x
By using this website, you agree to our
use of cookies
to enhance your experience.
SEARCH
Search
STAY
CONNECTED!
Sign in
Sign in
New here? Sign up
Feedback
My Account
Feedback
Sign out
×
Make Today's Website as home page
Menu
Estate agent today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Letting agent today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Landlord today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Property Investor today
News
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Introducer today
News
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Property Jobs Today
Home
Find a Job
Search Recruiters
Recruiters
New
Jackie's
Personal Profile
View my company profile
Jackie Welbourne
1171
Profile Views
About Me
Send message
View company profile
Follow all comments made
my expertise in the industry
Jackie's wall
Jackie's
Recent Activity
Bristol is introducing Additional Licensing city wide without and evidence of need except the council's own incredibly strong motivations to plug its own funding gap. The consultation process was a joke. I suspect similar situation with other councils. I believe there should be a legal challenge on the basis that the 'licensing service' that landlords are being forced to pay for IS NOT value for money but a blatant money making scheme. I accept that with Mandatory HMOs there are more people in the property and more regulations and may require inspections; however for anything less than Mandatory HMOs, membership of an organisation like NRLA with an online portal to upload images, electric and gas safety certificates, for your properties along with accredited landlord training would be easy and cheap to do. ie we should not be allowing councils to get away with charging £1,800 per property for a selective or additional license. It's crazy and similar to the banks being challenged for charging £40 for a failed £2 cheque etc (where it didn't cost them that to auto send a letter out, so they lost the case and had to pay out many many £millions to customers back-claims of being over charged, some clause of being not fair and equal in contract law). The high fees the councils are charging the landlords for selective and additional licences do not represent the amount of 'work' involved to charge that high fee, Bristol says it 'hopes' to visit at some point in the duration of the license. So sounds more like a get rich quick scheme to me, take your money and run, when surely the council's inspection should be carried out at the beginning before any license is issued? There should be a legal challenge and a fee cap which is what happened with the banks. If there are complaints about particular landlords properties that are sub-standard etc, re non Mandatory HMOs, then the council should just put their energies investigate that particular problem and if complaints are genuine and landlords are either abusing the system or don't make good, then interventions and fines for these particular bad landlords that are match the cost of that aspect of things.
From:
Jackie Welbourne
05 March 2024 15:12 PM
Bruce, whereas Thurrock made a pigs ear of terrible risky investments that went wrong, most councils are suffering 13 years of Tory central funding cuts. Havering grant in 2010 was £70m pa, cut to £1.5m current year. Running costs have gone up, drastic service cuts made by Havering, more pressure on these restricted services as we now have far more elderly people plus young people re families whom have migrated here whom needing support and care in our borough than we had 13 years back. The result is that recently Havering has had to request some special government capitalisation loan against property it owns so the council doesn't go bust, and the figures don't match up that Havering will be able to pay this back as it is just plugging and immediate deficit that is predicted to rise. So what happens to the assets held when the default on that loan ultimately happens, likely within 5 years? Typical London Councils have seen 70% reduction in central government funding since 2010. So ditto other councils. Right to buy asset striped councils of their social housing assets because 80% of the money from those BMV sales were eaten up by central government and councils NEVER got the money that Thatcher promised so social housing was never rebuilt as Thatcher promised. It was not the right to buy scheme that was wrong, but that we were duped by Thatcher into believing that all the money was going back to the councils to build new social housing stock. The end result is that councils now have limited social housing and income from this, increased homelessness, council tax is much higher and residents get less services for paying it, so all in all councils are extremely financially motivated to put in place these licensing schemes as a money spinner to keep afloat. The system is broken. Whom are the winners here?
From:
Jackie Welbourne
05 March 2024 14:27 PM
to Peter Why Do I Bother, I think he is talking about the 'Labour' mention - therefore making it political. It's not political, it's a money grab, councils (regardless of which political party is in control) are both increasing licensing boundaries and fees and also are raising Council Taxes across the country. This is motivated by relentless central governent funding cuts to council's annual budget these past 13 years. eg LB of Havering (my local council) in 2010 received £70m funding, in 2024 £1.5m. Despite making £160m of its own savings in expenditure over past 10 years by cutting and cutting services, Havering is facing a £32.5 million budget shortfall (re 2024/2025), which escalates to a daunting £81.9 million deficit over the next four years. LB of Havering has one of the oldest populations in London together with the second fastest growing young population in the country. This is due to years of drastic underfunding from the government, a significant spike in homelessness and housing need, coupled with unprecedented demand for both adults’ and children’s social care. To stave off the looming financial crisis, the council is urgently seeking government approval for a £54 million loan through the Capitalisation Directive. Without this crucial intervention, the council may be forced to trigger a Section 114 notice, effectively declaring bankruptcy. Check what has happened to your own council's central funding over the past 13 years!
From:
Jackie Welbourne
13 February 2024 11:18 AM
Across the UK, Councils faced a £15bn real terms reduction to core government funding between 2010 and 2020, from £41bn to £26bn, the Institute for Government found. However, in that time they did raise 25 per cent more in real terms through council tax as ministers encouraged rises as a way to generate cash. Thoughts: Though I disagree with Haringey's tactics, charging more for council tax and cutting council services is likely the only option to deal with drastic central funding cuts under this current government?? Many London boroughs are the worst hit from Tory funding cuts. My council is London Borough of Havering, and their funding from Government has been slashed to just £1.5m today from £70m back in 2010, despite their burden of having one of the oldest resident populations needing the most care and support. Haringey's core government funding is now an estimated £143m less a year in real terms than it was in 2010/11 (as of 13 Dec 2023), by Nov 2022 this had amounted to a 63% cut in their core central government funding since 2010/11. Maybe the REAL issue is the government slashing council budgets and loss of housing stock. Council houses were sold off under right to buy and Thatchers big lie that councils were to receive all the proceeds to invest into buying new social/council housing - when 80% of that sale price was absorbed into central government coffers and not reinvested, councils only got 20% of that reduced sale price and lots of restrictions put in place to even allow councils to use that 20% to build any new social/council housing. Councils have been rightly screwed over by drastic central core government funding cuts since 2010 and and have also lost a good proportion of their social housing stock assets over the past 40+ years without due compensation, so doubly poor. This also somewhat explains some councils' motivations for expanding selective and additional licensing schemes to borough wide, where these is little evidence of any need for them, in order to make up the deficit from the funding cuts. Frankly regulatory proof that such rental properties are being well-managed and certifcations up-to-date could be submitted cheaply by landlords/agents online annually for each property at very low cost maybe in partnership with NRLA membership, and the appropriate records as a checklist proof shared just with the council concerned. I would still keep the licensing and council inspections for the Mandatory HMO's, and the council can then focus their energy and resources doing inspections (and when necessary following up with procecutions) relating to properties being reported as problematic or being run by rogue landlords. Social and Council housing should also be judged by same standards as expected of private rental accommodation, some council's are not doing the repairs they should be doing with some of their properties in a shocking state.
From:
Jackie Welbourne
22 January 2024 13:56 PM
What ever they do, the Council's own rented properties should be treated by the same standards as private rented. The basic standards expected of private rented and council rented plus other social housing should be equal. Why is it the private rental landlords that are expected to have higher standards, and Councils turn a blind eye to conditions that their own tenants live in. if there is a database, then the council properties should be registered too and councils also fined when sub-standard to same basic requirements.
From:
Jackie Welbourne
26 May 2023 07:16 AM
This I do agree with: "Support households struggling with higher costs by unfreezing Local Housing Allowance so it meets the cost of local rents". Government need to make up the LHA to what is the average private rental price in the local area, and then track it making any adjustments to the allowance year on year going forward. Just doing that would fix a lot of current problems for landlords and tenants.
From:
Jackie Welbourne
24 February 2023 14:01 PM
I agree that MTD for ITSA should continue, but with a significant increase to the £10k minimum income threshold. I propose increasing the MTD for ITSA to £85k pa - similar to VAT threshold. Also that HMRC should provide a FREE universal digital reporting system as the default MTD system that will be available for all to use.
From:
Jackie Welbourne
19 December 2022 15:22 PM
A compulsory national register for ALL landlords if properly managed could be a good thing, if done at LOW(ish) cost registration fee. All key documents could be uploaded online by landlords with landlords needing to update them, limiting costly administration and duplication. You'd be expected to engage or be fined like if you don't pay your TV license. It could possibly be handled effectively in partnership with the NRLA (with the government funding the NRLA to oversee) as part of a compulsory membership that also assists landlords to understand and act on their responsibilities and this would to stop unnecessary duplication, and the government making a hash of it as government tends too when they involve ministers, their 'mates', and highly paid management consultant - all whom have little grasp on the issues in hand so are often clueless and we end up with a botch. I'd rather have a central equitable national register and completely scrap the local licensing schemes 'managed' by local councils as so far mostly it is the decent landlords that pay, and the rogue landlords do not, with very few prosecutions except in extreme cases.
From:
Jackie Welbourne
31 January 2022 15:04 PM
P.S. It may say "analysed existing rental property listings on Rightmove and Zoopla to compare the level of stock already snapped up by tenants as a proportion of all stock listed" but we also need to know how many properties were actually listed (smaller data sets might be unreliable), and it would be useful to know over what period and the dates... (pre-covid over a year? or 3 months since lockdown?) and going back to that idea of percentage of stock snapped up - then is the data for Bristol (and other areas) confused?
From:
Jackie Welbourne
05 August 2020 19:55 PM
This data is nonsense. Can the author Marc Da Silva please check the source data and correct it here? The first 2 data sets for 'unfurnished' and 'partly-furnished' are identical, and the blurbs are confusing putting Bristol as one of the top demands for all 3. eg Bristol data given here: 1. demand for unfurnished 60.4% [@60%] 2. demand for partly furnished (57%) 3. demand for furnished 36.8% [@37%] And what ACTUALLY does this data represent? It can't be either/or re tenants preference for 1,2, or 3 - because that doesn't add up. So I' was concluding that there is a higher demand for properties in Bristol than some other areas so that potential tenants are having to consider being FLEXIBLE about what they take on. But then take Aberdeen data which says 1. demand for unfurnished 10.8% 2. demand for partly furnished 10.8% 3. demand for furnished 6.6% which screws that conclusion. So what exactly quantifies 'demand'?
From:
Jackie Welbourne
05 August 2020 19:46 PM
Michael Foley - Don't believe the prices in Durham? Try also getting student accommodation for your child under £500 pm in Bristol! And the private purpose built are charging £225pw which desperate parents who could afford it were paying (note that is more per annum than governments maximum maintenance loan) as the universities were placing students whom couldn't afford that in halls in Newport - or their were giving up finding something affordable or deferring. Bath no better. My daughter's recently made a new friend and found out she is trying to survive on a £40 per month food budget since September and has now developed a health condition due to lack of eating sufficient food.
From:
Jackie Welbourne
21 March 2020 21:36 PM
Can we have the link to this report from the Institute for Public Policy please?
From:
Jackie Welbourne
26 September 2019 12:58 PM
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Breaking News
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Video Archieve
Today 14:58
Portal Discussions
Joined Group From: Your Community
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Industry View
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Industry View
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Conversation Comment in: Interior Design
Today 14:58
×
Send a message
Message
×
Write on Wall
Message
×
Send a message
Reply to:
Message
Breaking News
Call for “sentencing guidelines” to punish landlords over licensing
Politicians propose State Control of private rents in Scotland
Lawyers ask: Why is Gove delaying ground rent reform?
Rents soar by almost half since 2014 - deposit service’s latest claim
Build To Rent deal emphasises eco-efficiency and wellbeing
Jail for landlord who put lives of tenants at fire risk
Councils set to grab over half a billion from higher tax
Renters Reform Bill shock for Generation Rent and Shelter
Energy costs could vary according to time of day
HMO clampdown after worry over bins, parking and loss of housing
Jackie's Recent Activity
From: Jackie Welbourne
05 March 2024 15:12 PM
From: Jackie Welbourne
05 March 2024 14:27 PM
From: Jackie Welbourne
13 February 2024 11:18 AM
From: Jackie Welbourne
22 January 2024 13:56 PM
From: Jackie Welbourne
26 May 2023 07:16 AM
From: Jackie Welbourne
24 February 2023 14:01 PM
From: Jackie Welbourne
19 December 2022 15:22 PM
From: Jackie Welbourne
31 January 2022 15:04 PM
From: Jackie Welbourne
05 August 2020 19:55 PM
From: Jackie Welbourne
05 August 2020 19:46 PM
From: Jackie Welbourne
21 March 2020 21:36 PM
From: Jackie Welbourne
26 September 2019 12:58 PM