relevant party would be liable for the costs of the affected party. Force majeure has sod all to do with it. Not the fault of the LL if the tenant wishes to vacate early. They are still liable for the full contract length. It is just TOUGH if it is no longer convenient for a student tenant to use those services the LL has provided. Using your ridiculous logic all tenants could cite this FM situation. They couldn't posdibly expect to find themselves in such a position that they were unable to service their contractual obligations. It is ridiculous views like yours that undermine the whole tenant/LL relationship. To have LL exposed to the whims of people like you are very dangerous for civil contract law. Faced with these new paradigms many LL will stop letting to students. The day contracts en masse are sanctioned to be void is the day such tenancy contracts won't be written. Leveraged LL in particular would be hoghly exposed in future to effectively make it a pointless investment so risky would they be to students being permitted not to pay fir the entirety of the contract. So only unencumbered LL could risk student tenants. Even for them there would be monthly costs to be met without any rent being paid.

From: Paul Barrett 26 May 2020 20:47 PM

Paul Barrett
So then Seb do you mean the sort of comments which you term as vitriol but which most LL consider commonsense! !?? So do you consider LL should subsidise feckless tenant lifestyles! ? Have tenants never heard of saving for a rainy day!!!?? Or is it the case perhaps knowing about the dysfunctional eviction process they know they don't have to bother as they know it can take months to get rid of them!? Can you think of any other service provider that is forced by law to continue to provide a service without payment until legally the consumer can be prevented from having access to that service!? Why do you believe it is acceptable for tenants to live a just in time lifestyle. Wouldn't the responsible thing to do would be to build up savings just incase for whatever reason the tenants loses his usual income. Believe me if tenants knew they could be booted out very quickly for rent defaulting they would very quickly change their attitudes and start saving to prevent being evicted. It is the dysfunctional eviction process which facilitates feckless tenant behaviour. Now none of what I have stated could in any way be considered vitriol unless you consider the unvarnished truth is vitriol. If you did you would be an idiot. I'm sure you don't expect LL to subsidise feckless tenant lifestyles. Where would LL find the resources if you did support such a bonkers concept. I don't know about you but after all my costs I have little if any remaining resources. So I will be assisting my occupants to remain by advising them that providing they continue to pay the full contractual rent they may stay as long as they like. I only review rents annually and that might mean an increase or it might not. But my occupants know what their rent will be for 1 year. I do not have any spare resources to enable my occupants to pay less rent than they currently are. They have asked and I have naturally declined. If you have some free resources you could help me with I will knock off £100 pcm of their rent for the 4 flats I have. I'm sure you could spare £400 for me as it seems you consider LL should have. Must be nice having a magic money tree to enable you to spread your largesse far and wide to assist all those feckless tenants who couldn't be bothered to save. I think you'll find LL have no interest in subsidising the lifestyles of feckless tenants. There will be many homeless tenants shortly. Any new LL will be asking very searching questions of new tenant applicants as to where they have been living. They won't accept they have been with parent's! ! Tenants need to buck their ideas up and understand that LL will not put up with their feckless way of living. Any new occupants I have I will require them to explain how much they intend to save and I will be checking that have kept to those amounts. If they don't out they go after 6 months. I am not going to have my lifestyle controlled by some feckless tenant who couldn't be bothered to save so rent could be afforded in the event of income loss. RGI won't generally be possible as most tenants can't qualify for it. I will require any new tenant to have at least 2 months of savings equal to the monthly rent. The world for tenants is going to substantially change. No longer will LL accept taking on borderline tenants. Tenants will need to be well resourced. None of this just in time living stuff knowing that the dysfunctional eviction process protects them from the real world. The brave new world of renting awaits feckless tenants!!

From: Paul Barrett 21 May 2020 10:03 AM

Paul Barrett
In light of this CV19 thing hasn't the dynamic of the DSS tenant changed!? OK where the private market rent is substantially more than the LHA rate then usually not worth bothering with HB tenants. But where the LHA rate is about the same as local market rates DOESN'T it make a bit more sense to take on the feckless DSS tenant!? They are effectively Govt workers in receipt of a Govt wage. So rent should be paid irrespective of any pandemic or any other situation which cause hundreds of thousands of private tenants not to pay their rent. I suppose a bit of an issue is due to the OBC in the event of direct payment the LL might only receive £0.50pcw. As far as I am aware direct payment can only be for the HB element of UC. Not much use if the tenant doesn't bother working and is subject to the OBC potentially resulting in all other benefits using up the OBC limit leaving very little of the HB element to pass on. What happens if a DSS tenant receives an increase in other benefits reducing even further the amount of HB element!? If direct payment was required the LL could find a far reduced amount of HB element. But even taking into account the potential of the Govt welfare wages being paid it still wouldn't make me take on DSS tenants. Still far too many downsides to DSS tenants. I can't see anything changing with DSS tenants to make LL wanting to take them on. Of course this situation isn't the fault of the DSS tenant it is just the system they and the LL are subject to. It is the dysfunctional UC and eviction system which causes LL to decline tenants. Believe me the full contractual rent was paid directly to LL; with no clawback possibility and tenants could be evicted 14 days after 1st rent default LL would be taking on DSS tenants. As this will bever hapoen even mire LL will refuse to take on DSS tenants. Rather than use the term DSS tenants. Just use the term Subject to status For tenant suitability. The DSS tenants will soon cotton on that STS means no DSS. No way could the likes of Shelter accuse LL of being discriminatory as lots of financial marketing material quotes Subject to Status. LA and LL alike may use this phrase as a very handy replacement for No DSS. But irrespective the ways things are in the PRS can only mean fewer LL wishing to take on tenants who don't have sufficient status as far as the LL is concerned.

From: Paul Barrett 15 May 2020 23:51 PM

Paul Barrett
Ahh! Presumably idiots like Ray DON'T agree that property developers should be able to borrow on the increased value of their properties to build more commercial property. Other businesses borrowing on the increased value of property they own. Seems like ray doesn't like the idea of people borrowing based on increased values. Forgive me but isn't that a principal driver of the housing market in the UK!!!!?? I suggest ray is a silly little socialist and consequently his views are irrelevant. It is capitalism that pays for socialism. Socialism normally stops when they run out of other people's money! It seems ray resents the deployment of capital in the housing market especially the rented sector. How quaint!! Meanwhile back at the coalface LL are getting on with the day job keeping their business going in spite of millions of feckless tenants who won't or can't pay their rent. It seems to have escaped the attention of feckless tenants that perhaps they should have savings to cover sudden income loss. Just a little anecdote from yesterday while I was outside attempting to fix my van. Two tenants a couple of houses away from me discussing things. One eventually stated that if it came to a choice of being able to only afford food or rent the LL would not be getting any rent. That just shows you how feckless tenants are. But I can guarantee that if there was a fast track eviction process for rent defaulting to get rid of rent defaulting tenants his attitude would have been completely different. Feckless tenants know they are protected by a dysfunctional eviction process which gives them licence for their feckless behaviour. It would have been great if he had stated that he had to prioritise paying his rent before food otherwise his LL might boot him out and that he would have to try using a food Bank etc to survive. That little scene I witnessed yesterday encapsulates all I think about tenants. They are largely feckless scum who will knock LL at first opportunity. Such attitudes are another reason for me to get out of the PRS. I refuse to let my rather nice properties to such sanctimonious scum. The most important thing for tenants to realise is that the MOST important Bill to be paid is their rent bill. Without a roof over your head life can be pretty uncomfortable. But the eviction process facilitates these feckless attitudes. As part of my future referencing I will be wanting to see a decent level of savings. No savings no tenancy. I refuse to be used as a free bank loan for feckless tenants to live their feckless lifestyle. I say to tenants start saving so you can always afford your RENT even if you suffer sudden income loss. Adopt a boring lifestyle until you have a sufficient cash buffer of at least 6 months of savings to cover normal monthly outgoings. Trouble is few tenants are interested in saving anything. They live a just in time lifestyle knowing there is little a LL can do to get rid of them quickly. This then inculcates feckless tenant lifestyles. .The law enshrines this fecklessness by protecting tenants from immediate eviction if they stop paying rent. So LL now you know where you are in the pecking order as far as feckless tenants are concerned. Ensure your business models are sufficiently robust to deal cope with the attitude of the average feckless tenant. If you don't you could be bankrupted by your feckless tenants!! Some food for thought.

From: Paul Barrett 13 May 2020 01:38 AM

Paul Barrett
I think it can be safely said that many tenants have become feckless which I consider has been a surprise to many LL. Such LL may well have considered what they thought were good tenants were not in fact providing any sort of financial resilience for themselves. It seems even supposed good tenants lead a feckless just in time lifestyle. Essentially the LL is put at great financial risk by the feckless lifestyle of what was supposedly a good tenant. Such tenants must surely have savings to cover loss of income. It seems NOT. Are those sort of good tenants GOOD tenants!? I suggest not! Feckless tenants are not the usual suspects. It would therefore seem reasonable for any LL to ascertain the status of a tenant to be able to service their domestic financial fixed costs in the event of income loss. A tenant no matter how good a job without savings is a very risky tenant as CV19 has proven. Different if the job is a Govt or Council one. They are paid regardless. So even if lower paid they have wage security and don't need a level of savings that much. It is clear that fecklessness is reckless and not having resources to meet rent commitments in the event of income loss is clearly irresponsible. Few tenants are prepared to adopt a boring lifestyle to enable them to accrue reasonable savings. Not doing so to me shows a level of disrespect towards the LL. Being able as a tenant to advise the LL that the tenant has sufficient resources to pay the rent for at least 6 months in the event of income loss would be very reassuring for a LL. Would LL not want such tenants in future rather than the ones who purport to be good but are easily unemployed. There are very few tenants that are respectful of their LL. If they were they would have ensured financial resilience for themselves. Few tenants do this. Most live a feckless just in time lifestyle. This means that the LL is very vulnerable to such a feckless lifestyle. A rather significant business risk!

From: Paul Barrett 11 May 2020 22:12 PM

Paul Barrett
What chance is there of a rent defaulting tenant moving out before formally evicted!? I'll tell you; precisely ZERO. Tenants know LL don't stand a chance of Civil Recovery which is why very few LL ever bother with CCJ's. So tenants will use this even more dysfunctional eviction process to default on rent. Even if receiving income they won't pay their rent. They will use the very lengthy eviction period which could be easily 2 years to build up a rather nice amount of savings as they won't be paying rent. They will also default on utility bills and if bills are included in rent and in the LL name even more unrecoverable costs. I suppose it might be worthwhile applying for a CCJ after 2 months rent default which is 1 month and 1 day where rent paid in advance. But even then the chances of any tenant paying a CCJ are ZERO. Apparently Courts do not even register a successful CCJ on the Registry Trust unless a special application is made and even then by all accounts the court ignores the request. Easy to see why LL don't bother with CCJ. I'm afraid that many hundreds of thousands of tenants will take the proverbial out of LL and there is very little LL can do. Not legally anyway. Which is why I expect many LL to move to the darkside in order to prevent personal bankruptcy. Who could blame them when you have Govt processes essentially supporting feckless rent defaulting tenants without any care for the LL. Govt just believes that LL should support tenants in their time of need.................with what......shirt buttons!? If LL didn't realise how parlous their circumstances can be made by Govt and feckless tenants they must surely realise now!! For those LL that will at considerable cost to themselves survive bankruptcy will they continue in the same old way!!?? Of course and very unfortunately many LL will be bankrupted by feckless rent defaulting tenants. LL will receive NO sympathy or empathy from Govt or Society in general. Most of Society will believe that such private LL will be receiving their just deserts!! I'm afraid if LL never realised how despised they were they must surely realise now. Govt is NOT assisting them in any way. Mortgage deferment is NO assistance at all. What about LL without mortgages who rely on rental income for their income!!??? They can't even claim UC as most LL have equity of more than £16000 which means they are disqualified from claiming UC. Have yet to see a supermarket accept a brick as a payment method as part of the property equity!! I'm afraid that many LL are in for some extremely distressing times. They aren't even allowed to control their business effectively as the usual course of action is to get rid of rent defaulting or otherwise incapable tenants. LL aren't in control of their personal capital. Govt is dictating how it is used or not as the case maybe! Reality has arrived to the PRS. LL who survive must surely accept the old ways of doing things are no longer worth risking. Surely there will be massive changes in the PRS which I see massively reducing in capacity. This CV19 is a shot across the bows. LL who ignore this will be fools if they are insufficiently resilient when the next lockdown occurs as a response to the next pandemic................and there WILL be one!!

From: Paul Barrett 11 May 2020 17:20 PM

Paul Barrett
Granted what you suggest is valid. Of course WFH is NOT a panacea for many businesses. But from the perspective of business resilience which means essentially the ability to continue to make money any business would be wise to take business resilience measures. For many businesses this means ensuring that WFH at the drop of a hat is possible and to also encourage WFH. Of course there are disadvantages in WFH but it must be surely worthwhile facilitating the ability to do so. I believe that there will be hybrid business solutions where there will be a combination of office and WFH working. I believe these inevitable changed business practices will much reduce the requirement for expensive City centre offices. It makes sense to move from cities to the regions where real estate is far cheaper. I believe many businesses will review how they conduct business in future. Business will not wish to be in a situation where it cannot continue because it's workers are locked down at home. It makes pragmatic business sense to have alternative strategies in place in the event of anther lock down situation. It should also be for LL to consider their business practices. Essentially this means ensuring their business is resilient to mass tenant rent defaulting etc. Inevitably this must means LL selling up and reducing their exposure to rent defaulting tenants. It would be no bad thing if the numbers of mortgaged LL substantially reduced. It is clear an unencumbered LL is far more resilient than an encumbered one. The business model of gearing up and hoping there will be a tenant to service the costs is now a busted business model. There will be another CV19 as long as air travel continues. A disease can reach any part of the world from a Chinese wet market in 24 hrs. Only by enforcing strict quarantine for all visitors will there be the ability for preventing diseases from entering a country. Unfortunately there are few borders that are resilient enough to prevent illegal entry. So the world will remain vulnerable to such pandemic diseases. Business must therefore make itself resilient or not bother being in business. That is my intent to not remain in business. I simply don't have the resilience to sustain multiple rent defaulting tenants. Consequently I have little alternative than to revise my business methodologies. Essentially this means reducing my exposure to rent defaulting tenants. I can only do this by reducing my exposure to mortgages. This must mean for me selling various properties to reduce or eliminate leverage. Only as a very lightly encumbered or unencumbered LL might I stand a chance of surviving the next pandemic crisis. The fact that my actions will result in homeless occupants is of no concern to me. I am not the slightest bit interested in housing people. Making money is my only imperative. If this means I can guarantee only doing so by reducing property numbers and remaining leverage on remaining properties then that is what I will need to do. I simply cannot risk being exposed to bankruptcy because of rent defaulting tenants. My penchant for risk only goes so far. I always knee there was a great risk of rent defaulting. I never really appreciated how exposed I was until this CV19 lock down process occurred. I do NOT intend to remain so similarly exposed. Ultimately if this means I leave the PRS in entirety then so be it. I really don't see the point in risking bankruptcy because of rent defaulting tenants. At least if I had say one unencumbered property I would be resilient to rent defaulting tenants. I'm sure that many other LL will be considering such options for the future. Personal domestic financial security is my main concern. Risking that due to rent defaulting tenants is not something I wish to continue risking anymore. I surely cannot and will not be the only leveraged LL that will have similar concerns. The PTB are doing everything they can to ensure it is the small LL that carries the can for rent defaulting tenants. Personally I am not prepared to carry that can anymore. So will take steps to manage the situation.

From: Paul Barrett 11 May 2020 14:03 PM

Paul Barrett
Those who are able to work remotely will definitely be calling into question living near expensive cities. If not having to commute on a daily basis it makes eminent sense to move out of expensive cities to far better and cheaper properties are far better surroubdings. I would imagine that many remote workers will only need to come into an office setting once per month. . I predict a mass exodus of city workers to the countryside which will give a massive economic boost to rural areas. Of course this means a massive reduction in workers required for the hospitality industry. That means far fewer immigrants are needed so they can return home. I reckon if still possible to reach Central London in say 1.45 hrs that gets you to most coastal areas. There will be massive 'white flight' once it is realised diverse areas can be left for the diverse. The whites can move out to a far better quality of life where diversity is not common. Keep the diverse in the cities. I predict a massive demand for houses in the Country where city dwellers bring their property profits to the countryside. So consider a ring 1.45 hrs from London with effective train connections and that is where to invest. All those who invested loads near CrossRail......................doh!! Not needed now. People can move further away. 1.45 hrs travelling time easily gets you to Margate in the South. Remote workers will transform property demand. I've had carious dealings over the phone. All of the staff have been working from home. I noticed no difference in the service provided. All you need is a dining room table and a laptop. You don't need expensive London offices This CV19 issue will be a blessing in disguise. It will transform where people consider they need to live for work purposes. So far from just daydreaming browsing this is very serious property searching. People will wish to move out of cities before everyone has the same idea and prices shoot up in the well connected to London country properties.

From: Paul Barrett 08 May 2020 10:54 AM

Paul Barrett
Will such a loan be considered by HMRC as income for S24 purposes? One presumes that LL would be allowed to offset the loan against income if such a loan is meant to assist LL!? Potentially taking the loan could push the LL into being a HRT if HMRC DOESN'T allow the loan to be offset against income. That would have all sorts of negative effects. Why should a LL take a loan that under S24 could bankrupt the LL if he has no money to pay tax on fictitious income!? Why should a LL take out a loan to cover for rent that feckless tenants refuse to pay for whatever reason? Why should not tenants obtain the loan to then pay their rent? Nothing then to do with the fact that Govt knows feckless tenants won't repay any such loan. Maybe Govt is aware that feckless tenants cause LL over £9 billion in losses per year mostly caused by feckless tenant rent defaulting. Surely it should be for feckless tenants to ensure they have sufficient financial resilience in the event they suffer income shortages. I think such financial resilience is usually called SAVINGS. Of course there are also income protection policies that tenants could take out. Why does Govt consider it acceptable that LL should take out loans to to pay themselves the rent that the tenants should be paying!? Perhaps the supermarkets should take out loans to pay for the shopping that their customers do but don't pay for!!!!!!????? Yet again the ridiculously STUPID PTB are imposing policies on the PRS that simply beggar belief. Especially on mortgaged sole trader LL. It is simply ridiculous to expect any private LL to retain a rent defaulting tenant. GOVT knows that if it did not impose even more penal eviction processes many LL would have been evicting millions of tenants. It seems Govt believes that LL will do whatever it takes to remain a LL. A situation they will very sadly be disabused of as LL sell up! To imagine that LL will suffer thousands of pounds of losses is for the birds. There will be night visits by men in balaclavas carrying baseball bats evicting feckless rent defaulting tenants!!! Any tenant who believes they could get away with living rent free until being eventually evicted after a year or so will be sadly deluded!!

From: Paul Barrett 07 May 2020 04:53 AM

Paul Barrett
Unfortunately there is still too much rental stock available. Until we reach the happy point where we have at least 10 people chasing every tenancy then we will have too many rental properties. We need scarcity to increase rents to realistic levels. More LL need to sell up to match what will be declining demand. Many tenants will be returning to mummy and daddy. They won't need expensive rental properties. Afraid most tenants are in service sector and that won't be around much longer. Hospitality is NOT essential. People will be saving their money and not using restaurants etc. Many more will find working from home is effective so why bother living near work? Move further out to cheaper areas. So what if once or twice a week you have to travel into work. I.5 hrs on a train can get you a long way from London in a nice cheap property. If I was a London LL I would be desperate to sell up. Demand will be for nice big houses with gardens etc. There are plenty out there. You DON'T need to live within the M25 to make working in London practical. Working from home will be very attractive for employees and employers alike. Big office buildings in London will become virtual white elephants. Time for LL to invest in houses way out of city centres. That is where the demand will be. Southern coastal areas will see a revival as London workers move out to homes there. They won't be commuting every day. So a slightly longer journey once or twice a week is far more bearable. Anywhere on the South and East coast with decent train connections to London will be in much demand. It so happens that those areas are still relatively cheap compared to London. Houses with gardens will be what tenants want. A good 4 bed house can be let out to tenants all day every day and no Mandatory HMO Licensing costs to bother with. Obviously pick areas where no Additional Licensing required. Leave blocks of flats for the big corporates. They can suffer the ridiculously high service charges etc Small LL should gravitate towards houses with gardens. Even better a house with parking on frontage etc. We will see an exodus of workers from city centres to more pleasant surroundings. We might even see employers respond the same way. After all Barclays are emptying Canary Wharf. They could easily set up in Margate! I believe that with what will be more home working people will want more space. If I was looking to invest then 4 bed houses maximum is what I would be looking for at max 15 mins walk to a Stn This CV19 outfall is going to change tenant demand. DON'T be a LL left with expensive flats in London. They won't be wanted. Get out to the sticks where quality of life is far superior. As long as it is possible if required to commute to London then that would be a good location for rental property. Let the dopey Chinese buy up all the dud flats in London. Nobody will want them!

From: Paul Barrett 04 May 2020 10:49 AM

Paul Barrett
I would much prefer homeownership made far easier. As it isn't we LL are unjustifiably attacked by everyone. Though it must be remembered that if it wasn't for LL property prices would be far higher and there would be a much reduced rental supply and also of properties that OO buy. LL through their acumen are responsible for funding most new-build developments and bring to market much supply that no FTB would ever wish to buy. It is LL that sort out the 'awkward squad' properties and rejuvenate them for rental occupation. This clueless idiot managing director needs to learn what the property market is all about. It must have escaped her attention that since 2015 the Tories via their bonkers and penal anti-LL policies have sought the eradication of the small LL. The SDLT surcharge was just one of these bonkers policies. Govt is hardly going to remove a policy which would see an increase in more rental property. Govt is not the slightest bit interested at all in where tenants might live if there were fewer rental properties available. It just hopes its big buddy corporate LL will bring sufficient supply to the market. Consequently the Tories are doing everything they can to give advantage to the corporates by coming up with as many disincentives for the small private LL as they can think of. They want to eradicate the small LL NOT encourage him!! I would say that since 2015 they are doing a pretty good job in that eradication as indeed many LL are selling up or downsizing the numbers of rental properties they have. Surely this stupid director has been aware of what has been going on in the PRS since 2015!!?? 2015 being the start of the bonkers LL eradication policies with S24 being announced. There is simply no way that Govt will do anything to assist small private LL to bring more supply to market. Small LL have got well above their station and need to be put back in their box.. Can't have the hoi poloi making money out of property. That is reserved for their alleged betters!!! I don't believe the PTB realised Pandora's Box was opened with the advent of the BTL mortgage. No longer for the rich property investment was made possible for the man in the street who could be bothered to save up a decent deposit or acquire one. Obviously feckless aspirant FTB never bothered saving for a deposit so they ended up as the tenants of those who did. Personally I would incentivise FTB. So first thing would be to abolish MMR. Allow IO residential mortgages with a term of 70 years from age 18 with NO repayment vehicle required beyond that of selling the property to redeem the mortgage. Also 95% residential borrowing to be allowed. I would abolish SDLT for all buyers of property up to the value of £500000 and would index link it to avoid fiscal drag. However I would also introduce a maximum 50% LTV for all BTL and LTB mortgages but would abolish S24. That would massively constrain how many properties LL could buy. Making these changes would be politically massively appealing. I also believe MIRAS should be introduced. Home ownership is something to be encouraged. It is residential lending criteria which forces many to become tenants. Converting tenants to homeowners is something I would greatly welcome. Such homeownership is a great driver of GDP. If Govt wishes to remain electable it needs to incentivise OO. Changing lender criteria is the first thing to do. If that meant less demand for rental property I would be perfectly content with that. There will still be a need for a PRS. It will just be smaller and far more select as to who it takes on as tenants. This managing director however should read up this site. She might learn about what is going on in a sector that she is supposed to be an 'alleged expert' in!!!!!!!!!

From: Paul Barrett 01 May 2020 10:37 AM

Paul Barrett
What I find bizarre with all this situation is that tenants seem to believe they can adjust their rent payments depending on what they perceive the LL does with the rent. IT IS NONE OF THE BUSINESS OF TENANTS WHAT LL DO WITH RENT PAYMENTS. Some LL may choose to use rent payments to service mortgage debts or other related property debts. Some may choose to spend the rent on wine women and song and then waste the rest. It is nothing to do with the tenant what a LL does with the rent. The rent is a contractually agreed payment amount for services provided. What a service provider does with the payments for the service provided is NONE of the business of those who are using and paying for those services. There appears to be a bizarre presumption that depending on what a tenant believes their rent is being used for gives them the right not to meet their contractual rental obligations whether or not Govt assists LL. Govt is arranging for many to receive income sufficient for many tenants to meet their contractual rental obligations in FULL!!! Why tenants believe they should have the right to stick their big noses into a LL private financial affairs beats me!! If a tenant refuses to pay me rent I will get rid of them. If tenants weren't so feckless then they would have adequate savings to ensure they can maintain their living costs for at least 1 year without any other income being received. Why TENANTS seem to believe that LL should be a FREE overdraft facility when they can't for WHATEVER reason pay their rent etc beats me. Since when was it determined that LL should be responsible for supporting the FECKLESS lifestyles of tenants. I say to tenants ensure that you have sufficient financial reserves such that you are able to meet all the costs of a rental property. All that comes before food and other expenses for self-gratification purposes. That means for most a boring lifestyle. So be it! Tenants should stop being so feckless and understand that if they desire domestic stability then they need to ensure they have sufficient financial resilience such that they do not need to rely on the goodwill of LL to support their feckless lifestyle. Govt is effectively supporting such tenant fecklessness by preventing LL from evicting. Simply outrageous!!

From: Paul Barrett 22 April 2020 18:12 PM

Paul Barrett
Many LL rather than leave the PRS entirely will reduce their leveraged exposure such that any rent default won't bankrupt them. It is the leveraged LL that is facing bankruptcy. Such LL will surely wish to become far more resilient You can be sure there will be further CV19 outbreaks.. There were outbreaks of the Plague for 300 years CV19 is the new Plague. Already the European CV19 has mutated from the Chinese original version. Like it or not the world will have to face a new societal paradigm. LL need to pick tenants who will pay rent in difficult times. Taking on tenants who work in flakey non-essential industries is just asking for trouble. Inevitably LL will de-risk as it makes business sense. There is no returning to the old ways. There will be far fewer rental properties as a result of LL taking steps to become more financially resilient. Few LL will wish to take on flakey tenants. Perhaps the unencumbered LL will take such tenants on. A mortgaged LL simply can't afford the risk. Apart from anything else the stress just ISN'T worth it. I have properties fortunately mostly fully Iet but I am very concerned that this situation could change to my great detriment. The old certainties of rent usually being paid are long gone. This CV19 has exposed the vast underbelly of feckless tenants who with Govt assistance can now easily default on rent knowing it will take years to get rid of them. In practice rent defaulting tenants will be removed by repossessing lenders long before a LL is able to conclude an eviction process. There will consequently be many LL bankruptcies. LL will need to rapidly change their business models if they hope to survive in any form. It would be great if the leveraged PRS reduced from the current 50% to about 25%.. Then we would have the very gratifying sight of mass homelessness. . Only then might Govt realise it's enormous mistakes in the way it has treated the PRS. But it will be too late. The UK Govt will take years to restore the PRS as few LL will return despite Govt attempts to persuade them. This is what has happened in Ireland as they now have a massive homeless problem. I sincerely hope that when I leave the AST PRS that I make my many occupants homeless. It won't be my fault as I don't want to leave but bonkers Govt policies are forcing me to change my business model. Many LL will be making the same determination as me!

From: Paul Barrett 22 April 2020 02:23 AM

Paul Barrett
@seb You make very good points. Very few LL even consider the issues which may or may not arise and certainly they don't factor it into their business model. If they did few would even bother becoming a leveraged LL. It is clear that the only LL that are really vulnerable are leveraged ones. It must make business sense for leveraged LL to assess their viability based on their current levels of leverage. That is where the main business risk is for LL. Yes there are loads of other issues which can mitigate against LL viability but they ALL pale into insignificance compared with inability to service BTL or LTB mortgage payments. There is of course an unique difference to being a leveraged LL or an unencumbered one. It is the leveraged LL that are at most risk. It seems very few leveraged LL have any strategy to deal with lack of rent to service mortgage payments. This just highlights how BTL is a VERY risky business model. I know I never factored in all the things you mention LL should. Given my time again rather than buying 5 properties on BTL mortgages I would now purchase only one property. That property would be unencumbered. In the event rent wasn't paid it really wouldn't be an issue. Yes there would some costs still to be borne by me. But bankruptcy would never be an issue to be faced. Very few leveraged LL could service mortgage payments for a year on even one property if rent isn't paid. As such those LL will need to seriously consider their position. Being a leveraged LL has now been exposed as a highly risky proposition. As such I have belatedly recognised this vulnerability and fully intend to cease being a leveraged LL. This I intend to do as profitably as possible. This might take some time!!! I can make as much net income out of one property with no risk of bankruptcy . Yes I lose out on potential CG across 5 properties which is what I was hoping for. Fat chance of that for the next 5 years at least! My appetite for BTL risk has been well and truly quenched!!! If occupants default on rent for one unencumbered property; no big deal. Very annoying of course. Would just have to put off that holiday to the Maldives! I believe many LL will come to the same conclusions as me.

From: Paul Barrett 16 April 2020 19:44 PM

Paul Barrett
Yes this ridiculous artificial assertion that there is unearned and earned income comes from the stupid left-wing ideology. All income is earned. Even shares if they increase in value has been earned. The risk of buying shares has been a gamble with income As such any appreciation has been earned by that risk. The usual dopey lefties don't understand these basics. Everyone earns their money different ways but it is all earned by the effort they put in.. That might be clicking a mouse or working in the fields. All LL earn their money however they do it. There is no such thing as passive income. What the lefties hate is the idea of passing substantial monies to someone for accommodation. They simply hate the idea of anyone apart from the State receiving such market rents or social rents as only councils etc can afford to charge social rents. Private housing providers are usually subject to market price finance costs along with all the other ridiculous costs that Govt and Councils impose on private LL. The left will never understand entrepreneurship. They just expect to avail themselves always of other people's money. Such an ideology has been proven time and again to be a bankrupt philosophy. Capitalism is of course far from perfect but it beats Socialism hands down every time. Clever Socialists will always tax the capitalists just enough to keep them going so as not to leave the country. A savvy Socialist would not wish to kill the golden goose capitalist. Unfortunately for LL it looks like the Tories are trying to kill the golden goose of LL.. A most bizarre turn.

From: Paul Barrett 15 April 2020 22:34 PM

Paul Barrett
@nwlandlord Very interesting the response of you and your associates. So far from anectdotal evidence we have it from the proverbial horse's mouth of an experienced LL. What I don't understand is why in the absence of sufficient social housing stock or corporate letting property where Govt expects tenants to be housed if LL leave the PRS en-masse. It is almost as though Govt are continually piling on the agony and daring LL to sell up but actually hoping most don't and suffer from the bonkers Govt policies aimed at driving LL out of business. Does Govt have a plan for housing millions if LL call the Govt's bluff and sell up!? This is what happened in Ireland. Unfortunately for the dopey Irish Govt the LL called their bluff and sold up. There is now a homelessness crisis in Ireland with the Irish Govt now desperately trying to entice LL to return to the PRS. The LL unsurprisingly are having none of it and are choosing to retain their capital rather than invest in the long term lettings market. This is the nightmare scenario for the UK Govt. We will have LL slowly selling up unless compelling offers are made for LL properties when LL could exit immediately. It seems that for most LL there will be a slow sell off such that in 4 years time there will be a reduction in the PRS of about 10% especially of leveraged properties. It is clear that highly leveraged LL are extremely vulnerable to abnormal economic shocks as opposed to most unleveraged LL. When I say highly leveraged I mean any LL between 51% and 100% LTV. The 50% of the market that DOESN'T have any leverage is relatively secure though of course those LL relying on rental income for their income are financially vulnerable. But the vast majority of LL without leverage on relevant properties are pretty secure. Yes it will be damn annoying rent not being paid but they won't face bankruptcy that many leveraged LL will. It is the leveraged PRS which faces the real risks compounded by the CV19 crisis. Unfortunately many LL are between a rock and a hard place. Due to borrowing on equity over previous years they literally cannot afford to sell as there would be insufficient sale proceeds to pay CGT bills. So unless such LL can keep on spinning all their proverbial plates then they face bankruptcy once HMRC comes for their CGT. The resources simply won't be there. With the now potential decline in property values this will just exacerbate the already tenuous situation that leveraged LL are in. CV19 will be the straw that breaks the back of many leveraged LL. It would be very useful if Govt funded Councils to buy such LL properties at say 10% BMV for the social housing sector. I believe many LL would use that as an opportunity to get rid of many of their higher leveraged properties. It would also bizarrely for the Tories be a very popular policy amongst the general electorate. It would be a escape strategy for many LL facilitated by Govt. It would also substantially reduce the HB bill once Councils charge social rents on their newly purchased ex-LL properties. Govt could use this CV19 crisis as a way to substantially reduce the leveraged PRS and increase the social housing stock. We shall see though I don't expect Govt to behave so pragmatically. I expect there to be mass LL bankruptcies.

From: Paul Barrett 15 April 2020 17:38 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 15 April 2020 12:21 PM

Paul Barrett
@mark wilson Yep I do consider your sentiment will eventually occur. It will be very popular with the mostly economically illiterate tenant demographic. That is why I am desperate to get out of AST lettings. I wouldn't go anywhere near short-term lettings as I cannot achieve so unless fraudulently. Just one residential property with LODGERS who AREN'T subject to rent controls is all I want. Ireland has a homelessness problem all caused by rent controls and their softer version of S24. LL would do well to substantially deleverage to the point where LHA would be sufficient to cover a mortgage if DSS tenants were the last resort. It makes little business sense to have 10 properties all mortgaged at 75% LTV. Far better to reduce to say 2 properties very lightly mortgaged or even unencumbered to better absorb the inevitable increased taxes along with the nuclear weapon of rent control. After all rent control was introduced as an emergency measure in the First World War!!! It lasted effectively until the AST introduction. Govt could as you intimate ascribe this CV19 issue as a similar emergency to introduce rent control. That would bankrupt many LL. It is beyond living memory how LL managed when rent controls were first introduced. Certainly this CV19 has removed all the previous business certainties of the PRS. Many LL will be seriously reviewing their risk profile. They will find they need to de-risk substantially to reach a level at which they feel comfortable with maintaining. This inevitably means there will be far fewer rental properties NONE of which will be bought by tenants.

From: Paul Barrett 14 April 2020 12:15 PM

Paul Barrett
It is about time that Govt deported people to where there is appropriate housing. Tough if occupants don't like the area. All social housing and TA should be withdrawn from any who refuse to be deported to decent accommodation wherever it may be. We simply cannot have the feckless choosing where they would like to be. They should be sent where suitable accommodation exists. It is IRRELEVANT if it upsets their communities etc. They will have to create new communities to where they are deported. It is a national disgrace that decent accommodation is NOT being fully utilised. It is tough if the homeless don't want to move to these decent properties. They shouldn't even have the choice! Once ALL the empty accommodation has been used up then refurbishment of existing property should occur. There are streets of empty properties in the larger Northern towns. Rather than building rabbit hutches which is what ALL new -build properties are just refurbish existing properties. It is easy to knock through two empty terrace houses to make a 4 bed house. Instead of building stupid flats houses with a back garden of decent size should be built. Bring back the Parker-Morris space standards for such houses. To reduce demand STOP MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION. Build 2 houses on a plot where 3 would be squeezed in. A terrace house with sufficient space to park 2 cars on the frontage is what is required in their millions. It has been a popular property type which has been appropriate for the masses. All my homes have been terrace properties as I could never afford a semi or detached property.

From: Paul Barrett 13 April 2020 19:28 PM

Paul Barrett
Yep all you need to do is make a claim on your RGI. Advise the tenant that if you submit the claim she will eventually be evicted no matter how long it takes. Also advise that if you submit a claim then even if she pays all her rent ardears it will ve too late. Eviction is the only redult that can occur unless of course she surrenders the tenancy which is highly unlikely Advise her that you will not be out of pocket as your RGI will pay any rent not paid by her until evicted. Advise her that the RGI company will come after her for the defaulted rent. She will NEVER again qualify for RGI which will make obtaining a tenancy that much more difficult. It is most likely that the RGI company will apply for a CCJ against her. Advise her that she is also in breach of her AST with having an illegal occupier. If she is on any sort of HB she will be committing fraud if not advising the DWP of an additional occupier. In short you have all the power. I did exactly as I have suggested to you and consequently received a full claim payout of £10000. It took 10 months to evict my rent defaulting tenant. I gave my rent defaulting tenant 85 days before I submitted my claim which was carried out under the S8 process. The RGI claim period was 90 days. During the 85 day period my rent defaulting tenant promised to pay the rent arrears. She never did. I was extremely generous in giving her 85 days to pay. She knew I would make a RGI claim and she would eventually have to go She disappeared well before the bailiffs carried out the eviction. It isn't worth waiting to see if your rent defaulting tenant will pay. She is obviously a p taker. Use your very effective RGI policy to evict her and damage her credit rating for at least 6 years. It is brilliant that you obtained RGI. Very wise and astute of you. Now use it to get rid of her UNLESS she pays the FULL CONTRACTUAL rent. Give her 2 weeks to achieve this or advise you will then submit the RGI claim. However BEFORE you submit the RGI claim contact the RGI company and enquire as to the requirements for a successful claim. You should be able to comply. If you can't then your RGI policy is pretty much useless. You would then need to consider other options though I can't see what you could do apart from obtaining possession yourself probably by using the S21 process. This will obviously take a lot longer now. If your RGI claim is successful it is IRRELEVANT how long it takes for the RGI company to evict. That is their problem!

From: Paul Barrett 09 April 2020 20:12 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 09 April 2020 00:56 AM

Paul Barrett
Kate You have to accept you are a mug. So am I!!! We are both leveraged LL. As such we took massive business risks to become so. Nobody forced us to become leveraged LL. I readily accept that becoming a leveraged LL was a business risk. I have no right to exist no matter how unfair things might be. Capitalism which is what leveraged LL engage in is not a fair system. We risk all predicated on our assessment of business risk Those LL like Andrew are not at the same risk levels as leveraged LL. There is no inherent right for a leveraged LL to exist. Of course it is damned unfair when events and bonkers Govt poliices conspire against us to render our business models unvIable. But that is the business we are in. Pointing out pertinent business facts is NOT rude it is just business so nothing personal. The unecumbered LL is mostly in rude health. They aren't facing bankruptcy as they have few outgoings to consider. I'm afraid this is a wake -up call for leveraged LL. Unfortunately the tenants won't always pay rent for whatever reason. LL must take steps to manage such circumstances or risk business annihilation. You mustn't take things so personally. It is simply business and it certainly ISN'T fair! !! How we leveraged LL survive this business debacle God only knows. But we are on our own. We need to carefully consider our position now and for the future. Essentially do we wish to remain to the extent we are as leveraged LL!? I have determined I DON'T wish to. I decided this long ago before even this CV19 thing popped up its ugly head. I would suggest you need to review your entire business strategy mindful of all the new paradigms and whether in fact you should or wish to remain a leveraged LL to the extent you are. The facts are LL like Andrew will be able to take advantage of mug leveraged LL. When we face business distress the likes of Andrew are there with their cash resources to take advantage of our business distress. Nothing wrong with that. It is simply BUSINESS nothing personal. Capitalism is all about seeing opportunities and taking advantage of them usually to the cost of others. That's life I'm afraid. Pointing out such realities isn't rude. Just Andrew is pointing out realities whether you like that being brought to your attention or not. As leveraged LL we should now perhaps aspire to become unencumbered. Lowering our business risk would seem to me to be a sensible aspiration. Those LL who wish to carry on in the same old way well; that is their lookout!!

From: Paul Barrett 07 April 2020 22:03 PM

Paul Barrett
Generally you have 90 days to submit a claim from 1st rent default. The RGI policies facilitate this as they hope a claim won't be required and everything gets sorted. There are rumours going around that RGI companies are declining claims because of CV19. This is totally wrong. RGI is used for whenever a tenant defaults on rent. The reason is IRRELEVANT. To give you an idea as to the potential losses the RGI industry faces. For a £89 annual premium my RGI policy paid out £10000. It took 10 months to evict a rent defaulting tenant. Multiply that by the numbers of rent defaulting tenants who have RGI on them. Gonna cost the insurance industry £billions. No wonder they are trying to wriggle out of meeting claims!! I would imagine that RGI will effectively become unaffordable as the premiums will be so high commensurate with the new risk profiles exposed by the CV19 crisis. That will leave LL needing to self-insure. That will be easier if LL have less leverage. The new BTL LTV norm will be no more than 60% Perhaps not such a bad thing. It will mean those wishing to risk being a LL will need a lot more 'skin in the game' Many LL won't be able to become so unless they have very large cash deposits. It is inevitable that the PRS will massively shrink or should I say the leveraged PRS! Cash rich LL won't be affected Problem is there are simply insufficient cash rich LL to replace all the leveraged LL who sell up. So where will the homeless tenants live!!!?? You will struggle to find affordable RGI. Best to only take on tenants guaranteed to be paid in any Govt lock down. That is a sort of free RGI if you will. Oh! Yes anyone on welfare will receive their full Govt welfare wage. I predict DSS tenants will be actively welcomed now especially the ones not required to actively seek work! !

From: Paul Barrett 07 April 2020 17:57 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 06 April 2020 14:21 PM

Paul Barrett
Rather than describing comments as rude. Surely realistic is the better descriptor. Of course we are all trying to work our way through resolving our individual difficulties. Being realistic as to how things might be managed must surely be the appropriate response Sometimes there are no solutions. Particularly for me I have never been able to find a way round the ruinous costs of S24. Even before CV19 I was for getting out of the PRS. As LL many of us are in a truly invidious position. It is extremely difficult to see our way out of this CV19 issue. It is not so much CV19 it is more the case that a lot of tenants are simply not paying rent. This is something we LL need to cope with. Many of us can't. Therefore we have to consider our position. This is all Andrew is pointing out. There has been an inherent risk to being a leveraged LL. There is no divine law that tenants will pay rent. It has been confirmation of my take that I am in a risky business. The CV19 issue has confirmed that I am correct. Perhaps this is a shock to many LL; but it shouldn't be! Leveraged LL especially must appreciate that they are in a risky business predicated on tenants paying rent. As has been the experience of many LL they can now see the extreme financial risks they are running. Yes it's unfair..............damned unfair and I resent the situation as much as you do. But this is capitalism where you can lose everything. Nobody forced you nor I to become a LL. We will receive very little if any sympathy or empathy from society. We are in a generally reviled industry where those who desperately need our services resent having to pay us for those services Nothing you or I can do will change that mindset. All we can do is to remain tough and remain in business.

From: Paul Barrett 06 April 2020 13:20 PM

Paul Barrett
Yep I believe many LL will be forced to adopt the strategy of Andrew. It makes pragmatic sense. The days of the highly leveraged LL are over. The only way to realistically survive for the future is to ensure a LL has at least 1 year of mortgage payments per mortgaged property and even that would just about be enough if another CV19 situation occurred again. So to afford such mortgage payments for at least a year on all mortgaged properties LL will need vast reserves. If not possible then LL will need to downsize. Leverage should probably be no more than 50% LTV. Even that is pushing it. Inevitably for those LL that survive the CV19 cull they will need to become more like Andrew. Not so easy to achieve but worth striving to be so. There needs to be a massive contraction in the highly leveraged BTL sector. This will require millions of rental homes to be sold. Few tenants will be able to afford them. So they will be homeless. Personally I believe this is a massive opportunity for Govt to buy back on the open market millions of homes for the social housing market. They could buy 4 million and just add the debt to the National debt. Over 60 years the debt will have been more than repaid by savings in HB costs if social rents are charged. Politically a buy back of homes for the social housing sector would be very popular. The normal left and right politics seems to be in abeyance currently. Effective nationalisation but with market prices being paid for the rental properties would be popular. A trillion here a trillion there matters not currently. Future generations can pay the bill just like we had to for the First and Second World Wars for which final payment was only achieved in the early 2000's. The leveraged LL will become massively smaller. There may well be a similar number of LL but rather than 5 or 10 properties they will be reduced to 1 or 2 lightly leveraged or unencumbered properties. Of course there will be millions of homeless but that won't be the fault of LL. It will be the effective support by Govt for feckless tenants that will cause that. Private leverage has been of massive assistance to the UK economy. When it starts to be repaid as LL sell up Govt will need to find replacement leverage to house all the homeless. I'm afraid as Andrew as intimated the PRS is finding that capitalism is red in tooth and claw. It is a merciless systen which ordinarily works and while it does those who risk all are reviled for being greedy capitalists forgetting that without risk taking there would be few jobs or rental properties. Of course when it all goes t##s up the usual dopey lefties all mock those who are losing their shirts. Clearly leveraged LL will need to consider their position. They will need to take a far more conservative position if they are to survive in future. Leveraged LL simply cannot carry on as before. The risks of being one have now been fully exposed. It could well be that all the efforts of many LL over the past 19 years are wiped out by what will be a massive economic downturn. The UK and for that matter the World largely depends on leverage to survive. A contraction of leverage will lead to a vastly reduced economy. It is tenants who should be really worried about what is going on as many LL don't need to be LL but tenants definitely need LL to remain so. Without the rental properties available millions of tenants will be homeless. Govt will have a major political issue when this occurs. Govt is too thick to realise what is happening. They are too busy appeasing GR in a vain attempt to gain their votes. Until Govt realises it's errors and reverses all the recent bonkers anti-PRS regulation the PRS will continue into terminal decline. It will return to the days of the 70's when the PRS was 7% of the housing market. Of course back then there was a large social housing sector. That sector no longer exists in the size that would be required when the PRS massively downsizes. I'm afraid like it or not for personal financial survival we all need to strive to become lots of Andrew Townshends. Not easy to achieve but something that should be striven for. .

From: Paul Barrett 04 April 2020 23:40 PM

Paul Barrett
@kate sim Yep you are totally correct with your conclusion over what will potentially happen to you. Where did you get the idea you can evict in 6 months!!!!???? Try 1 year would be nearer. Of course it is manifestly UNFAIR. But that is the game of a private LL. Leveraging up puts you at great risk. I'm in the same situation as you though currently have paying occupants. If this changes I will be bankrupted. Like you I cannot service my mortgages without rents. 2 missed payments and MX will repossess. They will sell into a massively distressed market. Those with cash could probably pick up £1.5 million of properties for about £850000. There would be a massive shortfall. I would lose all my capital and would be bankrupted. Fortunately I'm on a pension so that can't be touched. But I am a whisker away from bankruptcy. So far since 1996 no real issue has occurred like CV19. But certainly it has revealed many LL me included are the proverbial emperor wearing no clothes. I have vowed to get some clothes back on by leaving the AST PRS as soon as I can. This will be made even more difficult now. There is no sympathy or empathy for LL. Just got to suck it up and accept that despite the good we do we are still reviled. The last thing society or Govt for that matter will do is come to the rescue of the private LL. Gonna be a real struggle for all LL. Many of us won't survive. We are in for turgid times. The great LL cull is about to begin. Prepare for bankruptcy...............just in case!!

From: Paul Barrett 04 April 2020 22:12 PM

Paul Barrett
@danniela provvedi I think you misunderstand. I fully support LL who choose not to operate as a proper business. I just don't want them trotting out the poor me attitude and accusing LL like me of being greedy when all I do is charge market rents for my properties. I'm afraid my views on certain types of tenants are exactly correct. Many LL will unfortunately find themselves agreeing with me as more feckless tenants default on the rent. Don't they have savings. If not why not!? Spent it all I guess. Why should LL support feckless tenants!! I commend all those LL out there who choose not to operate as proper business people. They are effectively operating as quasi social landlords. I applaud such LL. However they must surely appreciate that this makes them invariably more vulnerable to feckless tenants. Though I suppose quite frankly those LL who have UC tenants are in a pretty good position. Such tenants I consider to be the dregs of society and have proven to be socially irresponsible. Most of them knocking out as many benefit babies as they can to avoid ever having to work for a living again. Such tenants are worthy of the well deserved contempt I have for them. Certainly borne out of personal bitter experience of the 10 years of being a LL with 5 properties. One in Southend and 4 in Bishops Stortford. I have always provided and excellent service and have sought to charge market rents. That to me is being a proper LL. Anything less cannot be described as being a proper LL. Such LL are playing at while obviously they are essentially providing an element of charity. That is fantastic if that is what they wish to do. But it is not being a proper LL. I'm afraid that recent events have confirmed all my informed prejudices. My vast detrimental experience of feckless tenants had led me to conclude I wish to stop being an AST LL. I make good money doing so now. But it is a very fragile existence. I have all Ryanair and consequently they are struggling. Fortunately I have 4 in a 2 bed flat. So they share the costs and it makes my flats affordable for them Though even two of those have vacated breaching their contract. So to me scum tenants! A perfectly reasonable assessment of them as people. Unfortunately in this game it isn't possible to get out quickly for maximum profit. This I must achieve so I am stuck being a LL selling a property every tax year. That is the cross of responsibility I have to bear. If course I appreciate nobody forced me to be a LL. That is my fault that I became one. So I don't really blame feckless tenants for my issues as it is generally in their nature. Knowing what I know now I might not have even bothered being a BTL LL. But we are where we are!! To all those slightly naive LL offering their services at less than market price I take my hat off to you. But it is not how I choose to operate. Unfortunately the current CV19 crisis has just highlighted how many feckless tenants there are and therefore consequently so many LL have been made extremely vulnerable through really no fault of their own. Manifestly unfair and victims of a system which holds private LL in contempt. Makes you wonder why we bother!? Well I won't as soon as has I can get out. My tenants will miss me as I provide an excellent service. However I consider it largely a thankless task and have determined that it no longer has any hold over me. I can earn just as much by being a live-in LL which is what I am striving to be now. So if anyone wants to 4 flats off me for about £1.5 million I have 4 very nice river facing flats on the Central Walk development in B Stortford. 3 on the ground floor and one on the first. All 2 bed 2 bath.. All fully occupied!!

From: Paul Barrett 03 April 2020 16:31 PM

Paul Barrett
Well all this comes as NO surprise to me. Since S24 I have realised my vulnerability as a LL. Viability has gone. There will be another CV19 along again. What will you LL do then!? I suggest a LL will need to engage in a massive retrenchment of their businesses resulting in them having far fewer rental properties and unencumbered if at all possible. Most LL could support a low LTV mortgage on a couple of properties but NOT 5 or 10!! It simply makes no business sense to be so exposed to feckless tenants. They should have their own resilience built up but few of them have bothered. They are now poncing off LL knowing they can't be evicted yet. They will vacate and source another mug LL to take them on so poor is referencing. LL will NEVER recover defaulted rent. I'm afraid LL are going to have to resource their BTL mortgages from personal savings or other income. Perhaps now LL will realise how fundamentally flawed their business models are. It makes eminent sense for LL to reduce the numbers of properties they have and to be as lightly geared as possible. Gearing is all very well when you can be sure it can be serviced by rent. Who can seriously consider that things will return to the previous status quo!? If LL kept to such a situation they would then be similarly exposed to another round of feckless tenant rent defaults when the next excuse comes along. For some bizarre reason nobody has suggested that perhaps tenants should plan for such eventualities as has occurred. There could be similar events which affect their ability to pay rent. Surely these feckless tenants should plan for such circumstances!? Why should it be the expectation that it is the LL who should subsidise the rental costs of these feckless tenants!? I believe it is only the dysfunctional eviction process which is used by feckless tenants as an effectively free insurance policy in the knowledge that if they ever had to use it they could achieve months of free accommodation until eventually evicted. Believe me if eviction could occur the day after 2 months of rent default which for most would be 1 month and 1 day without any Court action being required there would be a rapid change of mindset by feckless tenants. They would invariably build up their personal financial resilience or utilise relevant products to ensure they could pay their rent. Currently feckless tenants know they can have Free accommodation until the LL eventually manages to evict them. Now even that ability for LL to get rid of rent defaulting tenants is currently banned. This is a wake up up call for many LL. They need to accept that their current business model is very fragile. Do they wish to carry on with such a fragile business model!? I know I don't which is why I have been planning to sell up long before this CV19 crisis. It will be sheer hell for tenants. I predict sealed bids for tenancies soon as tenants fight with each other to source a tenancy from the vastly reduced rental stock.

From: Paul Barrett 03 April 2020 15:29 PM

Paul Barrett
@kathy miller. Yes I didn't fully appreciate how the status of mortgaged sole trader LL is regarded. It seems we are neither one thing or the other. Consequently LL fall through the gaps of assistance finance or are penalised because of the way they are regarded. Govt needs to determine the exact status of LL so that they are not penalised in future. I know it wouldn't suit me to be incorporated due the difficulty in extracting income tax efficiently from a company. Once this CV19 crisis is over for those LL left standing I believe to create a level playing field that ALL LL should be given one year to incorporate. Govt would force lenders to facilitate this and would NOT charge LL CGT etc for converting to corporate status. No LL would be allowed to operate without a Company no. That would result in an effective National LL register. Such a corporate strategy would not be popular among many LL especially ME! But a level playing field should be the case for all those involved in lettings of any sort. Such a corporate status should then enable LL to receive appropriate financial assistance when Govt deems it necessary. The likelihood of another CV19 situation must surely occur again. Govt needs to ensure that the vast PRS is protected from feckless tenants not paying rent. The logistics to achieve this are massive and would not be welcomed by many LL. But I believe it would be fair to all overall if ALL LL were forced to become companies. There are of course advantages and disadvantages to having LL all at corporate status not the least it would COMPLETE negate the ridiculous Govt S24 tax policy. But politically that could be probably sold to dopey GR as Govt taking over control of the PRS. Of course none of this will occur and LL will continue falling through the gaps in the Govt financial assistance facing penury in the future and possibly even bankruptcy. I think many LL have just realised how fragile their financial circumstances are in fact are. They will be reflecting on how to cope now and certainly what they need to do for the future to be more financially resilient to better cope with another similar CV19 crisis. The idiot Chinese are still indulging in their ridiculous wet markets. This being the case along with the vast amounts of Chinese tourists the potential for another CV19 crisis is an aircraft flight away. All very concerning!!

From: Paul Barrett 02 April 2020 17:58 PM

Paul Barrett
Yep it is indeed the case. But what I wish to know is at what level a LL is deemed to be greedy. You have twits like Martha stating she is NOT a greedy LL but she refuses to state why the rent she charges is not greedy compared to other LL. Other LL may charge less than her. Does she not then become a greedy LL? I'm afraid such a phrase tends to be used with gay abandon by society in general and now even certain idiot LL are joining the greedy LL mantra. I maintain charging market rents is not greedy. It is just the market. Of course private rents are more than social rents as LL are subject to commercial pressures that Social LL aren't. Market rents must reflect not just the actual costs of the LL but must build into the business model sustainability and net income potential otherwise it is pointless being a private LL. A market rent arises as a consequence also factoring in demand and supply. It seems some idiot LL on here consider that for this to occur means that LL is a greedy LL. A most bizarre concept. I consider such LL as not truly being proper LL. They are just playing at the business. That is all fine and dandy but please let them not besmirch the totally correct and appropriate business attitude of those LL seeking to maximise their business model. Personally I fully respect and commend those LL willing to subsidise their feckless tenants' lifestyles. I feel such very nice LL are being taken advantage of but of course it is their prerogative to allow themselves to be taken advantage of. But please that gives them no right to castigate LL such as myself who choose to maintain sound business practices.

From: Paul Barrett 02 April 2020 11:24 AM

Paul Barrett
@Danniela Proveddi I'm very surprised you disagree with most of what I state. I feel that makes you not a proper LL. I wish to know at what point LL on here consider that a LL becomes greedy. Simple question! The 'greedy landlord' brickbat is a commonly used phrase but nobody is prepared to state at what level a LL is deemed to be greedy. I charge market rents because I am behaving as a proper business. For LL like Martha to moan when she clearly isn't and hasn't behaved like proper LL that is her lookout. To me she is a very nice person but useless at being a proper LL. That is her choice. If she chooses to behave in such a fashion then LL like her are the first to suffer from feckless tenants. Obviously a great shame but that is people. Most people are very nasty when it comes to paying their debts and meeting their financial obligations when times get tough. LL of course are directly in the firing line when tenants suffer financial distress. LL simply need to consider how they wish to operate in such circumstances. But charging market rent cannot be considered as being a greedy LL. I know that based on my assessment of the BTL business model from long experience that it is increasingly unviable. The CV19 crisis has just compounded that reality and is why I intend to leave the AST BTL sector as soon as I profitably can. I will take a few years to achieve but leave I will. I will feel sorry for my tenants but I intend to redeploy my capital to more profitable and resilient accommodation business model. I see me being reduced to one unencumbered property. That would satisfy my aspirations for suitable income and a far easier life. I would wish all you remaining highly leveraged LL the best of luck as you will surely need it!

From: Paul Barrett 02 April 2020 09:35 AM

Paul Barrett
Does make me laugh when behaving as a proper business is deemed as being a greedy LL! It is great if a LL wishes to assist tenants with their own resources. Personally I entered the PRS to make as much profit as I could. At no time did I ever consider that I would subsidise the living costs of my occupants. Of course along with maximising profits I always provided and excellent service to the point that many previous tenants returned to me. Even on here a site for LL we have some idiot LL castigating other LL for wishing to behave in a business like fashion. Most bizarre! LL simply aren't depositories of vast amounts of forbearance. It should be for tenants to have their own financial resilience. I don't expect my local supermarket to let me have food for free. So why is that it seems it should be for LL to subsidise tenant rent costs when financial difficulty occurs? The levels of fecklessness amongst the tenant demographic is simply astounding. To have many LL effectively supporting such fecklessness simply beggars belief. I am certainly not and never will be a LL that supports any sort of tenant fecklessness. If that makes me an objectionable character then so be it. I am simply NOT concerned in the slightest about any brickbats that might be applied to me. I'm a LL here to make money come what may. But for that to occur my business principles require me to provide an excellent service for which I charge a market rent. It seems such a business model is beyond the pale. Well that is just tough. I will not deviate from this particular business model no matter what other people think. .

From: Paul Barrett 02 April 2020 09:07 AM

Paul Barrett
Unfortunately for many LL they will be part of mass repossessions by lenders. Lenders are simply incapable of offering forbearance on BTL mortgages. Their attitude is that LL should have the capability to pay their mortgages irrespective of any circumstances. Lenders will start repossessing if the deferred mortgage payment facility is not paid. I predict many repossessions. This may not mean Tenants being booted out as lenders will become the LL of last resort. This has happened before in the 90's Many LL will be bankrupted through no real fault of their own . The BTL business model has always been extremely precarious as many LL are now finding. Depending on tenants to pay rent is not a sustainable business model if the LL doesn't have sufficient reserves to cover long void periods. Many LL will need to review the risks to their particular BTL business model. I predict a massive contraction in the leveraged LL sector. The levels of average leverage are simply unsustainable. LL need to be at no more than 50% LTV and even then at that level with multiple properties a LL would struggle to have the reserves to cover 6 months of voids. LL will need to gauge the level of financial resilience they need or want. They will need to adjust their portfolios in accordance with such financial resilience. Most LL could achieve this by selling off most of their properties leaving a few lightly geared or even unencumbered properties. There will be another CV19 similar crisis in future years. LL need to prepare for such circumstances In light of the dysfunctional eviction processes LL would do well to remember that first thing tenants do when finances are negatively impacted is to stop paying the rent. There is no sympathy for LL in these circumstances by society at large. LL would do well to realise they are on their own. Adjust business models accordingly!

From: Paul Barrett 02 April 2020 08:35 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 27 March 2020 00:45 AM

Paul Barrett
Hmm!! Many LL will be seriously considering their position once this CV19 thing has finished. Does it make any financial sense to be a leveraged LL anymore!? Great when there are rent paying tenants. But under normal conditions 2 missed mortgage payments normally means a lender starts repossession proceedings. Of course we all understand the benefits of being a leveraged LL ;that is why many of us are. But then you have a situation like this come along it must call into question the very viability of the leveraged LL. Perhaps the investment capital should be used for just one property? Maybe even buying outright. Then no real financial stress. This is what I hope to do. The benefits of the leveraged LL are now tenuous to say the least! The globalised world has thrown into sharp relief how free movement is a threat to nation state economies and the world economy as a whole. Does anyone seriously believe that there won't be a similar thing as CV19 crop up again. It is air travel that is responsible for infecting the world with this virulent virus. Can you imagine if Ebola had got out of Africa? I'm afraid many LL will have to review their business models and severely de-risk them. It is pointless being a leveraged LL if all it takes is 3 months of rent default to destroy viability. Not many LL could support 5 property mortgage payments for 3 months in the absence of rent. Yet it seems to be presumed by many feckless tenants that it is LL that should take the financial hit for their fecklessness in not having made provision to pay rent if they lost their job etc. Surely it should be for the tenant to make such provision!? Why should the service provider be expected to subsidise the lifestyle of tenants just because they can't pay the rent. Tenants should offer to vacate to at least give the LL a chance to find rent paying tenants. It is outrageous that the Govt is effectively forcing LL to provide free accommodation. The cheeky buggers have even got the nerve to carry on with their bonkers S24 tax policy. So as well as free accommodation LL are still expected to pay tax on fictitious income with fictitious rental income!!! When will Govt realise that this S24 turnover tax is simply ludicrous made even more so by latest events. I simply cannot see many LL surviving this debacle. This must result in many more homeless tenants along with a much reduced PRS along with a massive reduction in BTL mortgage loans. The business proposition simply doesn't stack anymore. There can be no return to the relative normality of pre-CV19. There has to be a massive contraction of the PRS. That doesn't mean LL will be worse off. They will achieve the same net income from far fewer properties with considerably less leverage. Sort of what the Communist Tory Party has been trying to achieve!

From: Paul Barrett 26 March 2020 15:40 PM

Paul Barrett
Well I'm betting there will be a radical shakeup in the BTL mortgage market. To increase resilience for the future when another similar thing as CV19 could easily occur I believe lenders will reduce LTV to 50% maximum. They could even withdraw IO BTL mortgage products to C&R ones. You couldn't really blame lenders if they behave this way. LL would do well to lock into long term remortgage products as they will be pulled very soon. The requirement for far larger deposits will have a massive effect on the PRS. It should be OK for existing LL as far as increased rents would be concerned due to lack of supply. But with far fewer properties able to be bought for a given amount of capital potentially prices will soften considerably. It has been existing BTL LTV values that have facilitated the growth of the PRS to where it is today. Lenders will be running scared. So as a maximum I can see LTV being reduced to 50%.. This so if repossessions occur the bank should be able to sell even into a distressed market. It will be for the LL to take the total loss of all equity. I wonder if the requirement to have considerably more 'skin in the game' will deter many new LL? It would also restrict existing LL from expanding their business if they have to find additional capital for new mortgage products. The appetite for more BTL risk I believe will be considerably reduced. I consider that lenders will make far more effort to attract homeowners. The golden age of BTL I think has come to an end.

From: Paul Barrett 26 March 2020 09:45 AM

Paul Barrett
@karen letherby Yep you are totally correct I am far from happy being a LL or more ESPECIALLY an AST LL. Didn't mind that much up until 2015 and then dopey Osborne went and ruined everything with S24!! I consider tenants a necessary evil. If I could make the same returns on property without them I would. As such tenants I have are respected if they comply with their AST.. Not all of them do! Getting rid of them is a time consuming and costly exercise. This is why I intend to become a lodger LL. I will make roughly the same returns but with none of the hassle of a tenant. Getting rid of dud lodgers is easy. Plus no silly S24 etc; etc. Having over a £million of leverage is a lot of debt to support at the best of times. It really isn't worth the hassle. I am of course a brilliant LL or so my tenants say! But I've had enough of being attacked by dopey Govt legislation. Being a good LL has got me nowhere due to rent defaulting tenants. Costs are increasing all the time and quite simply the figures make it not worth the hassle anymore. If I had a 30 year investment timeline available I may stay the course. But.I only have a few years of investment timeline remaining. My domestic circumstances facilitate becoming a lodger LL. I could let 4 rooms at about £600 pcm each. I would have the Room for Rent Allowance available of £7500 which is something. I am able to be a guest elsewhere so I will attend my home to collect mail etc and see how my lodgers are doing. There is no law that requires a live-in LL to have a bedroom. A sofabed will suffice! No mandatory HMO licensing required as only 4 occupiers. Have thought about possibly doing AirBnB but would struggle to do this legally so have discounted the idea. So I will be a LL hopefully once I have stopped letting to tenants and got rid of all my properties. Just my new occupants will be lodgers who are far less hassle in a nice big 4 bed house. But I doubt this will ve achievable due to the price of such properties. So I will remain a guest occupant for the foreseeable future. I won't miss being an AST LL at all!! .

From: Paul Barrett 18 March 2020 21:27 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 18 March 2020 16:10 PM

Paul Barrett
These comments are ENTIRELY realistic. Being a LL especially a leveraged one is a very hard-nosed business. That isn't through choice it is just the simple reality of being a leveraged LL. Such LL very much operate a just in time business model. That is the rent is paid and then the mortgage is. Few leveraged LL are able to offer any forbearance. Of course if LL are offered mortgage holidays then most LL will pass on that facility to Tenants. But and it is a big but LL will be extremely concerned about the effects on their credit files should lenders report missed mortgage payments as would normally be the case. Missed payments would severely impact on the credit status of LL; the damage of which would last for years and would severely impact upon the LL future business possibilities. Business is business; it is nothing personal. Leveraged LL have little alternative than to behave in hard nosed business fashion. 50% of the PRS uses leverage and are most unlikely to be in a position to offer forbearance. That is the WHOLE point of the BTL mortgage market. It is based on rental income criteria NOT LL personal non-rental income. If Govt facilitates mortgage holidays for LL then most would pass on that forbearance to tenants. LL that are better able to offer forbearance are those LL that comprise 50% of the PRS that are not leveraged. Though many of these LL rely on the rental income as their sole income. So many of these leverage free LL are NOT in a position to offer forbearance. In light of the current situation perhaps there is a social and business case for restricting any future BTL lending to a maximum of 50% LTV. A 50% mortgage would be a lot easier to service than a 75% LTV one which is currently the industry standard LTV. Of does Govt ban BTL mortgages which will destroy the PRS and probably cause a property crash!? Possibly there could be a case made that from now on no new IO BTL mortgages will be advanced. So for all new BTL mortgages to be no more than 50% LTV and must be on C & R basis. This would substantially de-risk the PRS and require considerably more investment to achieve a BTL property. When tenants could struggle with rent payments if LTV were lower this would reduce the financial stress on LL. Consequently even with shortfalls on rent there would still be sufficient to pay the mortgage. Of course the elephant in the room here for sole trader LL who comprise about 25% of the PRS is that they have such mortgage interest regarded as INCOME!!!!!!!!!??? Courtesy of the most bonkers tax policy ever introduced by a Govt with the possible exception of the Window Tax; namely S24!! Mortgaged LL now need to pay more tax with fictitious income. NOT easy for such LL to offer any form of forbearance in such circumstances! The business model for mortgaged sole trader LL is a very tenuous business. Few such LL have cash assets to subsidise a tenant. Therefore come what may tenants must pay rent and if not they should vacate. Then it will be for LL to source tenants who can and will pay rent. Obviously that won't be easy. But that is the business mortgaged sole trader LL are in. They understand the business risks of being such a LL.

From: Paul Barrett 18 March 2020 08:07 AM

Paul Barrett
How very twee! At what point do you consider you reach a greedy level!? Also who decides what a greedy level may be!? Do you consider market rents as greedy!? Not sure if you understand the business of being a LL ESPECIALLY if it is your sole income. If you choose not to charge market rents that is your problem. I always charge market rents and only two tenants have ever vacated as a consequence. I replaced them with higher rent paying occupants. It is your choice to restrict the income you receive. Don't think that anyone will thank you. To many you are still a snivelling parasite though of course you and I clearly aren't as we provide a much in demand service which nobody else is providing. Your fantastic tenants DON'T pay the bills if the rent they pay leaves you struggling. You should at least increase rents to market rents. Have you not been a victim like many other LL of all the bonkers anti-LL regulations!? Your costs must surely have increased. Perhaps you need to reconsider your business methods in light of everything that is occurring to ensure you are more financially resilient!? It is unreasonable for even fantastic tenants not to be paying the going rate whether considered greedy or not. Look after no 1; that's YOU!!.................NOT your fantastic tenants. I imagine your insurance is RGI in which case will only work if your tenants default on rent. You CANNOT initiate a RGI claim UNLESS the tenants default. Very shrewd of you to have RGI. But once claimed on your tenants will be eventually evicted. Might take many months but you will not be able to retain them if you needed RGI on them in future. They should know that many future LL will reject any tenants who can't qualify for RGI.

From: Paul Barrett 17 March 2020 18:27 PM

Paul Barrett
All the current incumbent Labour Party Mayor is espousing as far as rent controls are concerned is Labour Party policy. It should be no surprise therefore that wherever the Labour Party holds sway they will try their damndest to impose such bonkers Labour Party policies on the local electorate. Amazing therefore that so many Councils turned Labour. They will do whatever it takes to introduce SOCIALISM through the back door. Landlords should hardly be surprised that any Labour Party political entity will attempt by whatever means to put LL out of business. The Labour Party is ideologically opposed to the mere concept of the private LL. Their policies therefore as far as the PRS is concerned is that they would prefer it didn't exist!!! This is why they had their even more ludicrous expropriation policy of forcing LL to sell their properties to tenants at knockdown prices paid for by loss of the LL equity however that was achieved. Make no mistake rent controls are Labour Party policy. Had they attained power it would be a nationally imposed policy. The threat of expropriation and rent controls is just another reason of so many that I am getting out of being an AST LL. If there was just the threat of rent controls that would be bad enough although of course all that would happen as has been intimated that a black market would develop with cash being handed over to LL to achieve a tenancy. This would immediately have a tax hit for Govt as no LL would declare more the controlled rent amount. No tenant could ever prove cash in excess of the controlled rent was being paid to the LL. Of course many LL would need to become self-managing as no LA could legally receive more than the controlled rent amounts. That would bankrupt many LA! There would also be an issue for property values. A BTL lender could only base a mortgage offer on the controlled rent amount even though they would know the true black market rate would be substantially higher. LL who are buying would be required to put down a massively higher deposits as a Lender could only base a mortgage offer on the supposed controlled rent amount. That would cause a massive decline in LL being able to buy. It would also affect those with existing mortgages which are supported by existing rents. If theses are forced to be reduced then technically the LL won't have sufficient rental income to pay the mortgage. This would result in breaching PRA and LTV requirements etc. LL would be bankrupted. There would be a property slump probably leading to a UK wide depression. The Labour Party is a serious existential threat to the UK economy. This threat will revisit the UK at the next GE. I simply cannot risk being an AST LL with the threat of a possible Labour Govt. Forget the days of the fairly benign Blair Labour Govts We now have the fully paid up looneys in charge of the Labour Party. As such they are a continuing threat to any LL. LL need to consider do they wish to gamble with their business that a bonkers Labour Party won't attain power next GE. Personally I'm no gambler which is why I intend over the next 4 years to ensure that my business and its assets are put beyond the reach of an expropriating Labour Party. LL have at least the cushion of a fairly benign Tory Govt for the next few years to get their house in order if the threat of a Labour Party in power comes to pass. London is now a self serving immigrant town who vote Labour. Hopefully the Tory Govt will be able to restrain the London Mayoralty from imposing its bonkers Communist policies on London LL. If I was a London LL I would be selling up and investing outside London. Rent control threats are a threat too far!

From: Paul Barrett 07 March 2020 17:18 PM

Paul Barrett
Deposit changes should be reversed. Indeed Govt should introduce a 2 months of rent as maximum deposit amount. The reason for this as Govt and EVERY LL should know that having more than 2 months rent at the outset of a tenancy produces a Premium Tenancy and NO sane LL would want an AST converted to a Premium Tenancy. I would NEVER take more than 2 month's rent. It seems many don't understand what a Premium Tenancy can do to a LL. Having a maximum 2 month's rent as deposit would give LL the opportunity to take on pets and would prevent them inadvertently creating a Premium Tenancy. A LL could take 6 months rent in advance providing the AST stated rent due in full for one payment every 6 months. Add 2 month's rent as a deposit which might include within it a pet deposit and you have a near perfect solution though I would prefer a max deposit of 2 months rent with a separate pet deposit of no more than £500. If the tenant complies with their AST contractual conditions and their pets do then they should receive all deposit amounts when they vacate. Many LL would accept 5 weeks deposit plus a specific pet deposit. This would prevent many pets from having to be killed because LL are NOT prepared to risk them without suitable pet deposits. This is a great shame because pets can be an anchor to keep a tenant due to the inability to source other LL prepared to take them on. But no way will LL risk this without at least some sort of decent amount as a pet deposit. Perhaps pet insurance should be more viable though any insurance obtained by a tenant cannot be guaranteed to be purchased annually.. In that event what should the LL then do!? All very difficult and it is the poor pets that end up suffering sometime terminally. All this as a result of a bonkers anti-PRS ideology by the Tory Govt. But LL and tenants should realise by now that the warped Govt will continue with ridiculous PRS policies which negatively impact on all participants. Expect nothing to change or rather get worse!!

From: Paul Barrett 05 March 2020 00:43 AM

Paul Barrett
@andrew townshend No of course NOT. This Govt is simply NOT for turning. It needs a scapegoat for its dysfunctional housing policies. Attacking LL will never be that electorally damaging for Govt. So LL will continue to bear the brunt of approbrium as to why there are housing issues in the UK. It would mean a massive loss of face for Govt if they were finally forced to admit that their policies on housing and especially the PRS were bad for the economy as a whole. Personally I do NOT intend to remain a whipping boy for the Govt so I will be giving up on the AST lettings market. It no longer makes any business sense. Ultimately of course when many LL have gone it will be the tenants that will suffer. This is what has happened in Ireland. Rents have increased by 50% and homelessness is now endemic. Social housing could house those that LL used to house but there is no seeming ambition to build the millions of social homes that are desperately needed. All I know is I will be sitting on the sidelines immune from all the anti-LL legislation as I hope to be a lodger LL in my hoped for PPR. My lodger income will NEVER exceed the current RFRA of £7500 whether I have 1 or 3 lodgers. This as including me I will avoid Mandatory HMO Licensing for my PPR which will hopefully have 4 bedrooms. If Additional Licensing ever came to be imposed on PPR then I would only have myself and another lodger..........................................officially anyway!!!! LL can expect a lot more attacks on them from Govt as attempts to eradicate small LL continue.

From: Paul Barrett 24 February 2020 21:09 PM