James Fraser

2916 Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

James's Recent Activity

Hallelujah!! I’ve been saying this for years, arguing with haters, and never raising rents on existing tenants such that mine were 20% or more BMV. S24 has changed all that such that mine are still BMV but have increased by £150-200 per month over the last couple of years. It’s madness, but the idiots in charge are hell bent on creating more of it!

From: James Fraser 09 August 2018 10:48 AM

Great comment John!

From: James Fraser 19 July 2018 09:13 AM

Unfortunately the govt are so thick-headed that they refuse to equate rocketing homelessness with them forcing landlords to evict and sell.

From: James Fraser 29 June 2018 16:45 PM

Surely even the labour retards have worked out that such a deposit is less than even one missed rent payment?! As much use as a chocolate teapot.

From: James Fraser 19 June 2018 15:16 PM

Surely this can’t be true?!?! Really?? I mean, the govt have repeatedly told us rents won’t go up and the anti-landlords keep telling us they can’t go up. And I completely trust the government. They’re always right. Especially the munchkins at the treasury, the little tinkers!

From: James Fraser 26 April 2018 12:34 PM

Agreed Adrian. Blackpool landlords should fight this every step. If the council were that worried about standards they wouldn’t rent out such s*it themselves. Plus they could always say ‘£50 for accredited landlords’ as a minimum sweetener. They’re not supposed to profit from licensing so I hope Blackpool landlords demand a precise breakdown, with evidence, of where every penny of that £775/542 is allocated.

From: James Fraser 28 March 2018 09:33 AM

Totally agree. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. Great to hear Shelter even slightly recognising the links between regulation and homelessness. Lets now get them to recognise how S24 and heavy levels of licensing also destroy the ability to rent homes at a reasonable price!

From: James Fraser 12 March 2018 11:01 AM

This article needs a fair bit of tweaking to get right. For a start, as Barry said, it is not higher rate taxpayers alone who are affected - the author has missed the way the tax shifts tax brackets, even at 20%, or destroys benefits, personal allowance, child benefit, tax credits and even causes some 20% payers to become 45% payers. The author also needs to know that even the government’s conservative estimate of ‘1 in 5 affected’ means 425,000 landlords facing difficult choices. In other words, in the region of 1-2m tenants as a minimum must face the knock-on effects of higher rents or evictions. If you believe in the Pareto principle, this 20% of landlords, as portfolio holders, will cause 80% of the damage. Some surviving landlords will adapt their game, but a whole load more won’t. We are already seeing the effects of this (rental demand up 18%, supply down 8%). A perfect storm is brewing.

From: James Fraser 08 March 2018 19:31 PM

Ha! Some hope, Gordon. The only effective measure for getting rid of the rogues is surely about to be denied to us so I don’t think landlords will be left with ANY powers at all. Come on in tenants! It’s a free house for you to abuse at will!!

From: James Fraser 19 February 2018 09:23 AM

Yep! Well done Richard Lambert. Sadly, even if the homelessness minister understands what’s happening, getting her to convince her Treasury colleagues might be a shade more difficult.

From: James Fraser 12 February 2018 11:17 AM

Exactly. And this basic HMO model is not only typical and accepted nationwide, but don’t these London boroughs have both Article 4 and HMO licensing to stop poor quality rogues?

From: James Fraser 19 January 2018 12:23 PM

Yeah, I love that. The government are determined to make renting as expensive possible then tell us WE'VE got to be careful of what tenants can afford!! You really couldn't make this stuff up.

From: James Fraser 21 November 2017 09:57 AM

We'll be lucky. It's a one-way street without truth or balance.

From: James Fraser 12 October 2017 09:42 AM

Exactly, David. It's another London/SE-centric report that takes no account of the areas that are cheaper now than before 2008. Plus this seems to be using gross, broad-brush returns with no accounting for all the mortgage costs/management costs/accountancy and legal fees/refurbishments along the way.

From: James Fraser 29 September 2017 11:28 AM

Yep. Lunatics are in charge of the asylum. They've been warned a thousand times but tefuse to listen. Fools.

From: James Fraser 27 September 2017 11:05 AM

Go, Alan Ward and the RLA! The JRF/Shelter/Guardian are a coalition of jokers. Bet CR doesn't reply.

From: James Fraser 26 July 2017 09:49 AM

Well I must say, this has all come as a complete shock to me. Had anybody else spotted these outcomes?!??

From: James Fraser 26 July 2017 09:44 AM

The perfect truth. Love the line about not renting to a tory as they cant be trusted. We should all adopt that policy - see how long it lasts if no tory party member/councillor/MP/staff member can ever gain access to rental!

From: James Fraser 12 June 2017 09:51 AM

I did the same at the tail end of last year. All good tenants of more than 3 years got a voluntary goodwill refund. You generally know the ones that aren't going to let you down.

From: James Fraser 26 May 2017 15:25 PM

Totally right John. One of the founding principles of law in this country is that you cannot be guilty of someone else's offences. How and when did it become the fault of the landlord?! And more to the point, how many landlords willbe trapped by this in future when 5-yr tenancies are mandatory and you can do nothing to evict the nuisance tenant? We're all just sitting ducks then. How many tenants will refrain from such behaviour knowing landlords will be paying their fines for them??

From: James Fraser 25 May 2017 09:24 AM

Well I never! Stock falling and rents rising as a result - who knew?! If only a national campaign had been lobbying the government repeatedly on this since July 2015... Oh...

From: James Fraser 17 May 2017 16:27 PM

Its nothing to do with logic. They could raise MORE money with less destructive measures, but they dont want to. They want to be seen to be kicking landlords (but are either too thick, or don't care, to realise the effect this then has on tenants). Those landlords will never forgive them. Forcing up rents and evictions, devastating businesses and pensions, preventing the conversion of stock or rebuilding of derelicts, all completely unnecessarily, is unforgivable. Idiots.

From: James Fraser 11 March 2017 07:23 AM

Never a truer word spoken by anyone on this subject, Steve Bolton. Absolute hypocrisy runs through this govt's housing plans. They must surely know they are creating a perfect storm for renters, not making it better!

From: James Fraser 08 February 2017 12:04 PM

Rebecca, you are spot on in your assessment. Councils, govt, the left generally - all arehappy to slag us off publicly for 'pocketing' (whatever that is supposed to imply) whilst simultaneously complaining locally that no landlords will assist with housing LHA! Proudly tell them why you refuse to help - its because you'll only be attacked if you do! Whenever I get slagged off for the Housing bill, I confound everyone by proudly and excitedly explaining that I flatly refuse to house certain groups in order to avoid that exact scenario - that usually wipes the smile off their faces! As for 'pocketing', what were the contractors doing when they charged £141,000 for a single speed hump? What were large contractors doing when they charged £10,000 per house to supply and fit the cheapest trade 8-cabinet kitchens to council houses? What was a plastics supplier doing charging the NHS 35x the true cost of disposable tweezers? Nobody even mentions any of these examples - they're all welcome and necessary suppliers!!!!!! Really, you couldn't make this up!

From: James Fraser 05 January 2017 11:08 AM

A register of rogue tenants would be fantastic - I'd welcome such a thing and have wanted one for years. It'll never be allowed though. No one has the bottle to start one and this govt are too scared to stand up for landlords to allow it. Tenants often have the landlord over a barrel and a lot of them know it!

From: James Fraser 03 January 2017 09:40 AM

1664. As Ive pointed out elsewhere on this site, you are clearly howling at the moon with pretend knowledge. Let me demonstrate: Number of FTBs 2010: 168,000. Number of FTBs 2015: 257,000. Amount borrowed by BTL in 14/15: £15.6bn. Amount borrowed by FTB in 14/15: £47.7bn. (Source: CML/BOE). So how exactly are landlords squeezing out FTBs? When you say 'levelling the playing field' I presume you mean FTBs need to be held back to match the TINY volumes landlords are transacting - yes? Also, it is FULL removal (100%) with a (temporary?) 20% credit applied AFTER the 100% deduction has been calculated, so next to useless really. And exactly where, how and why would anyone but an uninformed lunatic think that interest only mortgages had terms in them demanding specific repayment vehicles?! You seem to have utterly misunderstood IO mortgages as you also claim theyre used to AVOID tax??? Eh?? You obviously dont know very much about this so please dont embarress yourself like this in future. Or do. Its very entertaining.

From: James Fraser 14 December 2016 16:52 PM

Youre not a landlord, are you Paul? I presume youre filling out your tax return devoid of all the legitimate expenses because youve always happily volunteered to pay more tax than the law demands? Or that you didnt buy on a mortgage because even before this blew up youd had a premonition about how evil it would be for a housing business to carry borrowings, and wanted no part of it? Of course you did. You only declare gross rents? Voluntarily offer rents at huge reductions to market, or house people for free if they say they cant afford it? Too many holes in that comment for you to be real. Get back to your friends on HPC.

From: James Fraser 14 December 2016 16:40 PM

You clearly dont have a clue 1664. 'Large levels of debt pushing out residential buyers'? Hmmmm, let me see. Number of FTBs in 2010: 168,000. Number of FTBs in 2015: 257,000 - a nigh-on 60% increase. Also, perhaps you could explain how BTL lending in 14/15 was £15.6bn (60% of which was remortgages, so paying off previous debt!), yet the poor beleagured FTBs carried out over 3x the transaction numbers and borrowed £47.7bn?! (Source: CML, BOE). Yes, definitely being pushed out by landlords... obviously... Cuckoo!

From: James Fraser 14 December 2016 16:32 PM

Thank goodness we've finally got some press coverage willing to tell it how it is! The future of professional portfolio landlords and their service(s) are now in grave doubt. Hammond MUST correct this urgently or we will end up in the same position as Ireland - rents and homelessness at an all time high. Destroying an ordinary private individual landlord, and his tenants, clearly does nothing whatsoever to save the housing crisis, but it does make the rental sector considerably worse.

From: James Fraser 16 November 2016 09:56 AM

Paul - Barry is right on every count. How on earth do you equate a government-inflicted rent rise with a tenant being properly credit checked?? There is no correlation between the two. What Barry is saying is that 30-50% increases over 4 years is going to happen, which can ONLY mean rents go up, or huge numbers of people get evicted. Not good for anybody.

From: James Fraser 08 November 2016 11:20 AM

I couldn't put it better. A rent rise over the last year, and in coming years, is surely far more to do with S24 and SDLT than students doing what they've always done!

From: James Fraser 13 October 2016 12:46 PM

Since my rents have always happily been way below market value and long-term stable with it, mine will be rocketing far more than that just to cover the massive forced costs of the idiotic Section 24. By 2020, if not before, I am convinced this country's PRS and social housing divisions will be in a state of utter collapse.

From: James Fraser 25 August 2016 23:04 PM

Never mind consulting about digital returns - it's all completely irrelevant until they consult on Clause 24!

From: James Fraser 16 August 2016 09:46 AM

Paul Knox clearly knows nothing of incorporation costs. Maybe he should do a modicum of research before posting such unhelpful advice?!

From: James Fraser 22 July 2016 14:09 PM

Breaking News