x

Matthew Payne

Business & Property Consultant

6687 Profile Views

About Me

Business and property consultant offering strategic consultancy services and executive coaching to property businesses and property people looking for guidance and support to fulfil their potential, become more compliant, commercial, effective and profitable.

Get in touch at aficionadoproperty.com t. 07970 773 847 e. matthewpayne@aficionadopropertyconsultants.co.uk

my expertise in the industry

I worked in the independent and corporate property world for 25 years, working my way up from trainee estate agent to Managing Director of a multi-million-pound estate agency in London delivering record profits in the years that followed. Working closely with my teams, clients and customers in sales, lettings, property management, land and new homes afforded me an intimate 360 degree understanding of a transactional residential property business and the people it served.

Matthew's Recent Activity

From: Matthew Payne 05 August 2022 09:15 AM

Will be interesting to see if the changes to lending criteria that kick in today make any material difference to accessibility. I would however, takes any promises, mostly unfunded, offered in a leadership content with a large bucket of salt. The next 5 weeks is only about impressing 200,000 tory party members.

From: Matthew Payne 01 August 2022 11:58 AM

Heat pumps arent the future, too big, too expensive, hard to retro fit to most properties and cant cope with cold winters. I would hang on as long as possible to see how the industry evolves, hydrogen boilers look one of the favourites.

From: Matthew Payne 26 July 2022 09:59 AM

Still no mention of clawback....

From: Matthew Payne 25 July 2022 10:21 AM

Irrespective of political persuasion, whoever is in power will very soon have to deal with the chickens from the last 5 or so years coming home to roost. The social housing sector is saturated. The PRS is shrinking, when it needs to be increasing by 200,000 a year, and is already at least 2 million units short. House prices or mortgages are out of reach for most, spiralling rents for many more. Throw into the mix 6.8 million "officially settled" EU citizens in recent years who all made the last ferry before the Brexit door slammed shut who have warped the supply/demand curve. We have a major problem that one administration or another needs to deal with, and squeezing the middle even further will make it even worse.

From: Matthew Payne 20 July 2022 11:51 AM

Thats the point about government and legislating on property in recent years, looks good on paper maybe, but they dont get what happens in real life.

From: Matthew Payne 19 July 2022 09:55 AM

Insurance won't work for several reasons. 1. the tenant wont care about any claim, they are leaving, so it will be for the landlord to do all the leg work. 2. The premium paid for by the tenant could be classified as a prohibted payment, we are still awating the outcome of an adjourned county court case, where the judge has so far determined that a simliar zero deposit premium is one. Could be a couple of years before we know. 3. There will be a number of standard pet dliaps the insurance policies won't cover simply because the insurers will not want to have a claim made for every single tenancy, and I get that. Eg: Steam cleaning carpets wont be included, but who will then pay for it? I will put money on these policies only covering signficant damage, as opposed to the usual extra wear and tear that "well behaved" dogs and cats create just by existing. There are several hundred £s of these after each tenancy that then wont be covered which formerly made up the vast majority of claims from deposits.

From: Matthew Payne 07 July 2022 16:48 PM

Kicks the Renters Reform Bill into the long grass for a while. Again.

From: Matthew Payne 07 July 2022 16:02 PM

You have the right to buy the Freehold after 2 years, have done since 2002, as long as 50% of LHs want to engage, so you do have control. Not everybody has to contribute if its a larger block, but the 51% can buy the whole FH if they want to. Price to be agreed or determined by arbitration.

From: Matthew Payne 04 July 2022 16:18 PM

Imagine the Tory shark swimming through a shoal of 13 million little Labour/Lib Dem fishies, easy prey to pick off in one fell swoop.

From: Matthew Payne 20 June 2022 09:58 AM

Light the blue touch paper!

From: Matthew Payne 20 June 2022 09:49 AM

It will be far higher than any stats will show, I reckon you can double whatever the offical number is. 20% declared in any survey becomes 40% in reality.

From: Matthew Payne 17 June 2022 13:02 PM

I sometimes wonder whether people who come out with this stuff, actually exist in a faraway parallel dimension, one clearly where supply outstrips demand by 10x and landlords are desperately trying to impress any passing tenant to rent their property.

From: Matthew Payne 17 June 2022 10:17 AM

Lets listen to the mood music in a years time, when we are talking sadly about a massive increase in homelessness.

From: Matthew Payne 17 June 2022 10:12 AM

The detail has just been published. ww.gov.uk/government/publications/a-fairer-private-rented-sector/a-fairer-private-rented-sector

From: Matthew Payne 16 June 2022 12:44 PM

Twaddle. It will give tenants even less choice, and make it even more expensive, and the ones that will be marginalised the most will be the ones in the greatest need. It is immensely frustrating that so many people do not understand the dynamics of how the prs works on the streets, not a scooby. (Mr Gove feel free to DM me and I would be happy to book some education sessions)

From: Matthew Payne 16 June 2022 09:01 AM

Tenant selection is critical to all the points above, the interview, the body language, the backstory, the cut of their jib, and that shouldnt be a problem for some time to come, with the PRS a couple of million units short there will always be an alpha tenant for every property. The key is to meet these tenants yourself before you commit, even if you use an agent (or should I say especially?)

From: Matthew Payne 15 June 2022 12:53 PM

It wont be Ken, it would be unworkable in blocks of flats, and FHs up and down the land would take HMG to Court.

From: Matthew Payne 15 June 2022 12:01 PM

That will be a justifiable reason for declining in the first place.

From: Matthew Payne 15 June 2022 11:59 AM

All it says is, they are going to ban a blanket pet ban, LLs just will need to give a sensible, justifiable reason for a no, albeit, when marketing a property the "no" is often, "the landlord has accepted an offer from another tenant" and the specifics are never discussed. Absolutely nothing will change, and directly rejecting a request for a large pet will be simple, just propose an undesirable increase in the rent, or there will be enough other reasons. You wont allow a dog to be left alone for more than 2 hours alone for example. (this is in a lease I saw recently. It is perfectly justfied to demand dogs are not left alone for long periods of time, so this restricts dog ownership to people who are retired or WFH 100%) It will be interesting to read the detail, but I also still see it will be reasonable for a LL to reject based on inevitable pet dilaps with no allowed remedy. "Yes you have pet insurance for damage Mr Tenant, but who is going to pay to replace my scratched laminate floor, clean/replace the soiled/worn carpets, the redecoration, fumigate for fleas, replace the lawn, none of which will be covered by your insurance, so thats why my answer is a no".

From: Matthew Payne 15 June 2022 11:58 AM

Whilst many of us have been prediciting this sword of Damocles had started falling a long time ago, its good to see the mainstream waking up to the issue, better late than never. However, stemming the flow of LL departures is simply the smaller half of the problem. The PRS peaked at about 4.6m in 2016, and has since shrunk by about 300,000 units depending on where you look. Now in those 6 years, the population has been increasing at a rate of 300,000+, mostly tenants, with the Brexit deadline seeing a signficant one off amnesty of a couple of million Europeans, HMG didnt even know were here. So to keep pace, the PRS needed to be 6.5m + units by now, let alone shrinking. Relenting on recent tax hikes is one thing, but HMG actually needs to be providing "too good to be true" tax incentives to LLs to get them queueing up to urgently buy more. Any then we have the MEES changes on the horizon....

From: Matthew Payne 13 June 2022 10:25 AM

Only about perception of value, not the expense itself. Generally, bad experience is driven 99% of the time by poor process as opposed to incompetance or negligence, and thats easy to control...if you know how.

From: Matthew Payne 07 June 2022 09:36 AM

One of the criteria I advise LLs on choosing BTLs, no gas. Puts costs up all over for LLs & TTs, and a source of friction when repairs need to be done. You buy a modern (ish) PB flat with eco 7 storage heaters, no EPC worries, no gas, cheap to run and maintain.

From: Matthew Payne 27 May 2022 09:18 AM

The problem is 2 fold, vote chasing and they simply dont understand the dynamics of property. Take Boris' leaked idea this week of a CGT discount for LLs selling to FTBs to help them onto the property ladder. The most idiotic idea when I have heard for a while but one that ticks the 2 boxes above. Wins votes, and no flippin clue what they are doing.

From: Matthew Payne 27 May 2022 09:10 AM

Love the way the national landlords register has been rebranded a "landlord property portal". If there is no proper accelerated Court process that works to enable landlords to take back possession quickly for a variety of reasons where tenants are not conforming, the government faces 2 immediate real problems. 1) a tsunami of S21s when we know what the cut off is for the new leglislation as landlords play safe, go back into the market for an "Alpha" tenant paying a market rent. 2) for those landlords that remain, if at least in the medium term, how to encourage them to let to the bottom half of the tenant barrel. The Tenant Fees Acts already marginalised tenants with lower incomes, pets, small children etc, the RRB will make this even more acute, as landlords look for as close to zero risk as possible.

From: Matthew Payne 10 May 2022 13:46 PM

I think most landlords would happily rent to tenants with pets if they were prepared to pay a 50-75% uplift on the rent. It would appear not even the "pet friendly" Grainger is prepared to take leap of faith on the well behaved pet argument without some serious wedge on the table to cover their risk.

From: Matthew Payne 06 May 2022 09:31 AM

That only represents 1.7% of tenancies per annum, suggesting quite a bit of stability exists for 10.8m of those tenants.

From: Matthew Payne 27 April 2022 09:12 AM

Government policy should only be focussed on improving supply, especially when its policies of the last 5 years have in large part created that shortage in the first place. If that means swallowing the bitter pill of offering incentives to landlords now instead of publicly attacking them to win votes then so be it. I am sure most tenants wouldnt care about their landlords improving tax position if it meant rents came down, choice and accessibility improved, but goverment has to be honest first about what has happened to date. That said, I am sure those clever spin doctors in Tory HQ can come up with something that shows the Tories championing bringing rents down during a cost of living crisis that doesnt draw too much attention to how they achieve it.

From: Matthew Payne 25 April 2022 09:33 AM

Finally someone who understands how block management works in the real world. Forget equality for a moment, if a block manager does not have commitment from 100% of leaseholders on any section 20 works, and quite often with funds up front, then not only will a contractor refuse the work, the BM wont instruct a contractor in the first place as they cannot take on the risk of defaulting on the commitment. Ergo, blocks with "portfolio" landlords will simply have no work done.

From: Matthew Payne 22 April 2022 10:34 AM

Whether you are an agent or a landlord, it all comes down to experience and understanding, interpreting & applying the legislation in practical scenarios when managing and problem solving. Its certainly not about finding tenants and hasn't been for a few years now. I work advising both in different capacities and that capability extends from one end of the spectrum to the other in both categories. There are many excellent agents out there, at the same time very experienced landlords that simply don't need any help from one, but then at the other end, there are plenty of both who think they are experts and actually know very little, but that will be the same in any sector. As they say, "you don't know what you don't know". Depending on where the landlord is on that spectrum dictates the need and whether they can then find an agent that is further along that spectrum than they are.

From: Matthew Payne 22 April 2022 10:27 AM

"We’ve reached a situation for a variety of reasons...." Just 2 actually Michael. Under the tories only 51,000 new social housing units have been built each year, (and even then some of those have been replacing old), as all stakeholders bar the people that need them, have been disincentivised by the planning system and funding arrangements to build any more. Meanwhile the population has been increasing by 400,000 every year and your governments disjointed policies like the TFA, S24, MEES etc etc have reduced supply of housing and turbo charged rents so noone can afford them. You do the math!

From: Matthew Payne 21 April 2022 14:14 PM

It is a strangely constructed piece. Ask what the rent is? Cant you see that in the listing? Ask whats being done about ACM cladding? Who would move into a building that had it?

From: Matthew Payne 14 April 2022 17:17 PM

I bet all the donors listed on their Legal Fund, Go Fund Me page have got a warm fuzzy feeling about how their hard earned cash has been spent fighting for a fairer deal for their communities....

From: Matthew Payne 06 April 2022 10:21 AM

Prosper? My more realistic headline would be: "Rents up, voids down, taxes and costs up as many landlords fight to survive and many more decide now's the time to sell up".

From: Matthew Payne 05 April 2022 10:01 AM

Definate no, heat pumps are not the way forward in the UK. Too expensive, too big, hard to retro fit, and cant cope with cold winters when there is no heat to be had. The more I read, the more I think hydrogen boilers look like the most like for like replacement in this next phase of our decarbonisation.

From: Matthew Payne 28 March 2022 18:13 PM

Irrespective of the commentator or the sentiment of his message, why is it that rented property and the payment of rent always gets singled out for this treatment? Why dont we hear messages about Thames water being told to be compassionate with its price rises to its water customers, or councils with residents, or Shell with drivers, or Barclays with its mortgagees, or EON, or BT, or British Gas or Royal Mail all of whom are making eye watering increases and making gazillions in profit and/or paying their execs monopoly money? Why is rent often singled out as discretionary in its value or commitment to be paid without remedy, almost as if the PRS has become a social housing service? And thats all before we get into the conversation about 7% inflation.

From: Matthew Payne 28 March 2022 14:29 PM

Its a lot higher than that, I looked at the numbers a few months ago, 62% of all EPCs are D or lower, you can simply extrapolate those numbers to the PRS.

From: Matthew Payne 28 March 2022 13:57 PM

Propertymark simply trying to justify their existence and their ever increasing membership fees once more, but badly. "Landlords should wise-up, not sell-up ...the first port of call for advice on landlord issues should be a highly trained Propertymark expert" Thats right Propertymark, the PRS is shrinking because all those clueless idiots called landlords, haven't the foggiest idea what they are doing, and employing one of your agents will solve all their problems. I would be embarrassed to have my agency represented with this nonsense.

From: Matthew Payne 17 March 2022 19:07 PM

The slide started in 2008, and career minded politicians as you imply Daniel, have made isolated knee jerk policy decisions with absolutely no strategy in mind beyond their own prominence let alone a cohesive approach to the future of the housing market. I reckon we are 2.5 million homes short as we stand today, and that will take at least 15 years to recover even if we start smashing new build targets every year, more likely a generation. Alienating landlords is the last thing government can afford to do.

From: Matthew Payne 14 March 2022 14:49 PM

I wouldnt do anything in this area until the whole EPC debate has had a good airing and we know what government plans to do. The ratings and how they are calculated are under review and I suspect we may get some new guidance at some point to help government hit its targets, which at the moment it has no hope of getting anywhere near. A lot of spend on Ds & Es may not be required and the new measure could be a lot more forgiving in certain areas, but we need to know what they are first.

From: Matthew Payne 04 March 2022 09:18 AM

HMO model has had its day with all the extra costs and admin, I know so many LLs that are proactively converting to single household ASTs. Ill put money on it not being long before the government is complaining we have a crisis in a shortage of house shares for young renters & students. Doh!

From: Matthew Payne 02 March 2022 08:04 AM

Rents in London for example in the 5 years, 2015-2020 dropped in real terms by 9.6%. IF (and its a big if) tenants understood the market better and realised this, they wouldn't be a single one of them supporting rent controls and would ask Acorn to wind their neck in, the same will be the case in most cities. If you cap increases at RPI, every landlord will insist on an RPI increase every year, whereas now a great many do not and let the market dictate the level. Will tenants want a 5-7% gauranteed increase each year?

From: Matthew Payne 18 February 2022 10:55 AM

If larger landlords simply refuse to contribute, the government will have no choice but to review, otherwise 100s of buildings won't have their cladding rectified. I expect most of the other leaseholders in the building will be campaigning the hardest on their behalf.

From: Matthew Payne 18 February 2022 09:24 AM

Predicted this 3 years ago, which I called the Alpha Tenant, born from the Tenant Fees Act, the tenant that represents the least risk and best return for landlords for a whole number of reasons. If you arent one of them, you have the government to thank for wading in and meddling in an open market and upsetting the equilibrium.

From: Matthew Payne 15 February 2022 15:37 PM

Its not just heat pumps, there are a load of anomalies with storage heaters, and insulation. They are going to have to move the goal posts, not only as their measure isnt up to scratch anymore as we are 14 years down the line, but most importantly as they will exlcude 2.8 million rented properties from the market that are currently D or lower. On top of that, they have targets to hit under the Doha agreement. They arent going to get anywhere near those as it stands. Nice work for the industry though, assuming the criteria is amended, pretty much every EPC in the UK will need redoing, kerching kerching, which in itself might be a tall order by 2026, let alone any work still required to reach an uplift.

From: Matthew Payne 12 February 2022 11:18 AM

Im sorry, but pet referencing is absolute nonsense. It will simply be a collection of useless documents like worming certificates, microchipping etc, along with a supposed previous landlord reference which isnt worth the paper it's written on. The Q to ask if they actually provided any value is: Do they reduce the risk for a LL? The answer for me is no, only cash can do that. If someone thinks the answer is yes, I would be keen to hear what mechanism is finacially underwriting this reference to cover end of tenancy cleaning and dilaps. I assume LLs aren't being asked to take a leap of faith that this reference can be relied upon, and when they realise they it can't they have to foot the bill anyway?

From: Matthew Payne 11 February 2022 15:56 PM

Its not plateaued, he's obviously just reading the headlines of the report saying the PRS is still 19%. If you look at the graph and the data behind it, the PRS has shrunk YOY since 2016, the EHS simply round their numbers down to the nearest %, but 19.9% is very different to 19.0% and its the trend that matters meaning the conclusion is incorrect. The facts are the PRS peaked at 2016 and has been shrinking ever since, a shift from signficantly increasing YOY, albeit even then, still at a rate far lower than the population was increasing by.

From: Matthew Payne 10 February 2022 08:19 AM

Well no building is going to get their cladding replaced without it, as only when a block manager/contractor has the financial commitment from 100% of leaseholders will any work commence. Landlords are best advised to refuse that to get governments attention. And thats the point, its about leaseholders, thats the language that has always been used in this debate. Leaseholders who are the victims of shoddy standards in building control, with manufacturers and developers. I have never seen any reference to that group further sub divided into whether those leaseholders were in residence or otherwise. Does that make a difference to the value of any claim for substandard construction standards? Albeit, now this debate has opened, I see above the DLU are now calling them "leaseholders" and "other leasholders"???? Would they mind defining the difference, as I would love to hear it, and where I can then find it as a recognised definition in the law of property, Ive never heard of the term?

From: Matthew Payne 03 February 2022 14:30 PM

This is no more than a pre manifesto pledge, 2024 electioneering has started already, 2 years out is normal, so I wouldnt advise anyone lose any sleep over the sensational LT headline, all 2030 ambitions. George Osborne announced a similar plan in 2014 in the run up to the 2015 GE, and most of it either never made it off the paper he read it off, or it was cancelled, and none of this lot will be around for much longer even if its a new Tory government in 2024. Bear in mind S21 was supposed to be going last year in the renters reform bill that has been fanfared several times by several housing ministers in the last few years. Cancelled with this announcement. 8 years is several lifetimes in politics, so lets sit back and see, and this government is prone to a fruity uturn or two, or dare I say the odd white lie? All that said, it is a senisble timescale to look to abolish Section 21, as there is an entire Court system to overhaul and test, and that cant start until the covid backlog has been dealt with. I would rather that, than it was rushed through like everything else.

From: Matthew Payne 02 February 2022 09:43 AM

Common sense prevails, good to see the Judges exercising their authority to interpret the law and not allow tenuous technicalities to circumavigate its intention.

From: Matthew Payne 26 January 2022 15:26 PM

The short answer is no, it wont start until they have the financial commitment from all units. Lets hope government understands this otherwise their plan will stall on day 1.

From: Matthew Payne 19 January 2022 12:09 PM

The scariest thing about rent controls is that every few people understand what they actually do, which is restrict supply, push up rents both to new tenants, and then existing tenants to boot who as with most bits of supposed tenant friendly legislation would rather their interests were left well alone by meddling politicians who just cost them more and more money. As with comments above, many LLs allow the status quo to exist, but encouraged to "limit" any rent increases to rpi, many then actually feel empowered to raise rents each year by that amount

From: Matthew Payne 18 January 2022 12:07 PM

Ive never seen such scarcity. There is one solitary property to rent in my local town, and even then its a new build that is new to the market. The secondhand market doesn't actually exist anymore.

From: Matthew Payne 15 January 2022 12:51 PM

This isnt news, the PRS peaked in numbers in 2016 and has been shrinking ever since George Osborne started attacking the sector. It may be more newsworthy now simply because at the same time the social housing waiting list has been going in the opposite direction as has been EU migration, so the cracks are starting to get bigger, albeit as I have posted several times over a long period, this is no blinkin surpirise to anyone who understands how the market works. And its about to get a lot worse unless someone slams the truck into reverse.

From: Matthew Payne 15 January 2022 12:48 PM

May 24 still too far away, not that he will be around anyway. The Tories will want this gift to the Labour voting masses in the 9 months leading up to the next election. That said, if Mr Sunak becomes PM I think it may get shelved. He clearly understands that continuing along this policy path is only going to create greater problems in the future and as a much younger man with an eye on more than the next couple of years, he doesnt want to create a hole he will only have to dig himself out of later, and dare I say it, we may have a rare commodity in the Chancellor, a conviction politican - he doesnt need the fame or fortune.

From: Matthew Payne 13 January 2022 10:32 AM

The pet friendly article, aka the Pied Piper of Landlords....

From: Matthew Payne 07 January 2022 14:34 PM

Anything is "possible", but like the Courts, HMRC have a 2 year backlog of routine stuff they are behind on having been furloughed themselves for a lot of the time, are chronically under staffed, and whose number one priority is to investigate the tens of billions of government support that was fraudulently claimed during the pandemic before the trails go cold, but I understand why HW Fisher would want to set these hares running.

From: Matthew Payne 07 January 2022 11:10 AM

Im not sure why anyone would conduct a survey like this in the first place, to what end?

From: Matthew Payne 06 January 2022 10:59 AM

It certainly would be transformative Charlotte. I would be happy to provide some coaching on the dynamics of how the housing market actually works and responds to certain pressures and behaviours so you can make more informed comment when helping shaping policy in the future. Contact details in my bio.

From: Matthew Payne 05 January 2022 08:27 AM

It only became about Brexit in the few weeks after Johnson was elected leader, and his charisma dare I say it. Theresa May would have failed in the same seat. When the TFA was enacted, Labour was well ahead in the polls and the Tories were scratching around trying to find ways to fracture the young Labour vote knowing a general election was just around the corner, that yes would be dominated by Brexit. Remember that a Brexit driven election would usually drive young voters to Labour as they mostly wanted to remain, yet so many voted Tory against their supposed principles. A few quid in their pocket was the reason why.

From: Matthew Payne 04 January 2022 15:53 PM

The Tenant Fees Act helped win the 2019 Election, a huge swing of young labour voters delivered the supposed blue wall. The Renters Reform Bill is the master plan for 2024. Nothing like robbing Labour votes with Labour policies. The reason the white paper has been kicked into the long grass for later this year, they want it fresh in voters minds as we approach the ballot box in May 24, too soon it will become forgotten. You may remember the TFA was delayed and delayed, and then boom, through in 2 shakes of a lambs tail a few weeks before the 2019 election. What have the Romans ever done for us? Is a Q they will have answered just in the nick of time once more.

From: Matthew Payne 04 January 2022 15:31 PM

I never understand where they get their data from. If they wanted anyone to take their claims seriously, ergo they might then attract support for the cause/people they are supposedly fighting for, they need to publish these "studies". I am sure most of us would be alarmed if presented with evidence that 200,000 children could be made homeless this winter, and something might actually be done to mitigate the outcome.

From: Matthew Payne 23 December 2021 12:25 PM

If they want to do it properly with a fit for purpose, accelerated court system to replace S21 it will take at least 5, any less will be a Blue Peter job as usual. The backlog of claims from the pandemic is going to take a couple of years to clear on its own, some say longer, let alone reforming, expanding and trialling the whole system.

From: Matthew Payne 22 December 2021 09:55 AM

Dropped another 20% today.

From: Matthew Payne 13 December 2021 11:01 AM

They will have to put a provision in their accounts for the £30m come what may, and all this continued and future publicity makes it more and more likely they are going to need to use it all. Writing to all their tenants wasn't the smartest move either.

From: Matthew Payne 13 December 2021 08:28 AM

I love the way all the "recognised" experts have woken up now the cliff edge is visible right in front of their front wheels. Many of us have been talking about this for several years and didnt need a housing survey to help us work it out, shame none of them paid any attention, albeit it was as plain as day the whole time.

From: Matthew Payne 10 December 2021 12:10 PM

Whilst it's of course horrible for these tenants being scammed, it's not that hard to avoid if you follow some simple steps. Who sends money to a complete stranger without doing their DD? Why does a property listing validate their credibility in the eye of these tenants?

From: Matthew Payne 08 December 2021 08:50 AM

From: Matthew Payne 04 December 2021 11:14 AM

Not sure why they are inforrming tenants, most wouldnt have noticed, most wouldn't have cared, but all will now take advantage of claiming the 3x deposit now. I am at a loss generally to understand how shareholders are sticking with the current management team, even more surprised than when they were appointed in the first place. The business is clearly being run into the ground, from what was a very successful start a few years ago and yet they are being left in place. What is their measure of success or failure? When Mr Darvey took over the share price was low, about £1 from its high of £5. After 2 years the share price stands at 28p and they have haemorrhaged what market share they once had.

From: Matthew Payne 26 November 2021 11:00 AM

Solid fuel only up to now but as you say, I do fit them and recommened them as standard anyway for the sake of a tenner and then you dont have to work out which properties need them and which don't.

From: Matthew Payne 24 November 2021 09:54 AM

Thats the (scary) problem with most politicians, they are legislating on subjects they know nothing about. It's 10x worse with the Greens as they have only one specialist area of expertise. Being elected somehow gives them some air of legitimacy and expertise overnight however, whereas the rest of us have had to spend 20+ years developing ours.

From: Matthew Payne 18 November 2021 11:06 AM

It is (well likely to be when the consultation is published) but commercial and resi have been following the same trajectory up to now, they propose to have commercial dovetail with Resi with a 2027 deadline for a C, before the proposed B in 2030. Bear in mind that is 9 years from now, and look at how much has been changed/introduced in the last 9 years, most recently with the recent 2025 "C" bombshell. We have had 5 years to get from an E to a C, they will regard 5 more to get from a C to a B as more than enough time, especially with all the focus on the subject. Resi Bs by 2030 is already the plan, they just havent announced it yet, always on the drip.

From: Matthew Payne 11 November 2021 09:51 AM

And how would you retro fit them all, where would everyone go and live in the meantime?

From: Matthew Payne 11 November 2021 09:33 AM

Getting to an E has been relatively easy even for some older properties, with some loft insulation, a modern condensing boiler etc, but 2 things will prevent many from making it to a C, and the majority to a B by 2030. 1) The construction type won't allow. There is nothing that will overcome suspended timber floors or solid walls for example unless they start recommending taking up floors and insulating below or sticking sheets of 100mm Celotex to the internal walls making the property 10% smalller, which brings me to my second point 2) Whatever is required to get these properties to a C or a B will cost tens of thousands, possibly even up to and over £100k in some cases. Where is that cash coming from? There are 22m properties in the UK older than 1983, or 77% or our housing stock. Big big problem if you start restricting lending or penalising owners/landlords. Will paralise the housing market and PRS in one fell swoop, crash the economy and create an even bigger housing crisis. More carrott, less stick, is the way forward.

From: Matthew Payne 11 November 2021 09:25 AM

Everyone has also lost sight of MEES deadline of 2030 to get to a B, this is just the start.

From: Matthew Payne 10 November 2021 10:42 AM

If you look at the criteria assessors follow it's shocking. For example, if you have any brand of storage heater other than Dimplex, you get hammered on the score, almost as if you didnt have any heating at all. Nice little back street deal done by government and Dimplex, and I thought monopolies werent allowed...

From: Matthew Payne 04 November 2021 09:23 AM

It will be a lot more than 100,000, but then there is no joined up policing of any statute making properties eligible to let, except for diligent and compliant lettings agents and those landlords that do take their responsibilities seriously, whether they agree with them or not. I reckon there are a couple of million properties at least that don't have an EICR yet. Most sparkys tell me they have done relatively few in the last couple of years, no mad rush that you would have expected as the deadlines came and went, a great many are simply ignoring the legislation. Until we have a digital register for each property with its own log book, loopholes or a known lack of regulation at the coal face will continue to be exploited. This is then what adds the fuel to the fire calling for more regulation, licensing, general landlord bashing. Every compliant landlord should make it their business to convert a non-compliant one.

From: Matthew Payne 04 November 2021 09:20 AM

It does appear though that once again Mr Sunak "gets it". Since he has been appointed, LL beating does appear to have stopped in spite of many recommendations from 3rd party agencies to up the ante.

From: Matthew Payne 29 October 2021 11:44 AM

The good news keeps on coming this week. This is going to be the biggest change to the PRS since its inception. Got to get it right, got to consult all stakeholders and for once understand the consequences of any changes, unlike the rushed through Tenant Fees Act for example. With a backlog of 65,000 possesion orders, repealing section 21 wouldn't be the wisest move until the backlog is cleared and a tested, workable accelerated court process is in place. Thats going to take a couple of years at least, maybe 3 or 4.

From: Matthew Payne 28 October 2021 15:01 PM

I'm not sure whether they are using it in the right context here, but a household for lettings purposes is a unit of people that are socially and financially connected and dependant on each other. So a family is one household, a couple could be one, 3 sharers might be 3 households living in one property though, hence HMO definitions.

From: Matthew Payne 27 October 2021 11:16 AM

The funding for those that need it is always welcome of course, but as with most recent government legislation or initiatives, it is poorly thought out, practicalities ignored, so application by LAs is chaotic at best and little help actually reaches the coal face. As with comments above, my immediate questions on reading the media reports, were how this cash would quickly get to the tenants/landlords who desperately need it. There is no publicity on it, nothing yet on my LAs website. What is the application process, what is the criteria for selection, how long does it take? With circa £340,000 per LA, is it first come first served, will they keep some in reserve over winter, how have they evaluated how to find the 100-150 households that are in the greatest need, as this is all the funding will stretch to. I hope for the best but always fear another load of funding is about to be wasted or become "unaccounted" for.

From: Matthew Payne 26 October 2021 09:09 AM

And where is this money going to come from? Many older landlords inherited properties or bought them decadses ago, and use their rental income to subsidise their pension, and can no longer raise finance. Many younger landlords are highly geared, with little monthly net profits after costs and taxation. Where are either going to suddenly find £1700 anymore than anyone else who isnt a landlord, without borowing it?

From: Matthew Payne 25 October 2021 12:02 PM

Replacing gas boilers with these expensive pumps is going to cost £500 billion, this funding covers less than 1% and that doesnt take inflation into account over the coming decades or that we are up to our necks in debt. It will take the best part of the rest of this century, bearing mind the cost, the time it will take to manufacture and fit 25 million pumps, the fact that many properties cant even have pumps fitted which is the larger issue and for that reason I dont think they will be the long term solution, simply because of their size, cost and capabilities. They arent the right solution for retro fitting older properties, blocks of flats and only really work well if a property has the highest standard of insulation so that rules out a lot of older housing where you have solid walls for example. They are also incapable of properly heating larger properties unless they start making the units even bigger than they are now, and even then in the midst of the depths of winter in Jan & Feb, struggle to generate the heat required. In mild winters they seem to cope, but Ive heard people complaining they need to use heaters to compensate when we get a cold one. There is no substitute for burning stuff, so it may well be hydrogen boilers that can be more easily accommodated internally, and are much cheaper become the leading long term solution. I wont be rushing out to get a pump until I see how this unfolds.

From: Matthew Payne 21 October 2021 13:00 PM

The maths is nonsense. 1) very few people will cash in this £5k voucher as suppliers will raise their prices by that and more by April blaming Brexit, HGV drivers, the fuel crisis, inflation, whatever is trending. 2) The 2035 target to remove gas boilers is bonkers (this article talks about new boilers, but I have seen press that talks about existing as well), does noone fact check the proposals. 25,000,000 homes in what will be 10 years after this initiative. Thats 2.5m replacements a year, 480,000 a week, 69,000 a day, every day including weekends for 10 years! They wont be able manufacture a fraction of those units in that time, let alone fit them, and the retro fitting to Britains Victorian housing stock is going to take decades with the extra insulation and vacant possession required, and thats all before we ask, who is going to pay the £500 billion its going to cost to do that at around £20k a property. If this is done by 2100 I would be amazed, it certainly wont happen in my lifetime.

From: Matthew Payne 20 October 2021 19:14 PM

Sadly not. Robert is right, these first pumps will be"Betamax" as he puts it, and will cost a small fortune as its a relatively new technology, no different to buying an electric car. Moreover all ASHP manaufactuers will ramp up their prices, I have already seen quotes of £20k, so this £5k grant is just going straight to their bottom line, there is no real discount for a property owner. To make a real difference government needs to manage the suppliers so it is actually a genuine £5k discount off the prices being quoted last month, not next April when they will be at least £5k higher, no doubt blaming a shortage of HGV drivers and fruit pickers like everyone else riding the profiteering inflation curve. I am not sure why this even makes the news, this funding represents 1/250th of that required to phase out existing gas boilers. 2035 is fantasy, I wouldnt put much money on 2075.

From: Matthew Payne 19 October 2021 08:43 AM

If you can negotiate the right fee, source the right agent, the culpability on compliance is worth its weight in gold. I have just spent all year transferring a large portfolio across a large geopgraphy, over for a client from self managed to agent and saved him a fortune, let alone all the admin/stress etc.

From: Matthew Payne 13 October 2021 07:05 AM

I know Nick and used NLG when I was in Agency and agree here with most of what he has said, however, surely a comprehensive independant inventory and check out (which I agree with) are only as useful as the size of the deposit left to cover its conclusions?

From: Matthew Payne 13 October 2021 07:00 AM

There are loads of young "entrepeneurial" rent to rent wheeler dealers out there, who think "how hard can it be?" The vetting process for landlords of agents and tenants should never be compromised, however attractive some of these guaranteed HMO returns appear to be. If it looks to good to be true....

From: Matthew Payne 12 October 2021 07:51 AM

I suppose being on stage at the Tory party conference she was sat in front of several thousand landlords, so she had to avoid being pelted with tomatoes. She will no doubt return to the usual ranting and raving when safely back at Shelter HQ.

From: Matthew Payne 06 October 2021 10:26 AM

The PRS increased in unit numbers every year from 1996 to 2015. Every year since 2016, it has been shrinking. In terms of the housing crisis, renters reform plans, the shortage of property, the spiralling costs of renting and buying, I have no doubt that as Shane says they won't change tack, their answer will be more tax, more regulation to "solve" the problem. We know it will make it worse, but when the BTR sector is many years from maturing into any meaningful volume, at what point do the Tories abandon ship? When people in large volumes are sleeping in car parks, in bus stations and shop doorways, will they continue to vilify landlords as the cause of the problem even then and let homelessness escalate out of control because they are too scared of the wrath of the electorate? There is a sad irony that the votes they are looking to keep/win from those who want to punish landlords seen as rich for owning a second property are the same people who will become homeless. I would say that is turkeys voting for Christmas but government policy means there wont be any more of those this year than places to rent.

From: Matthew Payne 05 October 2021 09:56 AM

"How can we use this moment to deliver lasting change to the private rented sector, working with renters and landlords?" It should be about carrot not stick, providing incentives for developers and landlords to change their behaviour. You wont beat either into producing more volume or accessibility, but I suspect we will simply get more rhetoric about greedy landlords that need chastening with higher taxes and more regulation. Start building some social and affordable housing to buy or rent at the expense of rewarding fat cat Tory party donating developers, some of whom make the same kind of profits as the big oil giants. Do none of them have any design on what their businesses purpose or mission is? Dare I say it, to provide homes for people. Is there no appetite to leave a legacy for society or is it simply about making as many hundreds of millions at the expense of everything else. That should never be the sole raison d'etre of any business. Offer tax incentives to landlords to invest in more properties/focus on long term lets/make properties available to LAs. For example, remove SDLT surcharge and repeal Section 24 would be a good start. Availability would increase, rents would drop.

From: Matthew Payne 05 October 2021 09:34 AM

Don't download them until friday, "have been posted online" should read, "will be posted online", 6A still has 4 months notice in there, I expect gov.uk will update friday morning.

From: Matthew Payne 29 September 2021 10:55 AM

Its a hollow claim to make a headline. Its says 47% of BTR developments not units, so if one goldfish is wecolmed at a site it qualifies. There will be small print, such as which units and type of pets qualify bringing that number plummeting back down towards what you would expect.

From: Matthew Payne 21 September 2021 09:46 AM

Mr Gove is still in charge of the Union and Elections so I am not sure how much time he is going to be able to dedicate to housing when the Tories are already on a war footing for the next election and the Scots have started braying for independance once more. Irrespective of capability, this feels like a step backwards.

From: Matthew Payne 16 September 2021 09:09 AM

Hand over face emoji. I simply don't understand why politicians can't see the bleedin' obvious, is it becasue they know they won't be in power when it all goes pete tong? Not their problem or just don't get it? The PRS has shrunk by 2% since 2016 already, rents are at their highest ever, and the social housing waiting list is growing into the millions. Want that to speed up Keir to increase homelessness and poverty?

From: Matthew Payne 11 September 2021 11:02 AM

Just the normal provisos Jahan and a tenant in agreement, otherwise a free market economy, whether asking for a premium or offering a discount or cashback as you describe. The rent has to be consistant each month, as ad hoc higher rental payments are regarded as prohibited payments under the TFA, and you need to follow the correct process on S13s etc.

From: Matthew Payne 08 September 2021 11:42 AM

That means nothing will change then Eddie....no remedy, no pets. Not rocket science.

From: Matthew Payne 07 September 2021 14:45 PM

All politics, we signed up to the Kyoto protocol, then the Doha amendment, now the Paris Agreement that Trump pulled out of. Government will be bluntly ramming through lots of ill thought out statute over the coming years to hit its targets. Mr Jenrick either hasnt given it much thought or doesnt give a monkeys that 2.8 million rented properties are D or below and if even a small % of those come out of the market, rents and homelessness will go through the roof. Is he relying on these 2.8m landlords all spending £10k on each property and getting exemption? Even if 90% did, thats still a massive whole in the PRS.

From: Matthew Payne 07 September 2021 09:11 AM

Finally....its only taken them 30 months to wake up. Insurance won't cut it as we have dicussed many times, noone will underwrite it at a sensible premium, tenants or landlords won't treat it seriously for different reasons. Pet deposits are the only way forward, but they have to be sensible. If the commons cap them at a weeks rent or similar, nothing will change....

From: Matthew Payne 02 September 2021 09:33 AM

Going to underwrite your definition of well behaved Tim with some of Rightmoves cash to add credibility to the recommendation?

From: Matthew Payne 26 August 2021 10:49 AM

Landlord needs and experiences and lettings agent capabilty and fee levels will all be on a spectrum from A to Z just as in an industry. Good, average and bad apples in every barrel. These numbers demonstrate very little other than TPOS is there to as a safety net to protect consumers from the worst offenders which is the whole idea.

From: Matthew Payne 25 August 2021 09:30 AM

Exactly right and many wont even look in a loft, and guess about sub floor or cavity wall insulation. I have been advising clients to meet inspectors at properties when the surveys are done, with as much paperwork as they can muster showing what the property does or doesnt have, and then do a walk through with them. We have overturned Fs to Cs doing this.

From: Matthew Payne 24 August 2021 09:34 AM

We will find out Leon, that's what I meant about it will be tested. What I do know though is lawmakers like people to engage with the spirit of the purpose of the legislation and exploited loopholes are usually closed very quickly. The TFA was about making it more affordable for people to rent, I can't see a technicality like that being allowed to be used, and I am not sure it works either. Most viewers will be existing tenants of other properties, so technically 80% ish of viewers will fall under the definition anyway. Either way I cannot see viewing charges for tenants lasting more than 5 minutes even if they get away with it for a few weeks whilst it is being brought to the attention of Mr Jenricks department.

From: Matthew Payne 28 July 2021 18:52 PM

Great idea other than its illegal, aside from other issues it would face. Page 19 of the HMG Tenant Fees Act Guidance docs for Landlords and Agents starts: "PROHIBITED PAYMENTS What payments are not permitted under the ban? VIEWING FEES Q. Can I ask a tenant to pay a fee to view a property? No. You cannot charge for this as viewing a property is part of the process connected with granting a tenancy. " It doesn't make any distinction between a tenant that takes the property and the ones that don't so I cannot see their refund tactic is the simple answer to circumnavigating the legislation designed to put cash back into tenants pockets and this certainly doesn't do that. I am sure it won't be long before it is tested.

From: Matthew Payne 28 July 2021 15:35 PM

Great news but a shame that the 387th uturn by this Tory goverment took 4 years instead of the usual 4 days, could have saved a load of people a lot of time, money and stress.

From: Matthew Payne 23 July 2021 11:35 AM

The greatest imbalance between tenant demand and supply of available properties for nearly 10 years accounts for a large proportion of rent increases. Just posted a graph courtesy of KF on my FB page thats shows the difference. facebookcom/aficionadoproperty

From: Matthew Payne 12 July 2021 18:12 PM

Its not possible to reference pets, sorry Natasha. Too many unknowns and variables on both the animal and the owner, just like you cant reference a cow or a chicken, I dont see why cats and dogs seem to have this measurable element that others do not. I dont believe its an insurable risk either. Everything can be insured of course for a price, even David Beckhams legs, but the premiums would be too high to make it a viable option. An insurer might roll the dice and see what happens, but as soon as the claims start rolling in, one of 3 things will happen. The insurer will withdraw from the market or ramp up premiums, or they wont pay out, in which case landlords wont be interested in this as a strategy. Cant beat a good old fashioned 8 or 10 weeks security deposit.

From: Matthew Payne 07 July 2021 09:39 AM

Its a bit late for that Julian, the tenant fees act created this problem, we had a perfectly workable solutiuon for both sides before then, and its not just about the deposit, the government even admonished tenants from any contractual cleaning costs and check out which is ridiculous, pets or no pets. So I agree a tenant should be able to be considered with a pet, judged each case in hand, provided there is appropriate remedy for landlords on dilaps and cleanliness, the government didnt need to get involved. I cant see the insurance policy working if its not the tenant who is held responsible with skin in the game. They pay their £100 premium after which their interest ends, whatever the condition of the property. I can see underwriting it difficult and make a successful claim by a landlord even harder.

From: Matthew Payne 02 July 2021 15:27 PM

What has become ridiculous about this debate over the past few months is that the pro pet lobbyists and politicians keep coming forward to have their say, and not one has yet had the courage to even attempt to address the elephant in the room - namely who is going to pay to remedy pet dilaps that are absolutely guaranteed with a cat or dog. Mainly I think as they are trying to have us focus on damage as opposed to cleanliness, ergo not all pets create “damage” which they don't, but all animals do have the hygiene standards of animals, and that's the bit they don’t want to talk about. So, I feel the need to spell out the bleedin’ obvious in the hope someone will respond. If you get a cat or a dog, and I have had many of both, you do so accepting that your home will suffer, flooring, carpets, furniture, cupboards, doors etc etc will become scratched and soiled. Even so-called well-behaved animals with “respectful” owners cause hundreds of pounds of cleaning and redecorating as a minimum. There is no avoiding it, their hygiene standards are that of animals, not humans, hence the name. They don’t have arms or fingers, or any sense of what is clean or dirty, they are unable to clean themselves, and their owners don’t wash them more than a couple of times every summer, if at all. They have claws, that are designed to rip things apart when they hunt. They dont disappear now we have chosen to try and domesticate a previously wild animal. Just because you give them a collar, a cute name, and claim they make you happy, doesn't change any of that. If a human adopted the same standards of cleanliness, social services would be called, and no doubt all of the “pro pet let’s not talk about whose paying for it all” brigade would publicly denigrate anyone for living in such squalor. So, with that in mind let’s look at these agents latest compelling contribution towards addressing the issue. “As long as tenants remain respectful to their landlords, I’ve no doubt that the decision to take a more flexible approach to pets will benefit all parties. It makes commercial sense to landlords.” (Hand over face emoji)

From: Matthew Payne 02 July 2021 14:12 PM

The more remarkable observation is that an agent would make such a public endorsement about such a inflammatory subject in complete disagreement with their client base. CJ are clearly not that in touch with the majority of the landlord community who have for quite some time now been quite vocal and transparent about their views on pets and capped deposits. Perhaps subscribing to the no such thing as bad publicity bit or is this their attempt to re-educate?

From: Matthew Payne 30 June 2021 11:10 AM

Its what happens in a free market economy, the real issue is that the government has failed to build any affordable or social housing for over 20 years. The "not haves" raising a petition to punish the "haves" is not the solution though.

From: Matthew Payne 24 June 2021 14:27 PM

Thats the TDSs numbers who take a very balanced approach to disputes. Wait till we get the DPS numbers. 84% of deposits returned to tenants in full?

From: Matthew Payne 24 June 2021 09:47 AM

I assume its empty 2nd homes when an occupier is responsible for paying the council tax, not the owner?

From: Matthew Payne 17 June 2021 18:39 PM

All true Gavin, HMG does plan the long term strategic transfer of power of the PRS from individual LLs to the BTR sector, but they are 10 years too early, their timing up the spout with too many ministers with too many individual conflicting agendas. If individual LLs get out of the PRS in any great numbers now, where are their rent defaulting tenants going to live? It wont be long before mainstream evictions start and S21 is coming back to the norm. No empty social housing, no ability to get a mortgage, no option to return to the shrinking PRS. Family for some perhaps, but for most others?

From: Matthew Payne 17 June 2021 10:02 AM

Completely agree Julian, the nanny state very rarely adds value, and in this case with the Tenant Fees Act it was just a piece of political strategy to undermine the Labour vote before the 2019 election. Before the TFA, it all worked fine, pets were allowed by a signficant number of LLs as they could negotiate a fair remedy and settlement should the property need cleaning or repair. They no longer have the freedom to do that, so the default then becomes no pets. If we ever get back to an impartially judged unlimited remedy as before (unlike Lord Greehalghs capped £230) then I am sure the status quo will return.

From: Matthew Payne 16 June 2021 17:36 PM

"Charging a deposit of four weeks’ rent would provide leeway to expand it to five weeks for such things as pet ownership..." Fills me with fear that our country is being run by people who are so detached from what happens in the real world outside Westminster or the country estate. How can you be allowed to legislate if you dont understand the world you are legislating on? More disappointing would be confirmation that not a single other Lord heckled him, "Have you tried making good pet damage for £230 recently my Lord, that doesnt even cover the cost of most standard cleans, let alone everything else...."

From: Matthew Payne 16 June 2021 14:53 PM

Of course they are, they cant afford a tsnami of evictions as this plays out. Only the extreme cases will get possession, the breathing space, now this etc is designed to get us through the summer with the majority of tenants staying put. Then comes autumn/winter, wave 4 and the realisation that they need to revaccinate the whole population again with a variant booster as immunity anyway starts to erode, and we have another moritorium on all evictions. Any mainstream evictions wont start happening until the middle of 2022. I have been saying this for a while now, so there shouldnt be too many people left on LLT who are surprised that it aint going to be 2021.

From: Matthew Payne 16 June 2021 12:15 PM

If you are an agent or use an agent, docusign solves all this. Everything set up to go to the tenant automatically and they cant deny ever having received it. Full PI pack goes out with TA to sign and gets recirculated as one pdf once the last person has signed/witnessed. Bulletproof.

From: Matthew Payne 08 June 2021 14:37 PM

I dont disagree Jim with you in theory, but in practice it wont work. Before the pandemic, it was 5.5 months to get a S8 possession order, plus time to evict etc. The courts are not fit for purpose in this regard. Now add in a 3 year backlog, and then all the S21s that now become s8s where LLs used to simply want a quick regain of possession without fuss, and the lead time to an order will be a year or so, after the backlog has been cleared. If the court process was efficient and turned these claims round in a sensible 4 weeks then I agree losing S21 wouldnt really matter, but we are light years from that distant reality.

From: Matthew Payne 26 May 2021 17:27 PM

Hmmm. Feels like smoke and mirrors, especially when Lord G uses the number of possession orders granted as his measure, and the numbers don't stack up. The government has made it virtually impossible to make a claim for possession since March 20, recently extended further with its breathing space initiative, hence no pile up in the Courts. Space for itself it seems not tenants. 9% of tenants likewise would be about the number (840,000) seen reported by independant sources. All will become clear as S21 notices return to normal over the summer, that will be the acid test that determines what the numbers really are. I hope he'e right and not playing politics.

From: Matthew Payne 25 May 2021 10:39 AM

Its astonishing how many agents still have antiquated client account processes. I met an agent in the west country recently who only posts rents once a month! Loads still only do bi monthly or weekly payment runs. There is no reason not to do a daily payment run, only a question of choice and getting the right systems, processes and training in place. Takes 5 mins if you have it set up properly.

From: Matthew Payne 20 May 2021 09:50 AM

If there is the tenuous 80% link to the furlough scheme, then landlords should still expect 100% of their rent. The government supported businesses with 80% of staff salaries, just as they may do now with tenants and 80% of their rent. Business picked up the remaining 20% of the salary bill, their staff, their responsibility. Shoudnt tenants do the same if a Covid Rent Debt Fund was created? With such a massive bail out, pay their remaining 20%? Their rent, their responsibility.

From: Matthew Payne 13 May 2021 15:11 PM

Is this smoke and mirrors? The Renter Reform Bill should be through parliament before October. Are they teasing us, or does it suggest that "enhancing renters rights" in the Queens speech, contrary to all the 2+2=7 mathematics by the industry press, doesn't mean removing section 21 after all, but could be an alternative watered down measure that throws a bone to Shelter and others.

From: Matthew Payne 13 May 2021 09:33 AM

They are right, its going to take 5 years I reckon to clear the backlog, which wont even start until July before it is suspended again over the coming winter. I expect to see a trend of council led gauranteed rent tenancies gethering pace, with some like Lambeth for example now offering £4500 to LLs up front to sweeten the deal.

From: Matthew Payne 07 May 2021 10:14 AM

No, no legislation would be able to overrule the interests of the lender or freeholder where obligations on the leaseholder already exist. My understanding is that any proposed legislation is going to be fairly loose anyway, basically allowing landlords to still reject pets, but only with sensible justification as opposed to none at all now. The actual proposed wording, centres around the word "reasonable". A landlord can easily justify rejecting a pet based on this as there are plenty of circumstances that being forced to accept a pet would not be. For example, lease restrictions as you say, perhaps a large dog in a small flat, or the owner is at work all day, so animal welfare, or you the landlord have demostrable allergies and you plan to move into the flat in the future, or perhaps a previous landlord reference highlighted pet damage - there is a long list.

From: Matthew Payne 30 April 2021 11:31 AM

Of course they do, they can smell the gravy train approaching the station at the prospect of all those £200 certificates they can issue to certify a pet is well behaved. I wonder if they have also checked how much their PI insurance may well go up by as no doubt landlords will expect these certificates underwrite this behviour they have signed off. There may well be some insurance claims required when one of these pets pulls a fast one and pretends to be well behaved in the 10 minute appointment and then goes and trashes the property.

From: Matthew Payne 26 April 2021 09:08 AM

No of course, nothing is going to change, and in fact it might have actually got worse if the PMs proposed changes to the planning system hadnt faced scrutiny. In the small print was lifting the affordable unit threhold for developers to make medium size sites easier to build out 100% private.

From: Matthew Payne 23 April 2021 12:12 PM

Well if they dont, they will have to extend the section 21 notice period once again, otherwise on 1st June there is going to be a watershed moment that has continued to build and build and the government can't now afford for it ever to happen. Had successive governments over the past 20 years not opted to fatten developers profits to sweeten the deal of mass housebuilding at the cost of the social housing sector it wouldn't be a problem, but it's a bit late to magic 1.5m affordable homes out of thin air. The only other option is to keep them locked in the PRS until those landlords choose to sell up.

From: Matthew Payne 23 April 2021 10:13 AM

And a written guarantee that the council (if required) will pay for the property to be returned to its original condition on check in, and cover the rent for any void period suffered whilst the work is being carried out.

From: Matthew Payne 21 April 2021 10:29 AM

Direct Line sniffing out there is some money to be made from the proposed insurance policy solution announced recently. Can't wait to see how their underwriters are going to define Mr Chaplins "- as long as they are well behaved". Those couple of sentences alone will determine whether this idea has any legs. My gut feel is landlords are being led down the garden path that will make normal pet dilaps impossible to claim for. Claims will be limited to violent misbehaving animals that chew the furniture, not normal "well behaved" ones who still cause damage simply by being an animal. Routine cleaning/defleaing and redecorating which are always the greatest costs won't count.

From: Matthew Payne 15 April 2021 09:45 AM

Rents have fallen in London in real terms by 9.6% since he was elected 5 years ago. I bet 3 million tenants can't wait to see their rents forced up by the prevailing RPI when Mr Khan implements his new policy. Feels like the Tenant Fees Act all over again, tenants screaming at the TV, "You did what on our behalf?????"

From: Matthew Payne 10 April 2021 12:12 PM

You can get exemption without ever getting to a C if you have spent some cash trying to get there, currently £3500, proposed to become £10,000 I think in 2025 if that proposal sticks, which I appreciate may still be unpalatable, but HMG acknowledges they arent going to get any LLs chucking £20k/£30k or so trying to get an old drafty Victorian semi up to a C ever.

From: Matthew Payne 08 April 2021 09:17 AM

The insurance is a potential solution albeit it will be interesting to see how some things are going to be measured on check in and check out like smell and fleas in carpets for example to trigger a claim that the insurer won't automatically dismiss for lack of tangible evidence.

From: Matthew Payne 01 April 2021 09:58 AM

2 reasons for the very much intended go slow. Winter 2021 is already very much front and centre as far as covid. All the old and vulnerable are going to need a vaccine booster in the autumn and that isnt far off already, so another 30m vaccinations on top of the 30m they still need to do, on top of the 50m second doses they still need to do. The warm, light low risk covid summer will afford possession to LLs with the most extreme cases only, otherwise the can will be kicked into Spring/Summer 2022 when this vaccination program will then effectively be over. All this will buy them time to deal with the Renters Reform Bill without having 250,000 people roaming the streets with nowhere to live.

From: Matthew Payne 31 March 2021 11:21 AM

It will take a lot longer than that for many. I have seen the backlog estimate spread at anywhere between 2-3 years and Court capacity still hasnt returned yet to pre covid levels let alone the extra needed to start chipping away at the excess, so as we write it is still gettting bigger.

From: Matthew Payne 31 March 2021 11:15 AM

All they and the government mean is the big boys are in plain sight 24/7 and as such are easier to manipulate and control, easier to tax. What's easier for HMG and the left-wing lobbyists when managing and influencing a rented sector? It's the difference between having 20 well trained dogs on a tight leash as opposed to trying to herd 2.5 million cats. 20 known, obedient execs on speed dial or 2.5 million individuals who may all have an opinion, many of whom are unknown?

From: Matthew Payne 26 March 2021 10:50 AM

Hundreds of thousands of tenancies won't have them done by next week, but with covid and everything else going on, I cant see any appetite or resource to enforce the legislation unless someone hangs a blatant piece of non compliance under their nose. Time for many to catch up before they do.

From: Matthew Payne 25 March 2021 09:29 AM

A lot of the commentary I have seen seems to be almost disappointed/annoyed there wasn't tax hikes. HMG damned if it does, damned if it doesn't. Welcome news I thought yesterday irrespective of what may be in store in 2 years time. And as we have seen recently, a lot can happen in 2 years that might mean those things may not materialise....

From: Matthew Payne 24 March 2021 11:12 AM

Sounds like a climb down to me, common sense finally prevailing. On the pet disclosure, they will have to disclose, which Chris Pincher alludes to. There is more to consider than a landlords sensibilities, whether other tenants, neighbours, property suitability, the freeholder, insurer etc, and it would be fair to reject a pet also on welfare grounds, ie: dog in a flat and the owner is at work all day. Just need to add an additional clause if needed that says that should the tenant wish to get a pet mid tenancy, in spite of the "2021 Pet Act", they need to get landlord consent first, and if consent is granted, the rent increases by £150pcm.

From: Matthew Payne 19 March 2021 10:26 AM

Whatever the numbers, it is going to be a massive problem, and I still havent seen a plan as to how the government plans to house all these people, even if the numbers were lower. The only reason I can think of that the government isn't panicking, aside from not seeing what is right in front of their face, is they simply plan to prevent LLs ever being able to serve the no reason 2 month S21 ever again, so a wave of evictions will never materialise. More landlords are slowly coming to that way of thinking, and are cutting their losses and serving 6 months notice whilst they still can. When they remove that option, it will be instantaneous.

From: Matthew Payne 18 March 2021 10:07 AM

The story has validity but not sure on shelters maths once more. The highest number I have seen reported for tenants, (not households) in arrears is 840,000, albeit the CAB has it closer to 500,000 for some reason. Shelter are also using tenants as their yard stick, no doubt as the numbers look larger. Why then would the balance of 1.4m ish tenants fear being made homeless when they aren't in arrears? Cant see many LLs serving notice on tenants that have managed to maintain their rent payments during the pandemic.

From: Matthew Payne 16 March 2021 09:28 AM

There will be never a need to reject a tenant with the declaration, "I am rejecting your application because you have a pet". Rent is higher for pet owning tenants and a clause covers off mid tenancy pet ownership, and if they are prepared to pay these much higher rents, then you have remedy anyway. In rejecting a tenant pre tenancy, I have rarely ever needed to tell them why, and there isn't a need to. Most often its because another offer has been accepted, or put another way, another application was considered to be more favourable, and as you cant disclose details about other tenants you dont need to get into that detail. Cant remember in 25 years a tenant challenge me on why other tenants were better or what about their application that was inferior, and even if you got into that, there is so much stuff available to reject people over, whether job industry, age, their profile, make up of their salary eg commission, savings, your desire to have a single person, a couple, considering the neighbours, just the cut of their gib, body language, whatever, the list is endless. Ive rejected people for all kinds of crazy but genuine reasons in the past and many were simply gut feel. You can reject people if they have pets, you cant reject people becasue they have a pet.

From: Matthew Payne 09 March 2021 09:41 AM

Very unlikey it would be applied to existing tenancies and if it were there would be a lead time of a year or so, so plenty of time to plan around it and increase the rent to influence the decision of the tenants. I would imagine, where they dont already apply, most leasehold owning landlords would suggest to their Freeholder that pets should be not allowed and a variation to the lease be agreed.

From: Matthew Payne 09 March 2021 09:28 AM

I cant believe the claim that 40% of private renters are on benefits.

From: Matthew Payne 04 March 2021 12:48 PM

I'm not sure I follow the logic that private renters have been hit hardest by the economic shock as opposed to anyone else.

From: Matthew Payne 02 March 2021 10:10 AM

I not sure they expect them to be taken seriously. These extreme gambits are designed to help move the debate to slightly left of centre, which they won’t achieve with any more sensible proposals that are slightly left of centre. These messages are also as much about justifying their own existence to their membership, and appealing to their target audience which we are not, no different to Sadiq Khan calling for rent controls in the run up to the Mayoral election.

From: Matthew Payne 02 March 2021 10:00 AM

Mr Khan was given £5bn to build 120,000 extra homes by 2022, and so far has delievered only 16,000, so he wants to get his own house in order if he has a genuine interest in tackling the economic flows created by supply and demand in London. That aside there isn't a sound argument for rent controls in a practical sense even in good times, let alone now in a city with huge post pandemic challenges as it is, and Conservatives don't like these market controls whatever the circumstances. They would actually drive rents up for most and create a shortage in housing at a time when government and councils will need literally every single available rented property from private landlords over the next few years in the wake of the pandemic. We are way behind private construction targets, we have 800,000 tenants & 30,000 mortgage holders in arrears, 1.3m on social housing waiting lists with virtually no social housing being built, the moratorium on repossessions & evictions is about to end, furlough is ending. As all that unfolds is it likely, even with loony lefties politicking loudly in the press, that the most seemingly economically savvy and Conservative Chancellor we have had for some time would sign off a policy that makes it more difficult for people to find somewhere to live in the place that generates about 25% of our GDP? Can't see it.

From: Matthew Payne 19 February 2021 13:22 PM

And so it begins....this will be replicated in every council ward in the country in the coming months.

From: Matthew Payne 19 February 2021 12:18 PM

I dont follow the point about "have been unable to use". Why did the accomodation become redundant? Simply because the 4 hours a week of lectures on campus that they very rarely went to anyway (I speak from experience), were instead taking place online where in fact they theoretically would be more likely to attend and benefit from the education anyway.

From: Matthew Payne 17 February 2021 10:43 AM

Whilst London will suffer the most I havent seen any numbers like these published. Zoopla and Homelet had greater london rents falling between 6 & 9% last year and Savills latest data showed PCL rents dropped by 13% in 2020 but are now seeing a bit of a revival.

From: Matthew Payne 16 February 2021 10:31 AM

I cant see any other way out of this mess other than for government to remove section 21 this year. With 800,000 tenants in arrears, very few of whom will pass a reference again, where would they all go and live?

From: Matthew Payne 15 February 2021 10:25 AM

Inevitable and I dont see HMG had much choice based on where we are. But 800,000 tenants in arrears, 1.3m on the social housing waiting list, over 30,000 people with very serious mortgage arrears, all of which are steadily increasing. Chuck into the mix furlough ending and likely tax hikes. Haven't seen even a glimmer of a plan yet which is the more worrying element.

From: Matthew Payne 14 February 2021 12:12 PM

Same old chestnut. The Tories of all persuasions know that increasing tax rates decreases receipts, not increases them as out of bloody mindedness people avoid the activity that leads to the tax, or simply find ways to reduce their liability. Ergo they reduced income tax from 50p to 45p for this very reason. I remember seeing many uber wealthy people interviewed at the time saying that at 50p, the government could "do one" and conversely at a fairer level they felt obligated to pay their tax in full as their contribution to society. Reducing property CGT for a couple of years would create the windfall in tax the government craves, whilst at the same time creating a huge amount of economic stimulus in supply chains as we have seen with this stamp duty holiday, whilst creating opportunity for tenants. It would also reduce the size of the pending s8/21 crisis thats coming. Feels like a no brainer.

From: Matthew Payne 10 February 2021 10:50 AM

HMG cant afford to have people being evicted in this second wave, in winter, with variants here there and everywhere, furlough ending, with elections around the corner. Would be a political and PR disaster, irrespective of whether humanitarian or otherwise. The eviction ban will be extended whether called for or not as it has only got a few days left to run. Dont be surprised to see s21 follow suit for all those landords who have their 2 month 6a, printed and filled in ready to go next month.

From: Matthew Payne 09 February 2021 10:24 AM

It's not so much the fines, but the subscription model that LAs desperately need to retain to refill the coffers. If HMG centralised it, it would not only be expensive to implement, they would then have to prop up local councils even more with extra funding.

From: Matthew Payne 02 February 2021 10:14 AM

Storm in a tea cup. The governments proposed wording in the TA says Landlords can object to pets "if there is a good reason to do so..." I think only a 5 week deposit, no pro clean and a potentially trashed property falls under that category.

From: Matthew Payne 01 February 2021 09:57 AM

The article here states - "To ensure landlords are protected, tenants will continue to have a legal duty to repair or cover the cost of any damage to the property" The new model TA states; "If consent is given on the condition that additional deposit is paid by the tenant, the total deposit must not breach the deposit cap introduced under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 and must be protected in an authorised tenancy deposit scheme." How can there be additional deposit for a pet as it suggests if the total depsoit held cannot exceed 5 weeks still? The model TA also states, "They should only turn down a request in writing within a 28 day period if there is good reason to do so.." Here's a good reason. Sorry you cant have a pet, as the government have capped deposits at 5 weeks, removed the need for tenants to professionally clean, so I have no way of ensuring my property is returned to me in the same condition as it is now.

From: Matthew Payne 01 February 2021 09:49 AM

All semantics for the press and the man on the clapham omnibus, in practice it makes no difference at all to gaining possession.

From: Matthew Payne 25 January 2021 15:58 PM

David is right EPCs are nothing to do with tenants, its all about our conmmitments on GHGs at Kyoto, Doha, Paris, and 40% of our emmisisons in the cold UK come from heating drafty Victorian property. We are in a massive rush politically and ecologically to become carbon neutral, hence banning petrol cars etc. We only have about 30 years, hence they are rushing the EER C rating forward. The trigger for an EPC requirement is not rented or owner occupied, it is marketing in advance of a proposed property transaction whether to sell or to let. The only properties that wont have an EPC at all will be the ones that have never been to the sales or lettings market since 2008. The Q perhaps, why hasnt the government given a deadline for owner occupied properties to get an EPC even if they havent been to the sales market? The same could be said for second homes I suppose that have never been let.

From: Matthew Payne 21 January 2021 09:44 AM

Its not breathing space for tenants, its breathing space for the government who needs more time to get the Renters Reform Bill rammed through parliament without having 50,000 tenants evicted whilst they do it.

From: Matthew Payne 18 January 2021 11:32 AM

Tenants currently pay for these policies and I cant see that changing, and yes I see that responsible tenants will lose out having to pay the premium, but it is tenants that have lobbied to have a lifetime deposit introduced, and it simply isnt workable with cash. The usual story of be careful what you wish for. The greater issue for me is that tenants with no skin in the game may not behave as responsibily.

From: Matthew Payne 14 January 2021 12:31 PM

It wont be a cash deposit, it will be one of the new zero deposit insurance schemes. You would make a claim on that policy for dilaps etc, but the tenant would still move on and take out a new policy on the new property. New and old won't be relevant.

From: Matthew Payne 14 January 2021 10:26 AM

Renters Reform Bill = Get out of Jail Free Card in the real world game of covid monopoly. They have no choice but to fast track this now. They have no plan to tackle the unprecedented backlog of section 21 evictions that is coming later this year, where those tenants will then need to rely on the well provided for Social Housing sector. Oh, hang on, there isn't one, sorry, I meant they will sadly become homeless, and a massive headache for the government with nowhere to house them, and a general election on the horizion by 2022. Ergo, remove Section 21. Simple as that.

From: Matthew Payne 14 January 2021 09:44 AM

The biggest social housing crisis since the end of WW2 has already started, before we layer on the tens of thousands of section 21 evictions that may then follow. The government appears to be simply focussed on managing the pandemic at the moment plus a bit of Brexit, albeit their silence on what we can all see painfully clearly, begs the Q, why is the government not concerned about this or talking about it at least? Thats because I suspect they will use this opportunity to accelerate the Renters Reform Bill, hence they are not worried about a wave of evictions. Notices are 6 months anyway, and they will dovetail this with removing section 21 as we know it today. Irrespective of whether they ever planned to follow through with this 18 months ago, they cannot afford to have 30-50k or so tenants evicted when they have nowhere else to go. 2024 general election planning will already be in full swing by the time this starts.

From: Matthew Payne 11 January 2021 10:14 AM

Politics alone. No Court was about to grant possession orders with immediate eviction dates anyway. The earliest would have been early April for the tiny % of the most extreme cases. Earliest mainstream arrears evictions won't start until mid summer when we have broken the back of the vaccination program, the virus will be in remission, and with winter long gone. And then there is the Court backlog, which apparently won't be cleared until 2023. This has changed nothing for 99% of landlords.

From: Matthew Payne 11 January 2021 09:57 AM

Everyone take a deep breath and relax. He is trying to get re-elected in May. He will be making far crazier proposals in the coming weeks to buy the votes of the masses. Why not start with the 3 million tenants?

From: Matthew Payne 08 January 2021 10:48 AM

Its an agreement that comes as a condition of planning from the council to a developer, basically a pay off. We will let you have you planning consent if you build us a load of stuff for free. Before 2008, it was a few hanging baskets and a bus stop. After the 2008 crash, when central gov funding dried up, councils started demanding schools and leisure centres as they had no cash to build them themselves. Developers refused, as at the time, they had to provide sometimes up to 40% of a development to affordable/social housing. Councils waved that need so they could get their infrastructure built. Hence 12 years later, we have a social housing crisis.

From: Matthew Payne 08 January 2021 10:45 AM

Of course it is a real problem for 1000s of landlords in the UK, but all the same, these numbers seem very high. More landlords than not I speak to dont have any arrears or just timing differences, and most agents tell me their arrears are 2-5% of rent roll. Would be interesting to see details of the sample taken.

From: Matthew Payne 04 January 2021 14:03 PM

At the moment it has to be considered a very high risk strategy even if landlord or agent can demonstrate there are no rent arrears, that could quickly change in weeks/months to follow. There is relatively little due dilligence you can do on a tenant in situe the same way you would if sourcing a new one yourself from scratch, and there will be potentially undisclosed correspondance/history between old landlord and tenant that could complicate matters further.

From: Matthew Payne 02 January 2021 11:28 AM

I can only find quotes on Khan referring to the "industry" not developers, so I don't know whether he means the builders or this is press assumptions once more. Either way, developers are the tip of the iceberg, albeit have had their part to play. It has to be paid for by a combination of HMG, the architects, the manufaturer, the developer, and building control. All have made, and have potentially made errors that has got us to this point. Time is of the essence though for many 1000s of leaseholders though who are living through this nightmare whether not being able to move, finance, insure or sleep. A forensic investigation into blame on each block could take years, as all parties point the finger and look to avoid blame and slow down any outcome. The only alternative is to have government legislate on some prescriptive formula, including its own share, that is applied that apportions responsibility and cost to remedy the issues.

From: Matthew Payne 30 December 2020 11:53 AM

Love to hear the detail. Hope its better than the well behaved pet certificate plan.

From: Matthew Payne 17 December 2020 10:04 AM

A large number of these boilers will need replacing in the next 13 years anyway, so its not really going to create a huge amount of additional cost, and the green homes grant will contribute towards a ground or air source heat pump. It's not really 13 years either if you are not eco minded. They just stop being sold in 2033, which means if you really wanted to, you could buy a new one in 2032 which would probably see you good until at least 2050. The CCC are clearly living in Cloud Cuckoo Land if they think there is the appetite, funding or capability to fit 20,000 heat pumps a week, week in week out for the next 10 years.

From: Matthew Payne 10 December 2020 11:59 AM

Scaremongering nonsense for political gain once again from Mr Khan.

From: Matthew Payne 07 December 2020 15:12 PM

How can Section 21 be mis-used, I don't follow? The whole point is no reason has to be provided and I cant think of any reason that a landlord may wish to regain possession that would be regarded as unreasonable, bearing in mind that no landlord would give notice to a reponsible contract observing tenant, who is paying a market rent on time each month.

From: Matthew Payne 07 December 2020 14:03 PM

Designed simply to slow the process down, buy everyone some time. There will be no evictions before widespread vaccinations and summer weather, by which time they hope to have a plan B. Perhaps the penny has finally dropped for HMG that anyone evicted has nowhere to live - no chance of returning to the PRS, no social housing...

From: Matthew Payne 01 December 2020 10:16 AM

Of course this is to be expected and won't come as any surprise to Shelter and GR etc. They only shout so loudly and chuck proverbial hand grenades around to the contrary to get themselves heard in their attempts to focus on the small minority they believe need their help, otherwise noone would ever pay any attention to them, which kind of makes the job of lobbying all the harder to do.

From: Matthew Payne 30 November 2020 09:59 AM

Its a good point Pat. KFH operate in very middle class London suburbs and tend to deal with good quality middle market stock that attract a similar quality tenant. Their coal face will look very different to most agents. An agent told me and a landlord client the other day on a zoom call that they only deal with the "highest quailty tenants". This actually was a negative for him, as his initial reaction was that they would have very little experience in dealing with problems that are inevitably going in increase next year whether rent arrears, or probelmatic tenants. He obviously wants good quality tenants, but he wants an agent who knows how to deal with them and equally those that don't turn out to be, or when these good quality tenants fall on hard times and change their behaviour.

From: Matthew Payne 26 November 2020 10:37 AM

Buy modern flats with no gas is the most cost effective. Insulation keeps them warm without heating for 10 months a year, low cost for tenants to run, no gas certs, no boiler to service, fix or replace, no CO detectors required.

From: Matthew Payne 24 November 2020 10:04 AM

Whilst 5%, that does represent a 40-60% increase in fees, but still may well be worth it for some. The key is transparency, where many schemes have struggled in the past, but if represented as an expensive Get out of Jail Free card, then I can see that 10% or so of landlords who have had a torrid time in the last year or so may well be prepared to pay extra. Certainty comes with cost.

From: Matthew Payne 23 November 2020 12:07 PM

I would go as far as to stay government actively encouraged the rent arrears to start in the first place let alone doing little to remedy it since. You may remember they put in their guidance in April that landlords would be entitled to a mortgage payment holiday to help alleviate the pressure on tenants. Ambigous enough to have many, including manay landlords, believe that a 3 month rent holiday had been endorsed by HMG. Government then chose not to clarify its guidance as it had no alternative solutions to offer and rather conveniently, having private landlords bail them out to the tune of £15bn has been rather handy.

From: Matthew Payne 23 November 2020 11:16 AM

Even with the fees as they are, I could see this could being of possible interest to landlords with cash flow challenges, albeit the devil is always in the detail. Many of these type of rent in advance or gauranteed rent services offer the rent far below market values to mitigate their own risk and to enhance their own ROI. It's a competitive market place out there as well for agents, so I can't see many landlords having to pay 15 or 17% to any agent for any service whether traditional or niche like this.

From: Matthew Payne 23 November 2020 08:35 AM

Thats why a prof clean is always advised. Invoice to prove it was done at the start and invoice at the end. Removes subjectivity out of the equation. TDS will always give benefit of the doubt to tenants on contested domestic cleans.

From: Matthew Payne 19 November 2020 17:07 PM

This changes in rent are a rebalancing between London where they had arguably become too high to pay for the convenient commute that is no longer such a priority, and the shires and beyond where better value for money was to be had when WFH is now the thing. London will come down as they have been, the rest will increase as they have been, and this pendulum action will slowly come to halt at some point soon. There is no wider market dynamic that is forcing rents down elsewhere and I dont see any ripple going further than Zone 6. Rents in the Home Counties have gone up significantly since March. Equally, this change may well reverse itself to some extent in years to come, as we all forget about CV19, people get back to going to the office and London finds it place once more.

From: Matthew Payne 18 November 2020 14:14 PM

Wouldn't want the publicity I suppose if they ignored the letter. David is spot on though, this letter basically asks baliffs to ignore the law, ie a Court Order. If HMG want to change the law, then that's their choice, subject to parliamentary approval. Ignoring it when it suits them though is classic dictatorship stuff, I am surprised we have not heard more on this.

From: Matthew Payne 18 November 2020 13:57 PM

How many landlords does this announcement actually benefit? How many tenancies would there have been in existence with 9 months arrears prior to 23rd March where the tenant had not already been evicted?

From: Matthew Payne 18 November 2020 13:39 PM

Thats the only reason these career politicians do anything. "What have the Romans ever done for us?" Anyone remember a piece of legislation whose core objective wasn't to win votes as opposed to just genuinely helping people? Refreshing to hear an MP admit that it will do more harm than good, but all they care about is votes. Its painful to see thought that those votes come from the very people the legislation hurts the most. There must be some educated tenants out there who can start a focus group and lobby the government to stop "helping" them?

From: Matthew Payne 16 November 2020 10:37 AM

If the government wants to create economic activity and at the same time increase tax receipts from CGT, they should reduce it, not increase it. An increase would simply reduce the number of properties sold in any given rolling period, hence they reduced the top rate in income tax to 45%. Tax receipts go down when you tax too high, just look at the increase in stamp duty in 2016. Transaction numbers in 2016 were about 115,000 pcm, and now they are about 80,000 (this stamp duty gimmick aside). The elephant in the room is also the tens of thousands of landlords who would not be able to sell in the short or medium term as they are unable to gain vacant possession. Likewise, I don't know how saleable any rented property would be to an end user where their solictor wants vacant possession and section 21 notices are 6 months with no way of getting a possession order should you need one. Any tax increase would need to be delayed until at least April 2023. I am not sure how HMG can legally square off denying a landlords the ability to gain possession of their own property for anything between 12 and 36 months, during which time they double the tax for an activity that they wont allow them to engage in.

From: Matthew Payne 16 November 2020 10:29 AM

Noone is going to spoon feed landlords in the PRS, anymore than we get free education how to service our cars ourselves, or complete our own company accounts, in lieu of a mechanic or accountant. As laymen, we either need to train ourselves to be competant to do these things ourselves or we employ someone to do it for us who can, and who is tasked with getting it right. Education and competance is more than about having a list as well. So landlords either need to do the self education piece through NRLA/ARLA with ongoing CPD or employ someone who has. Licensing I agree seems to be an expensive quick fix and will have further repercussions most wont want further down the line.

From: Matthew Payne 10 November 2020 09:26 AM

Yes, now is not the time to buy until this stamp duty window closes from a practical perspective unless you come accross a distressed sale, but I cant see there being too many of those about. Prices are artifially high, the supply chain are charging a lot more for their services in this window, lenders are nervous. Prices will come away to some extent in H1 2021, how much remains to be seen depending on things we don't yet know, activity will slow up up significantly - middle of next year. That is unless Mr Sunak reaches inside his "Prop the Housing Market up" bag of tricks for a stamp duty window extension as the industry is demanding. God help us.

From: Matthew Payne 10 November 2020 09:00 AM

There will always be demand in London. This is simply a rebalancing of prices that had become too punchy where people had always accepted and been prepared to pay a premium to live inside the M25 to shorten their slog into work every morning which is not as relevant now as it used to be. This "exodus" as some are calling it will be short lived when a vaccine is readily avialable and life returns to normal, by which time the disparacy between London and Home County rents will have reduced, which isnt a bad thing.

From: Matthew Payne 10 November 2020 08:51 AM

Ive heard of this recently as well, ie bribing tenants to leave straight away with no fuss.

From: Matthew Payne 05 November 2020 16:29 PM

Been scratching my head on this one for a couple of years. If his most publicised plan is for tenants to buy the PRS units that may come on the market, that has almost no legs unless the government is planning a secondhand HTB scheme. Lenders have little appetite for risk at the best of times, and will not be interested in this sub prime lending unless HMG underwrites it. Cant see that either with the defecit as it is. The only solution in the short term, ie next 5 years until a decent supply of BTR and/or social units are built is to back off their assualt on the PRS to maintain todays status quo. Cant see that either though, but that's the point. 20 years of career politians focussed only on their own popularity before they get sacked has meant there hasnt been a plan, there isn't a plan. The only plans that have even been made have been the ones to win votes at the next May ballot box. As to the obvious Q, "what happens when the inevitable happens and we have a homeless crisis?" Well the current crop don't care, they won't be around to see it, hence they dont worry if there isn't a grand plan to fix it in years to come. All retired early, all safely aboard the gravy train in their West London pads with nice consultancy jobs amounting to a few £million a year. If Ros was ask to Mr Johnson today, what the plan would be to tackle 3 million homeless people in 2030, he would wryly smile back, with a knowing look that said, "We both know I wont be here then, so not my problem."

From: Matthew Payne 04 November 2020 13:50 PM

This makes perfect sense on renewal, Landlords are preferring to keep their current tenants in situe who are paying the rent, and not wanting to create an arrears situation or any ill feeling with tenants by putting the rent up at such a critical time, and when notices are now 6 months. On relet though its a different story with no current tenants vulnerability to consider. I agree with Robert B, I havent seen a scarcity of stock like this for a long time and rents in the home counties have definately risen over the summer. I live near a reasonable size town where there is a high volume of smaller houses and flats and usually a good selection to rent all year round. 1 property to let currently, and its a bigger house. Similar story in another neighbouring town, 5 to let this time, and all 5 rents I reckon 8-9% higher than this time last year. Pandemic or not, market forces prevail. I bet people will happily pay more for their loo roll in tescos this week if the alternative is not having any.

From: Matthew Payne 03 November 2020 11:08 AM

Refreshing to see an authority understand the delicate balance between social housing and the PRS. Therefore they understand that allowing rent arrears and evictions to escalate out of control on their doorstep is going to create a massive problem for the council in the coming months, so they are trying to nip it in the bud. That's one of the things I would be doing if I was a council.

From: Matthew Payne 03 November 2020 10:24 AM

David E, you should read a tenancy agreement, they are full of positive and restrictive covenants for both parties. This laissez faire environment you describe is fictional.

From: Matthew Payne 03 November 2020 10:18 AM

It is sensible provided you don't then make Landlords fund the scheme as well which would then simply be another tax hike. With public finances as they are though, I can't see any other option which will only accelerate the shrinking of the PRS even quicker. I am still flummoxed though as to what the government plan is to house everyone through the 2020s until such time as significant BTR stock becomes available. The PRS isnt big enough as it is for what HMG needs to house the ever growing social housing waiting list and when evictions start next year, as the population continues to grow, and with no social units being built, that list will be getting longer very quickly. It wont be that long before the waiting list and the remaining PRS units are a similar size. By 2023/4 just as they are looking to be relected, HMG is going to have a massive problem on their hands. 3 million people waiting for social housing, 3 million PRS units, but nearly all rented to private tenants. I don't understand why they cant see it, or what the secret masterplan is, if they can.

From: Matthew Payne 30 October 2020 10:51 AM

John, its just occurred to me that if you were speaking to a Agency in Wales, that you might actually live there and be referring to a purchase there as well and the LTT as it is known in Wales. My original comment and answer was re SDLT which is the English version of tax. If you are referring to the LTT, yes BTL is excluded, and the thresholds and %s are different though as well, its completely different. If you were asking about SDLT, then its as per the above.

From: Matthew Payne 26 October 2020 16:27 PM

Will apply to any cars moving in the current or enlarged zone. Residents used to get 90% discount off one car only provided its their main residence, paying council tax, etc however they have suspended that discount now for new applicants to encourage Londoners not to use cars at all. From 2021-2025 there are discounts for electric cars and then after that its 100% payable by everyone again.

From: Matthew Payne 26 October 2020 12:29 PM

BTL gets the nil rate like everything else, it's for all property purchases, but the 3% on top is still in place. Its not about claiming anything, your solicitor will simply pay the lower amount if you complete before March 31st.

From: Matthew Payne 26 October 2020 12:12 PM

For once, she is right. As an example, in 2004 the UK population was 60m. Today it is 66m, an increase of 6m in 16 years. In those same 16 years we have built 2.284m new homes, 1.871m of which have been private, and only 412,000 of which you would call social housing. But that's not all. In spite of these new units, the total number of social housing units stands at 4.1m down from its peak at 4.4m as councils themselves demolish old units (so in effect zero net gain), and right to buy eats into the total. Since 1997 the population has increased by 14% whilst the number of social units has dropped by 7% in the same 23 years. With the governments current consultation on relaxing the requirement for developers even further, I'm not sure what the plan is, especially when access to the PRS is going to become even more difficult after recent pieces of legislation.

From: Matthew Payne 26 October 2020 11:45 AM

It could get worse, as Londoners face the reality soon of paying off the £6bn TFL bailout. Inflation busting fare increases, the congestion charge zone set to extend to the north and south circulars now @ £15 per day, and now I read today that a council tax precept charge is planned from April. All of that adds up to a meaningful amount every month.

From: Matthew Payne 21 October 2020 18:14 PM

With the average house price having been artificially increased by nearly £25k since the SDLT holiday was introduced, hence lenders are down valuing everything, I don't quite understand why anyone is still in a hurry to buy something now to save £4,500?? The only winners from this holiday will be the ones that had an offer accepted in the first month or so that it opened.

From: Matthew Payne 21 October 2020 10:52 AM

Wherever in the UK, conviction politicians are long gone, where a proposal like this might make a difference. The current crowd are only interested in what is popular at the ballot box and what is different to what the opposition is saying, combined with a lack of expertise and continuity. Most Housing Ministers dont have a clue about property and are lucky to survive a year or two at most before they wheel in the next victim looking to make a name for themselves.

From: Matthew Payne 20 October 2020 18:56 PM

Lenders would run a mile. LTVs would reduce dramatically, some would pull themselves out of the market altogther. Those that remained would be offering the best fixed rates at about 10%. A 20% exit is massively understating the impact.

From: Matthew Payne 20 October 2020 18:45 PM

I read yesterday that Andrews' plan to reassure landlords is that pet owners will become certified in advance of renting a property. Every tenant will need to make an appointment to see their local vet who will give them a certificate to confirm whether their pet responds to basic commands and is well behaved. I would love to see what the checklist is for the vet to sign this off in a 10 minute appointment. Doesn't tell rude jokes, tick. Doesnt chew my chair, tick. Doesnt soil the carpet, tick. Kind of misses the point as usual, it's not about raucous, poorly behaved pets who ignore their owners. Even the most obedient, well behaved pets lead to a much higher rate of dilaps and cleaning that wont be covered by a 5 week deposit and no cleaning requirements, and make a property more difficult to relet. Then there is noise nuisance which most modern leases prohibit anyway. Will be easy to circumnavigate as with the DSS ruling. Perhaps a clause in the TA saying, pets are allowed provided a 10 week deposit is provided....

From: Matthew Payne 16 October 2020 10:39 AM

All available to see on the Tax Payers alliance website. There are 2441 council employees earning over £100k, 607 over £150k, 28 over £250k.

From: Matthew Payne 16 October 2020 10:15 AM

2 other issues are being confused with the chosen title of this research, that might explain why they named it "Can Private Landlords Refuse To Let To Housing Benefit Claimants?". Firstly, a landlord has complete freedom to choose who to rent a property to, so who they refuse to let to becomes irrelevant. I choose tenant A, not tenants B - Z, some of whom may be on benefits. The positive motion of choice trumps any issue regarding a need to reject anyone. So it only then becomes about how that is communicated, hence the agents falling foul of these blanket bans. Secondly, what the governemnt would like to call their study but can't is "Can we find some ways to sequestre the PRS and turn it into Social Housing, as we neglected to build any in the last 20 years, but we can't come out and say that?"

From: Matthew Payne 15 October 2020 12:24 PM

As with anything bought in bulk or in limited amounts, you pay extra for flexibility and get discounts for long term commitments. If students (or anyone else) want the equivalent of a short flexible let they can contractually end at short notice, or "pay as you study", will they be prepared to pay the much higher rent for such arrangements. I very much doubt it.

From: Matthew Payne 14 October 2020 18:43 PM

Lots to cover there Elizabeth and there are multiple options available to you subject to understanding more detail about the tenancy/tenants. By all means get in touch directly if you want to go through.

From: Matthew Payne 09 October 2020 15:24 PM

I can only assume it will be one of these insurance backed schemes white labelled in some way to show it is gov approved. So in effect there won't be a single deposit that is being transferred from one tenancy to the next, therefore waiting becomes irrelevant, and tenant moves become fluid. The first landlord would make a claim on the insurance policy if there were dilaps/arrears etc and the second landlord would simply have a new policy start when the tenants move in. The tenant would pay the premium in each case as they do now on the zero deposit schemes. In effect deposits would be phased out.

From: Matthew Payne 08 October 2020 10:01 AM

What will happen is that these loans would effectively become gifts, with tenants unable to pay them back and with a government who wont have the stomach or want the publicity heading into the 2024 GE for prosecuting thousands of tenants. Effectively then these proposed schemes would simply be the government paying off all the rent arrears which I read are forecasted to be £15bn by the time this ends. I honestly dont know how much fruit is left on the magic money tree, but HMG cant afford to rectify every loss suffered during this pandemic.

From: Matthew Payne 08 October 2020 09:40 AM

Spot on Andrew. Shelter perhaps may also be misrepresented for being too militant, but they only have themselves to blame. Basic negotiating theory dictates you have to engage, concede and compromise to gain. Shelter simply make demands like a petulant child and that union like shouty noise just winds people up and has them lose interest in any constructive engagement that possibly might see some of the changes they might want to happen come to fruition.

From: Matthew Payne 07 October 2020 19:03 PM

The irony of this housing crisis is that it has been completely manufactured by disjointed government policy over the last 20 years and the revolving door of career politicians trying to make the most of their 15 mins of fame on the Westminster gravy train, who at the same time regurgitate the same rhetoric about dealing with the housing crisis. Since 2008 social house building has dwindled when the usual demands for affordable housing numbers in any development in the s106 were traded for infrastructure as central government cut funding to local councils to reduce the deficit. To this day, this has not been reversed, and the current planning consultation plans to relax that further. At the same time as the left hand killed the social house building market stone dead, the right hand started punching the PRS with all the legislative changes we all know about, the same PRS that the government now needs to house the 1.1million tenants on the social housing waiting list. As landlords start to get out and the PRS shrinks and with the inevitable wave of s21s next year, as those remaining choose to only select the safe, employed "alpha" tenants in the marketplace, where are these people going to live? I’m not sure the penny has dropped in Westminster, but councils are waking up to the fact that this perfect storm that has been brewing for about 12 years or so is about to start. Maybe Boris has with his half-baked crazy 95% mortgage strategy, but that won’t help of the people the councils have on their waiting lists.

From: Matthew Payne 07 October 2020 15:39 PM

The Energy Saving Trust quotes a typical system will cost £9-11k to buy and install and its the labour of the installation that's the expensive bit. I assume they have based that on an average size property so a 1 bed flat may be a bit cheaper for example. There could also be additional costs with the council as some require planning permission.

From: Matthew Payne 01 October 2020 09:59 AM

With the market closed for 3 months this year, and more recently FTBs the victims of lender's nervousness about the pandemic's effect on house prices, I wouldn't conclude that FTBs are losing their appetite for home ownership at all. In the main many have been prevented from buying this year which they have had no control over, and to a lesser degree many would have postponed their purchase having a few more nerves that seasoned actors in the market who have seen it all before. In context of only a 1% drop, I would say their desire is stronger than ever.

From: Matthew Payne 30 September 2020 13:42 PM

Yes Nigel, I am afraid so.

From: Matthew Payne 24 September 2020 11:17 AM

I think it is far more common place than you think, especially at the moment and where some tenants have taken advantage of the pandemic, and when there is very little they can do about it in most cases. Tenants have no more ability to address these lock change scenarios than a Landlord has to legally take back possession in the first place, so I can see the numbers rising until the usual status quo returns. It will be also be interesting to see how tolerant lenders are going to be in the coming weeks and months before they start doing similar.

From: Matthew Payne 22 September 2020 10:13 AM

I have never understood the calls to extend or bring forward the 23 August/20 September deadlines as the end result is ultimately going to be the same whatever the date. Whether you are a lobbyist wanting to avoid tenants eviction or a landlord demanding possession, the Courts are going to determine when and what happens. Not only will it be a deliberately long drawn out process designed to buy time for the cold weather to pass and to stop a mass movement of tenants, no Court is going to evict a tenant in winter during a pandemic simply becasue they are in arrears, and this second phase is going to be far worse than the one we have already had. There will be some extreme cases of course, where landlords can prove dishonest or poor behaviour that might get a favourable judgement for them, but I cant see many properties being reclaimed before late spring/early summer at the earliest.

From: Matthew Payne 22 September 2020 09:52 AM

These are not victories for DSS tenants, these are simply judgments that Agents adopted and communicated a blanket ban, which is the bit that was unlawful. All they have achieved is changed the way that these tenants applications are now rejected, not improved their chances of securing a property. That will never change until such time as HMG improves the way the system works however much noise Polly wants to make about it.

From: Matthew Payne 18 September 2020 14:30 PM

When the CEBR are predicting house prices to fall in 2021 by 14% with that slide about to start shortly, the one thing the chancellor needs to do is stimulate the market as he has done with stamp duty to combat that potential disaster in a year when the economy will need all the help it can get after CV19 and leaving the EU. It seems like Hari Kiri to prevent LLs from selling before the end of March with the current 6 month notices, and then 5 days later, tax them far greater if they then try to in a market when prices are potentially going to be in freefall. Cold winds will blow for quite some time if your insider is correct.

From: Matthew Payne 18 September 2020 12:44 PM

The only winner from such benevolence would appear to be canopy. The Landlord would be more exposed and the tenant's cash flow even worse off as a result of the fee due. I wonder how many other businesses have considered how they can profit from the rent arrears crisis at the expense of those already involved suffering from huge financial difficulty?

From: Matthew Payne 17 September 2020 16:58 PM

Just more politics. He is going for re election in May, campaigns start like this months in advance, he is simply shoring up support amongst tenants, many who may have had their heads turned at the 2019 GE by the Tories with all their own tenant friendly mood music. He knows there will never be a rent freeze anymore than he could wish to freeze house prices, but he has to be seen going into the trenches appearing to fight their battles. I can't imagine many Landlords would have voted for him anyway, so it's a very low risk strategy. For all those venting spleens, expect to hear more of this nonsense in weeks to come, so just remember to tell yourself, "it's all make believe, it's not real, it's for the election" every time to save the blood pressure rising unecessarily.

From: Matthew Payne 17 September 2020 16:02 PM

Yes 6 months notice whatever the reason and you will have to confirm the property is vacant before you exchange contracts if you sell to someone who plans to live in it, if another landlord it doesn't matter and in fact the notice then becomes irrelvant provided they are happy to inherit the tenant. Speed of sale and price wil be determined by which of the 2 you sell to.

From: Matthew Payne 14 September 2020 09:15 AM

I don't feel or hear rents falling either, there is very little available to let, and when you have the frenzied activity in lettings as we have seen reported over the summer, that simply isnt a natural climate for falling rents. This isn't the first time Richard has done some PR trying to persuade landlords that rents are dropping. Every agent has strict KPI for price reductions vs available stock, one leads to the other whatever rents are doing. Work the prices down, everything lets, more revenue, happy days. Enquiries dropping by 2% is not a sign that rents need to drop to let when there will still be a fistful of applicants per property.

From: Matthew Payne 11 September 2020 17:09 PM

I agree John but I think the number will be far greater, especially when the Courts are going to be tenant centric for some time to come, but it's not complacency alone. Of those that want to be compliant which is most, there is also a desire to reduce costs, capability, experience, and being unbeknowingly failed by their Agent. Its usually a varied combination of all of them. Of course there are landlords that do not suffer from any of these and run a tight and compliant ship, investing the time and money to enable them to do so without assistance, but they are in the minority. The real challenge is the majority coming to that understanding. It is not as easy as some may think, and as we seen on these forums there are some colourful opinions that conflict directly with statute - I am sure of it is put into practice away from them.

From: Matthew Payne 11 September 2020 17:03 PM

Hi Sue, depending on the amount of your proposed claim, the small claims court channel is designed to be affordable if you represent yourself, and you quite often find that if the LA know they are at fault, it will force them to make an out ouf Court settlement just to make it go away and avoid the bad publicity. Depending on the size of the Agent, they would want to avoid racking up lawyers fees, so they usually only go to Court if they think they are in the right and stand a good chance of winning. You then also make a complaint through their chosen redress scheme, TPOS or PRS or whoever. Provided you can prove your case, they will make an award of compensation to you. You have to exhaust the agents internal complaints procedure first, and you never know they might make an offer to you even at that early stage. Depends how big the error is and how far up the food chain it has got. To start with these things sometimes get buried as people are fearful of the repercussions.

From: Matthew Payne 10 September 2020 16:12 PM

1) you can try by serving a S13 notice assuming the fixed term is over, but if they feel its too high and refuse to pay it, there isnt much you can do until a tribunal is heard - won't be any time soon. If they are just refusing to leave, but are still going to pay the rent, you may want to let sleeping dogs lie, S13s are sometimes seen as confrontational, as rent increases should normally be agreeable bewteen parties without one. Devil always in the detail, you will have to judge. 2) you can tell them of your intentions, I wouldnt pre-empt what a Court may award though. You have to consider when to serve a S21 notice first though if you havent already done so. (dont know whether your reference means you served it or not and it has expired) 3) You can tell them you wont provide a reference. I wouldnt tell them they will have a CCJ, as you don't know one will be awarded, instead tell them if you are making an application to the SCC and a CCJ is a possible outcome. Again, speculation as to whether she will need social housing, so would avoid. Stick to the facts, they may well record all details of any mud slinging which won't look good for you in Court.

From: Matthew Payne 10 September 2020 13:17 PM

You need to provide vacant possession on exchange ideally, the buyers lawyer will likely insist on it assuming a Resi purchase, so a correct s21 notice provided in writing to accomodate that, but as I assume you have missed the 29 August cut off, you now need to provide 6 months notice. You had better hope the tenant is happy to honour the verbal 1 month and move out. If they do then great, if not you are stuck with them until at least March 2021 unless they choose to leave before then. I would start with a call to your tenant to "update" them and check they are still ok for an October move date and see what they say, and I would definately take PB out of the loop completely.

From: Matthew Payne 10 September 2020 08:45 AM

They may have been incompetant, too focussed on winning a greater share of the tenant vote, too under pressure on Brexit and other things to push back against what have become powerful pro tenant lobbyists, but one thing the government can't survive without for at least the next 10 years is the PRS in its current format at least until such time at the BTR industry is far more established. The PRS soaks up the shortfall on social housing numbers without which HMG is up a creek, so lets hope someone in the government realises this and they start to row back on what has become seen as this focus to exterminate the private landlord.

From: Matthew Payne 09 September 2020 13:56 PM

All the 0% deposit providers pay a commission per tenancy every time an agent converts one. Far more meaningful to them than the interest earnt off holding a 5 week security deposit, less admin, less compliance. Some also think it attracts more tenants to their door as no deposit seems quite an attractive proposition to a lot of tenants, but that will start to wane when medium and high frequency movers work out that it is far cheaper in the long run to pay a traditional security deposit that they get back than pay a fee of equivalent to 20% of that deposit that they will never see again.

From: Matthew Payne 08 September 2020 16:25 PM

Whilst clearly an emotive subject, this isn't just about tenants rights versus landlords rights, the governtment is also motivated by building in some practical safety steps as well. If there are 4.5 million PRS tenants or 6.7% of the population, the CV mortality rate is about 10%, roughly 40% of all tenancies each year are relet to new tenants albeit with the huge backlog in anticipated S21s, lets call that 50% this year. Then the "experts" are forecasting between 80,000 and 250,000 deaths over the winter, that would mean between 54,000 and 167,000 tenants are going to get infected and be needing to move property. Lets split the difference and round. The government doesn't want 110,000 infected tenants moving house over the winter spreading the virus far and wide, they want them staying at home. A pre arranged PRS lockdown.

From: Matthew Payne 04 September 2020 14:09 PM

"Webinar" during this lockdown has become the candy wrapper for sales funnel.

From: Matthew Payne 03 September 2020 13:38 PM

No. It only applies to the purchase of additional properties so if you don't own any, irrespective of how or why you don't own any, in this case selling them to a company effectively, then you are treated just as normal buyer making an isolated purchase. People come off the property ladder for all sorts of reasons, but they don't have to pay an extra 3% every time they get back on it, as long as they only own one property at a time.

From: Matthew Payne 02 September 2020 18:54 PM

No they apply to all tenancies where notice not served already by 29 August. Depending on who to believe, the optimists have the forecasted winter Covid deaths at 80,000, the pessimists, 250,000. Then consider how many infections that is. HMG doesnt want anyone to fear homlessness when hundreds of thousands of tenants are going to get infected irrespective of the technicalities of fixed terms, SPs etc.

From: Matthew Payne 02 September 2020 15:28 PM

Dont forget either the quality of the training and sometimes also the people in the council tax departments is pretty poor in my experience, in spite of the fact they would like you to believe they are experts. An authoritative tone doesn't mean they know what they are doing. I had a row with a council last month after a very officious lady tried to tell me that possession of property always legally takes place at 23:59:59 and as such one days council tax is always payable by a landlord at the end of each tenancy as a result of that one second. It was only when I threatened to start charging her for wasting my time and she sought advice from a more knowledgeable colleague who no doubt told her she was talking rubbish that she backed down.

From: Matthew Payne 26 August 2020 16:58 PM

This has become a self fullfilling prophesy just like the Rent Holidays back in April. Highest number of arrears I have heard quoted is 7%, most people I have spoken to tell me yes there are more late payers for obvious reasons but arrears on the whole 2-5% depending on who you talk to. General anecdotal feedback is storm in a teacup created by the media and lobbyists to fuel their own agendas. Most tenants desperately don't want to fall into arrears, bar the very small minority of opportunists.

From: Matthew Payne 25 August 2020 12:37 PM

Both the government and Shelter in increasing the rights of marginalised tenants have actually made it far more difficult for them to find a property to rent unlike before where many landlords and agents were prepared to take a view knowing they had remedy available. Commercial markets when sqeezed place pressures in other parts that were in equilibrium. Constant meddling in other words has led to that level of tolerance and educated risk being completely eroded.

From: Matthew Payne 24 August 2020 10:13 AM

Yes, meaning selling in this stamp duty window is almost impossible now as well.

From: Matthew Payne 21 August 2020 16:55 PM

Just seen a news flash that it has just been extended until 20 September. ...for now.

From: Matthew Payne 21 August 2020 13:31 PM

Might not be this weekend, but the pressure will build quickly if not. Politics comes long before policy detail whether introduced, however intricate. Look at the humiliating 11:59pm u turn on A level results and the subsequent early christmas presents to GCSE students to try and make good. Can you imagine Boris trusting the Courts with the decision on evictions, whom he has no control over, when Scotland and Wales have extended the ban? He will be having cold sweats over the first picture of people evicted on the front page of the Sun, with some witty headline that will cost him dear. Yes landlords have to provide details on tenants CV situation, and the implication is that will give tenants some protection. However, what will a Judge do even then, when a landlord shows up proving they haven't paid the mortgage for 6 months and their lender is threatening to repossess, or they themselves have been forced into poverty as this is their main source of income? Will be interesting from this perspective to see the first test cases and what then follows.

From: Matthew Payne 21 August 2020 11:48 AM

I cannot see them doing anything else but that. Another last minute u turn, but only to avoid the political banana skin of not doing so. Drakeford and Sturgeon have backed TwDum and TwDee into a corner. Tenants welfare or landlords plight won't even come into the conversation between Boris & Robert.

From: Matthew Payne 21 August 2020 11:06 AM

A rise in evictions at some point as a result of rent arrears was inevitable ever since the fake news about Rent Holidays started hitting the news. HMG and Crisis should have been reading posts on this site and many others since March 23rd, especialy in the absence of them being able to work out for themselves the obvious outcomes of almost State encouraged rent arrears, in which case there wouldn't be a need for someone to finally have the penny drop and say "Alongside this, we must protect those facing crippling financial pressure and provide them with additional financial support if they are facing rent arrears" at the end of August??? You have done tenants and landlords proud with the speed of that analysis.

From: Matthew Payne 21 August 2020 10:57 AM

I agree Fred. Where there are communal parts, shared rooves, drains, access, etc you can't have freehold flats, not workable. Since 2002, there has been the right to buy FHs at market value provided there is appetite from at least 50% of LHs. Hence you might see properties advertised as Share of Freehold by agents. Lease extensions then become an administrative task alone.

From: Matthew Payne 19 August 2020 14:01 PM

With these comments from John and others throughout this pandemic, we see sentiments that probably even the hardest, cold hearted people would struggle to disagree with, but then they are never then matched with a practical policy that provides the solution. I agree with John, housing should be a right for all. I also agree with all the sentiment during the pandemic, that tenants that have fallen into genuine hardship as a result of CV should not face eviction even after 23rd August. What needs to happen is a solution and proposal backed with a process and budget that allows these "good" intentions to become a reality as opposed to just leaving the subject hanging in the air, "well who is going to pay for that?". Sadly though, these are not good intentions, it's all just a game, party politics and career advancement at play alone as with Shelter, designed to back the Tories into a corner and win credibility with the hard left. Whilst all that is going on, many tenants and landlords alike are not getting the support they need deal with the fallout. The Tories may well have to look at it though, eyes are shifting to a post vaccine election timetable already, with CV19 making polling predictions almost impossible. Stealing some left of centre policy territory will no doubt already be on agendas behind closed Westminster doors. Shame none of the policy making is about helping the people caught up in the middle.

From: Matthew Payne 18 August 2020 15:10 PM

No the value doesn't change. Agents dont value secondhand stock based on its precise square footage, and the floorplan is done after the valuation has been done and marketing and viewings have quite often already started. Likewise the value of a property is not just determined by its size, and buyers dont judge value alone based on the square footage on a floorplan. There are far more complicated dynamics at play that determine what price properties sell for and what buyers are prepared to pay, and after all, a property is worth what a buyer is prepared to pay for it.

From: Matthew Payne 13 August 2020 17:52 PM

There is no problem with most LH properties, it is only a question of knowing the technicalities of what you are buying no different to buying a second hand car, futures, gold, a timeshare or any other investment that requires some technical knowledge in that field or an advisor to assist in making sure you are protected. Commercial markets are commercial markets, and you will find the same headlines in any industry press regarding those who get their fingers burned. Some buyers will make poor decisions, some advisors (lawyers in this case) will be sub standard, and some chancing FHers knowing this will take advantage. Equally there are more savvy buyers, excellent lawyers and honest FHers. It is very British only to focus on a smaller % of what goes wrong.

From: Matthew Payne 13 August 2020 17:41 PM

It depends on the numbers Geoff, how much more rent is paid during the tenancy and what the dilaps are at the end. Could be double dipping as you put it if all that needs attention is a carpet clean and the tenancy is a short one, but could be completley justified if a smelly old dog has trashed the place over a number of years, and any rent increase was marginal. Might be talking a complete redec and new carpets.

From: Matthew Payne 13 August 2020 17:19 PM

It will do, but each case will be individual, so any costs or savings will change dramatically depending on how much the property has appreciated in value since purchase, and how long they are realistically likely to own it going forward, so weighing up the future savings of CT vs Income tax against the immeidate CGT liabilty. Will make sense for some to make the changes, others not.

From: Matthew Payne 07 August 2020 17:08 PM

A few businesses are already well down this path. Canopy for one, Rightmove another, hence they bought Van Mildert for £20m earlier this year.

From: Matthew Payne 07 August 2020 11:05 AM

I suppose the research may be new but the results aren't. UF has always been the best way to go. No maintenance, no W & T/damage, no endlessly removing and storing bits new tenants don't want. Headache for landlords and agents.

From: Matthew Payne 04 August 2020 09:50 AM

I am not sure why there is this focus with profit derived from property ownership alone being classified as "unearned" income and used in a derogatory context suggesting those making money from property should be thankful as they dont really deserve to keep it. The defintion is 150 years old and was created in context of any money earnt without personal labour by a guy so left wing he would make JC look akin to Maggie, so much so he believed all land and property should be communally owned by society. Today unearned income would apply to just about any investment, as very little profit is produced with our hands, so that would apply to investments made in stocks, limted companies, antiques, cars, gold, I wont list them all, but all are made by people strategically with profit in mind, without which our economy would have imploded decades ago. It is not an economically compatible concept in a capitalist democracy such as the UK where one of the foundation stones of our successful economy is the housing market. Defintions aside, tax policy that punishes people retrospectively for their choices and investments perhaps made 20 or 30 years ago will have a catastrophic effect on the housing market which the Chancellor cannot want. There are also significant implications for social care as well, as the older generations that the government want to get downsizing to grease the wheels of the market will simply stay put until the day they die.

From: Matthew Payne 29 July 2020 12:40 PM

It might also be landlords who have lower value mortages taking an opportunity to increase their portfolio by leveraging slightly more from the exisiting one with relatively low risk.

From: Matthew Payne 23 July 2020 14:33 PM

Much of this housebulidng is simply to try to suppress house prices and create economic activity, it has very little to do with a housing crisis ie not enough dwellings. A similar strategy to that of Labour with the public sector under Gordon Brown. Give everyone a job in a government department to bring down unemployment and create tax receipts. Trouble was noone noticed on their spreadsheet that the salary bill was larger than the tax collected and they ran out of cash. The industry has already been very critical of these souless housing estates/towns being built in 5 minutes with no infrastructure at all following behind. A village not far from me has had about 10,000 new homes built there in massive estates in the last 3 or so years, replicated all over the country. There are 2 tiny little "local" high street supermarkets with no parking, 1 now stretched doctors surgery, no dentist, no petrol station, 1 school, no banks, no park, 1 tiny gym with about 20 machines, only 2 pubs you can never get in, no restaurants, no retail shops, just estate agents, charity shops and hairdressers. You have to drive to neighbouring towns to do anything. Who would want to live there? The Tories are creating a larger societal crisis with all this thoughtless panic building.

From: Matthew Payne 17 July 2020 10:39 AM

No of course not, I think we agree Jahan. If you know the why, and you do a thorough assessment of the tenant you can easily distinguish between the honest, reliable people that need a break who for no fault of their own find themselves on benefits and the colourful characters aka known as "wrong uns", but its not being on benefits that's driving their differences in behaviour, its just two different types of people with different educations, work ethic, values, etc. It's a change in the system that would help the former category, tens of thousands who many landlords would support if they had their financial concerns underwritten by HMG, but many wont take the risk as it stands. Even we we took a punt at 50% wrong uns and 50% of people that deserve support, thats a lot of people who may not be getting it currently. And yes you are probably right, Polly cares more for her career and pension that she does for the people she claims to represent, which is why our industry should perhaps try and do what she is failing to do herself, as this judgment and her campaign so far has done nothing to help people who should not be rejected simply because they are tarred and feathered as "DSS".

From: Matthew Payne 15 July 2020 18:13 PM

Hi Jahan I did 2 politics degrees actually, lol. When I was an agent I wouldn't entertain DSS applications (before blanket bans were stopped), but only because of the financial implications I have already covered, and I didnt want to expose my landlords to that kind of risk having been stung badly on clawback as well to the tune of about £20k. As as landlord myself, I judge each tenant on their merits, and have had DSS before, I have one now, touch wood I have had no problems but then context is relevant, and no it has not cost me anymore. No arrears, no evictions, no extra dilaps. I look at their entire history and get underneath why they are on benefits etc, recently I had one guy who was recovering from cancer for example, couldn't work, another was divorcing. The WHY they are on benefits is more important then the IF they are. Maybe you have been unlucky or your agent isn't being as thorough to understand. I appreciate there are huge variables as well in terms of geography, local employment, housing stock type etc. I have turned some DSS down, and have turned down as many who are full time employed, I can usually smell whether they are messers or not having done it several thousand times. The only two real nightmares I have had over the years were with supposedly respectable full time employed people who flew through referencing. Equally I am not recommending any LLs @ paulbarrett or you Jahan should acccept DSS tenants for whatever reason. My points are 2 only. 1. Lets stick to the the facts and get away from the emotion and stigma, Shelter want to drag the debate into the gutter. Next they will say landlords want to deny children a place to live and have pets put to sleep. 2. If those facts include that some landlords wont ever consider DSS tenants for a variety of reasons, bad experiences etc, then so be it, horses for courses, but let's be honest about that to disarm the discrimination claim, as that doesnt appear to be a driver for anyone. Equally though even in this trail you can see that there are many that would consider DSS, if the flaws in the system were addressed, including that of eviction.

From: Matthew Payne 15 July 2020 16:09 PM

Surely saying they are dont compare to working tenants who are 1st class and the dilaps are greater is saying they are 2nd class citizens, or is there an upper and lower section of 1st class? I am also surprised that after 1 bad tenancy, so many landlords, if this is their experience would then agree to 2,3,4,5, & 6? Either way it is not relevent to my point. The debate is centered around the emotional, rejecting tenants becasue they are single mums etc when it is the system that is letting them down. Sure there are bad apples in every barrel, and I am sure some are a nightmare, like other non DSS tenants can be a nightmare. If these single mums had support from a system that made sure the rent was paid on time each month, would be contractually guaranteed until the end of the tenancy, there was no clawback, and perhaps if it is important to some landlords to have a higher government funded deposit, then I am sure far more of them would get accepted. Or would they all still get rejected becasue they are single mums, as Shelter claims is the reason? I doubt it.

From: Matthew Payne 15 July 2020 14:22 PM

There is way too much focus on the tenants themselves being the issue, to demonise landlords/agents and make the debate an emotional one, when it has very little to do with them at all. It is a shame that many cannot find accomodation because of the stigma attached to DSS which is centered on them apparently being 2nd class tenants, discrimination against single mothers as in this case, disabled people etc when it is anything but in the majority of cases. However, Shelter, and now the Courts have fanned the flames even further without even any acknowledgement that it is the system created and maintained by the government that is causing the issue, not the claimant of these benefits. Whether DSS or a privately funding employed tenant, or a company, very few landlords will elect to take a tenant when the proposition is "I have no savings or other source of income, I won't pass referencing, and the organisation that pays me my rent may stop paying it at some point without any notice, and in fact they might want some of the rent back from you, perhaps even after I have moved on, and there is nothing you can do about it. That ok?" Could you see many lenders underwriting mortgages on these terms? Credit cards being offered? Government agencies like Help to Buy? Yet no one seems to pick up stories where credit cards are refused, mortgages declined and run with the descrimination card, yet I am sure many single mothers like anyone else have these applications declined. Why is it acceptable to decline them (or their backers) on financial capability when they want to buy or get a credit card but not when they want to rent?

From: Matthew Payne 15 July 2020 13:43 PM

Nothing will change until the government gets rid of the clawback. There are a million reasons why an agent or landlord can reject a tenants application, all this means is they can no longer have a one size fits all "No DSS" policy which most have stopped doing anyway. There is also the constant threat of HMG meddling with the eligibility criteria behind the scenes meaning that there is also the risk that the government themselves might prevent the rent from being paid at some point in the future. Chris should have gone further to say rents paid that are due will never be clawed back from landlords and they are gauranteed to be paid until the end of the tenancy, so removing eligibilty from the equation. IF HMG agreed to that, they might well see a change in behaviour. I dont see it is any different to some who may reject a tenant with pets or students, concerned at the risk of high wear and tear and upsetting the neighbours. RIsk exists in one form or another in different ways, and some landlords are more comfortable with some than others, but it is there choice nonetheless which they want to expose themselves to. The government and the courts can't have it both ways. You must accept our DSS tenants, but we might stop the rent being paid or demand it back whenever we want.

From: Matthew Payne 14 July 2020 10:16 AM

Best way to explain it is ignore people, its paperwork. A new tenancy is a new SP or a new renewed fixed period or a set of brand new set of tenants after 1st June. All new, EICR required.

From: Matthew Payne 09 July 2020 19:32 PM

Hi, if the tenancy rolled into an SP in May they cant have renewed for another 12 months, its either a new fixed term or a SP. Unless thats a 2nd Q. Either way, the change happened before 1st June so you can wait up until April. On a general point, as I understand it from what I have read, as far as these regs go, a tenancy ends when a fixed term ends, so if from now a SP starts at the end of a fixed term or a fixed term renewal takes place, thats a new tenancy and the 28 day clock has started ticking.

From: Matthew Payne 09 July 2020 18:32 PM

Hi Irina, you have to check before commiting to a policy ie what referencing may be acceptable and what criteria within that referencing or in addition to, if it is a provider who doesnt also do referencing themselves. Most reputable LAs use a third party referencing agency, in house is not fit for purpose. These companies like FCC Paragon or Van Mildert will have their own RGI policies that they offer off the back of their own references, safe in the knowledge that they are underwriting the risk themselves. Some may accept references from other businesses but not many. Like any industry there are some excellent referencing agencies and some dreadful ones, and likewise some have very stringent criteria that only the very best tenants will pass and others deliberately have less demanding criteria for a pass, as some LAs dont want their deals to fall through. Some LAs dont want tough referencing otherwise they would never write any business as convincing a LL to accept a failed tenant reference is dangerous territory. Insurance providers know all this and will tell you what they want to see.

From: Matthew Payne 09 July 2020 14:03 PM

Will help some address poor EPC ratings as the bar slowly rises.

From: Matthew Payne 09 July 2020 12:17 PM

Completely agree. Prices always spike when we get stamp duty holidays or potential increases as we had when the 3% second home was introduced in 2016. These increases will far outweigh any savings especially as this one is focussed at the bottom end of the market, as not only will agents and vendors start putting their prices up, but buyers will be competing often in a sealed bid scenario. Some may still not care though, as an extra £20,000 paid for a property is mortgageable and the £10,000 stamp duty saving is cash. Lenders may take a different view though and this may actually prolong any high LTV rates being reintroduced.

From: Matthew Payne 09 July 2020 12:14 PM

What isnt clear and is also being misreported already is whether it extends to all transactions. Homes and Property just newsflashed that "Home buyers will not pay stamp duty on homes costing up to £500,000" which suggests that it is for properties costing £500k or less only and would not be applicable to a transaction at £600k. The chancellor actually said he was rasing the 0% exemption rate to £500,000 but didnt comment on whether it applied to all transactions, or whether there were any exclusions. Devil may be in the detail, but lets hope its applicable to all, it did sound like that was his intention.

From: Matthew Payne 08 July 2020 14:32 PM

Provided you can demonstrate that the tenant was contractually bound to the tenancy then utility companies should pursue the debt fom the tenant. Yes the council try it on and sometimes suggest a landlord needs to pay the council tax in the absence of the tenant doing so and I have had some entrenched battles with them in the past, until I started sending them tenancy agreements and notices where applicable and they then back down. Only had one last week where a tenant just upped sticks and vanished, and all have accepted that they need to go after the tenant if they want their bills paying.

From: Matthew Payne 07 July 2020 11:38 AM

It has been changed to be fair to Bill, I noticed it yesterday.

From: Matthew Payne 26 June 2020 15:36 PM

Numbers seem high from everything I have read. Most commentators put monthly cost in at about £15bn per month, and OBR estimates total cost by the end of October all in all will be £54bn.

From: Matthew Payne 25 June 2020 14:12 PM

I would have thought at the top of any Buildng Control fact file when someone presents materials to them on a build is, "Is that flammable?" Freeholders and Council Building Control at fault here for the oversight and not now remedying. Got to feel for the flat owners. Flats are virtually worthless until the cladding is replaced, they cant rent them either, can't remortgage, and they will have to pay for the cladding to get any resolution. Even then the blocks will be tarnished and the flats will never realise their true market value.

From: Matthew Payne 22 June 2020 13:08 PM

I would recommend listing them though if you dont already, as relevant is open to interpretation and a tenant could argue they didnt know what documents should have been provided in the first place, so wouldnt know what was missing.

From: Matthew Payne 22 June 2020 11:50 AM

Hi Jahan, yes and no but there are exceptions to every rule. Yes you will no doubt be able to find me a FH property that works better than a flat in some locations. I have done the matrix for clients thousands of times. The capital outlay on a 2 bed house, compared to a 1 bed flat is far far greater, but the increase in rent doesnt increase by anywhere as much. Yes there are service charges, but they are tax deductible and it includes things like insurance and building maintenance you would have to pay for separately anyway. There is also the argument for spreading your risk and buying more smaller units. There is always a glass floor in rents where they stop going down, however small a property gets. Take where I live for example. Typically 1bed flat is £775pcm. 2 bed flat £895pcm, 2 bed house £1000pcm. The 1 bed flat is £200k, the 2 bed flat is £230k, the 2 bed house £350k. There could be an argument for going for teh 2 bed flat based on these numbers, but there will always be more tenants looking for a 1 bed.

From: Matthew Payne 20 June 2020 09:22 AM

1 bed modern flats in my experience, ideally no gas, deliver the best returns and allow entry for far more landlords into the market. Not all service charges are exhorbatant, only down to the quality of the Block Managers, and to some extent the choice of block where the residents take pride in where they live, not the fact that by definition it is leasehold.

From: Matthew Payne 19 June 2020 16:05 PM

Seems over complicated. Its very simple. If stat periodic before 1 June 2019, no action required. If not, deposit needs to be 5 weeks.

From: Matthew Payne 19 June 2020 15:59 PM

If you combine all in an email or Docusign at the start of the tenancy in one delivery its the easy way to show you are organised, know what you are doing and are covered. ie EPC, How to Rent, Prescribed Info, TDSE or equivalent, Deposit certificate, gas cert, elec cert if they happen. Authorities/HMRC/TSO etc are as interested in process as they are in complete compliance. People make mistakes, they just want to be reassured you know you made a silly mistake as opposed to just winging it, or trying to cut corners. Ive seen many many cases, where if agents and landlords demonstrate understanding and process, but acknowledge a small error has happened nonetheless, they are quite lenient. Court hearings always start by stating that consider the facts but are also looking at what is reasonable to expect.

From: Matthew Payne 19 June 2020 15:53 PM

There is an assumption that problematic tenants are only dealt with using Section 8. Why does noone ask the question, why would a landlord serve a section 21 on a compliant tenant? They wouldnt, and they dont, execept if they sell, they move back in, or family need somewhere to live, but they are all relatively few in number. Perhaps more press needs to cover that the section 8 process is not fit for purpose and in fact landlords use section 21 as the route of least resistance to remove tenants who ordinarily should be evicted through the Courts if it didnt tale 6 months +.

From: Matthew Payne 19 June 2020 15:40 PM

I agree, I think there will be some opportunties but not for a few months yet before we reach the bottom of any temporary dip. However, those looking for them should not focus too much on when that will be. In my experience as a former agent, when the market turns it happens in the blink of an eye, the pace of the return is far faster than purchasing capabilities allow, end users all come out of the woodwork accelerating that pace, and before you know it in a matter of a few short weeks the dip is a distant memory and those who tried to time it to perfection end up kicking themselves for not doing it far sooner.

From: Matthew Payne 27 May 2020 12:55 PM

I havent read the full CMA statement but extract quoted doesnt appear to be relevent. The service that is not being provided in full by the lockdown is the one being provided by the university to the student. Online learning has replaced the full campus experience which the student like the rest of us will conduct online from their home. Where is the relevance of the lockdown to the service that is being provided by the Landlord to the student? Online leaning doesnt mean that a student has to flee from their university town to live with their parents. If anything, that could be argued as a non essentiaI journey by tens of thousands of students, spreading the virus far and wide all over the UK. I havent fled my main residence to live with relatives and requested that my mortgage payments should now be written off until the pandemic is over when I then plan to return. There is also a cute play on words here that suggests that student accomodation is temporary and conditional on physical studies taking place. "Their family home" is not a correct description. "Their families' home" is more appropriate. It suggests they are returning to their own home, when in fact they are going to reside in a property they no longer live in and never planned to go back to- it is owned by a third party, their parents. Most students leave home when they go to uni, never to return, and remain in their university town after they have graduated or move on to another city. A few historic posters on a bedroom wall and the occasional visit during the holidays does not justify them being able to claim they have 2 addresses thus suggesting the student house is pop up commitment they can opt out of.

From: Matthew Payne 27 May 2020 12:13 PM

Agree with Robert, I would contact the gaurantor first, in my experience, they would get on the phone and sort out the tenants for you, or if they have fallen into genuine hardship would remedy any arrears on their behalf. They won't want to have to deal with the hassle or ignominy of a small claim being made.

From: Matthew Payne 19 May 2020 12:45 PM

Clawback exists yes for agents as well, which is why I wouldnt allow my business to entertain DSS tenants, it cost me about £20k one year about 10 years ago or so when I was oblivious to it exisitng. It isnt just fraudulent claims either. A tenant's circumstances may innocently change or change marginally and they may not be aware that this could affect what they are claiming. DWP know its a waste of time going after the tenants as they couldn't afford the rent in the first place, so they go after the deep pockets who are more likely to have the cash.

From: Matthew Payne 15 May 2020 12:28 PM

I have used Dutton Gregory sols many times before, they specalise in tenancy law and currently advise ARLA and their members. If you are stuck with your current agent, and you are overseas, then probably prudent to get someone involved. Will be cheaper than no rent for the next 12 months while you try and get her out yourself.

From: Matthew Payne 12 May 2020 16:08 PM

The 2 that havent been furloughed are joint and severally liable for the rent anyway, so it is a conversation he should be having with them not you, as they as a collective have a repsonsibility to pay the whole rent, it doesnt matter how they have agreed to split it. If he is short, it is for them to pick up any shortfall not ask for a reduction for his share.

From: Matthew Payne 12 May 2020 10:46 AM

Hi Jasmine, section 21 is 3 months notice from the RDD, thats it - you can serve that if you wish. New Court proceedings suspended for s8s until at least end of June (90 days from 27 March), but there will be a backlog of new cases. Avergae time is 5.5 months at the best of times, I would allow 8-9 months minimum. If you want to remove the tenant, s21 will be the easiest and quickest, provided you have finished any intial fixed term, and provided they move out otherswise you would need a Court order to gain possession even after the notice has expired.

From: Matthew Payne 11 May 2020 16:06 PM

They can't afford not to lend, far more costly than the odd repo that might happen. They will have done the risk matrix to death.

From: Matthew Payne 11 May 2020 11:55 AM

The guidance doesnt state a reason, it just changes the timescales on notices and proceedings.

From: Matthew Payne 06 May 2020 13:01 PM

There should be a NHA tenancy in place, they cant just rip this up. Difficult to advise without getting into all the detail, but it may be that they are winding up the original company, hence all the activity on a new one.

From: Matthew Payne 06 May 2020 10:49 AM

Hi Joe, these matters are all individual to each case and these decisions spin on the personalities and circumstances involved. Personally, I would not apply the charge straight away, I would send an email explaining all the potential pitfalls for the tenant not paying the rent, of which this would be one. Confrontational strategies should only be used in my view if you wish to remove the tenant. If you would rather have them stay and resolve the situation then I would recommend avoiding until you decide to remove them.

From: Matthew Payne 06 May 2020 10:16 AM

I have still only seen press on 5 lenders offering them, so it is not widely available, and surely this is cart before horse? Why would a LL apply for a mortgage holiday to start with especially if they haven't had any rent arrears? One estimate I have seen says the expected average cost is about £2000 more over the lifetime of the term. Who is going to cover that cost, let alone the rent arrears created, perhaps Ringley if they want to see their idea become a practical reality? I suspect Mary -Anne would politely decline.

From: Matthew Payne 29 April 2020 11:17 AM

Might cost you 3 months rent though. If you havent done so already, I would email him all the govt guidance on the myth of rent holidays and mortgage holidays, their costs, and then detail the different permutations of how this could play out and how this might affect him. Worst case no home, poor credit rating, CCJ, poor reference etc. Best case, you find some liquidity and life goes back to normal. Good to document as a landlord, that you have been constructively informative before sending the heavies in, and I am finding that many tenants are then miraculously finding solutions to their cash flow problems when presented to them like this. There are very few tenants in my view who cannot afford to pay their rent the same month they get paid, even if it is at 80%. One email isn't a waste of time, especially when many tenants are just trying to be cute and take advantage, when to be fair there has been a lot of fake news that a lot of landlords have also been guilty of believing at first as well.

From: Matthew Payne 29 April 2020 11:14 AM

Hi bella, always worth consdiering renegotiating with the developer first, as they arent going to get the price you are paying from any other buyer this year, and at a more sensible level, it will still make the same sound investment decision it was went you first made the offer. As with the stock market though, I see these changes in values as temporary corrections to the lockdown that will quickly reverse themselves when we have a vaccine in circulation and life returns to normal.

From: Matthew Payne 28 April 2020 12:24 PM

Leaders are technically quite a strong agency, I have recruited many of their staff over the years, and as a business they have always been well regarded. If you want a selection just look on Rightmove for 3 bed houses between £1100 and £1350 including let agreed and it will show you who is active in that marketplace and doing deals, albeit at the moment that wont be many. On prices, $64m question. In my view now is not a good time to sell. Low confidence in the market place with buyers, low demand for a whole mixture of reasons. It's a buyers market and I think will remain so for most of the year, so when the lockdown ends you will sell it, property always sells in any market, but you will have to compromise on price. If it was my house and I didnt need to sell it, I would rent it for another 12 months and take stock in a years time. When this is over the market will bounce back pretty strongly in favour of sellers, its just a question of when that will be which is anyones guess. That swings on vaccinations and so on, but I cant see things ending this year, 12-18 months feels about right from everything I have read.

From: Matthew Payne 23 April 2020 12:07 PM

Hi Roy Depends which side of Cambridge (I lived there for 20 odd years and still spend a bit of time there), property type and price, different agents focus in different areas, prices and property types.

From: Matthew Payne 22 April 2020 14:13 PM

I still think some of these potential arrears can be tackled by education, open dialogue, and avoiding any initial confrontation as I have said in other posts, and I have now had to practice what I preached! There is a load of fake news and misinformation out there, and to be fair to many tenants, once they have heard some it 4th hand from a mate, it can be a long way from the truth. So, I had a tenant email me last week asking if I "could help him out with his rent" as he understood the government has suggested this? I started by simply asking him to tell me more about his current financial situation and why he believed that. He came back and simply said his finances were ok, his brother was now living in the flat which helped loads, and he had been told that all landlords had "had their mortgage payments suspended during the crisis" and he thought it might mean he could pay less rent. I sent him back a longer polite and informative note explaining the detail of what happened etc etc. He said ok no probs and paid the rent in full the following day. No conflict, no drama, no arrears, just a lot of nonsense out there that even the nicest tenants may believe or take advantage unless someone diplomatically puts them straight.

From: Matthew Payne 22 April 2020 14:09 PM

I dont think there will be any long lasting damage to the market when we look back in 18-24 months time, however activity will be slow to return, its not just about money and jobs. One point that most commentators overlook when talking about the lockdown ending is the fact that there are millions of people who are petrified of getting CV19 and will continue their own self imposed lockdown to one degree or another, and its not just the elderly. Vulnerable people will include asthma sufferers and diabetics for example, people with what are normally very manageable conditions. Demand may exist straight away online or in peoples desire to move but I think it will be a few months at least before we start to see anything like normality return. Then there is social distancing and the practicalities of it slowing everything down and reducing capacity, affecting most industries, that most "experts" are saying will need to stay in place for 12 months. Less people on buses, in planes, less appointments of any kind being able to be done each day, whether a lettings agent or any other client facing professional. Where it was X no of move ins on a saturday, it will now be less. Anyone thought about going on holiday later this year? Yes it could be a calculated safe risk to do so, planes in the air, hotels open, but imagine social distancing in a resort, at the bar, in the pool, in restaurants. The lockdown may be over for us all and the holiday industry later this summer, but not many people will be going on holiday, just simply because it would be a crap experience for no doubt the same price.

From: Matthew Payne 21 April 2020 11:20 AM

Hi Syed, it will all be in the small print of the agreement. If they have a clause saying they can under certain cirucmstances suspend of cancel the gauranteed element then there may be little you can do, if there isnt then you can challenge it or declare they are in breach of the terms. I found an agreement this week (not to do with lettings) where they actually had a pandemic clause buried in very tiny writing near the back. When you sign them you pretty much ignore these clauses as you think they will never be applicable so you dont question them. Who would when it has never happened?

From: Matthew Payne 20 April 2020 10:38 AM

Can you think of any other mandatory licence scheme at great expense that makes you pay to check you are complying with the law when certification already exists to demonstrate compliance?

From: Matthew Payne 20 April 2020 10:33 AM

CV19 has little to do with encouraging this change when canopys publicly declared raison d'etre is "eliminate ALL forms of Rental deposits by 2025 including deposit insurance".

From: Matthew Payne 17 April 2020 10:44 AM

You can if the tenant agrees to it yes, assuming you want to avoid the use of section 21.

From: Matthew Payne 16 April 2020 11:09 AM

Lots of money to be made on the markets, many stocks are just articifially low becasue their businesses are mothballed. As long as they survive, as soon as they reopen their price will spring back, perhaps not all the way back, but a lot higher than it is today.

From: Matthew Payne 16 April 2020 11:06 AM

A grab for some market share which makes perfect sense, one lenders prudence is anothers opportunity, and it is quite normal in times of crisis, quite a few lenders did it after 2008. Nationwide have just relaunched resi interest only mortgages as well. They can control their risk with the underwriters, the LTV alone does not expose them, but the plan will generate enough enquiries for them to cherrypick the best ones.

From: Matthew Payne 15 April 2020 10:03 AM

Sounds almost like a veiled threat, that unless rents are suspended, the virus will spread further. Not sure I follow that logic.

From: Matthew Payne 15 April 2020 09:50 AM

Hot potato for HMG it will no doubt continue to avoid. Advising or condoning the breach of contractual arrangements between tenants and landlords will have their lawyers having kittens. Lenders likewise would be far from amused at the prospect of increased mortgage arrears especially when most seem reluctant to give a payment holiday, and an inevitable increase in repossessions where some landlords simply could not afford to take the hit. Unless some evidence gets on to the front pages of landlords ruthlessly eviciting tenants as Acorn claim COULD happen then I can see them continuing to kick the can down the road.

From: Matthew Payne 15 April 2020 09:31 AM

Hi Helen, the notice period has simply changed from 2 to 3 months.

From: Matthew Payne 14 April 2020 10:09 AM

I am yet to see a call for in any other sector for payments or monies due to be reduced or waived at the cost of private individuals. I dont see why students are not remaining in their households doing their remote learning just as all school children up and down the UK are doing. Why the need to flee back to their former parental home and then ask landlords to pay for it?

From: Matthew Payne 14 April 2020 09:50 AM

"ensuring that anyone struggling with rental payments due to the coronavirus can apply for a three-month payment holiday" I wasnt aware HMG had offered this to tenants.

From: Matthew Payne 14 April 2020 09:23 AM

Hi Roslyn, email me at matthewpayne@aficionadopropertyconsultants.co.uk and I will send you a glossary of terms that covers all the jargon.

From: Matthew Payne 10 April 2020 16:09 PM

Hi Andrew, on my way to Uni! Thats why my line is wobbly. There are bumps in the road. Draw a line on a graph from 1970 to 2020 and the trajectory is roughly at 2 o clock from the centre. After you have stripped out inflation, they have more than doubled in spite of all the disasters en route. Keep your fingers crossed, the government might provide some stimulus and reverse section 24 amongst other things, to get the wheels turning again!

From: Matthew Payne 09 April 2020 15:22 PM

I am generally a positive person Mark and look for opportunity and silver linings in life, however, you only need to look at historical stats and untold news. How many times have people predicted a monster price drop, yet in 50 years it has never happened, why now? (I am not saying they will go up btw, just any current drop will reverse quickly) 2008 was 15% and that didnt take long to reverse. People in the UK generally dont move for profit, they move for life reasons, there will always be enough demand, enough people, enough solutions from stakeholders like lenders for example that mean the cogs will still turn. The British mentality and in particular the BBC where most people on the clapham omninbus get their daily digest, always focus on the negative news, every article is glass half empty, this business failing, that business in trouble. For every story of a business in trouble, there is an untold one of a business that is flying, and having a nice time, and thousands who are unnafected and treading water. Try the BBC News homepage game, just done it. 11/12 articles have a negative headline, and its not all CV. This is bad, that is bad. Spend too much time on there and you can develop and very negative view on life. (Rents likewise are set to spiral with government policy on the PRS about to spectacularly backfire. With 5, 6, 7, 8 tenants wanting each available property and rising sharply how can they do anything else?)

From: Matthew Payne 09 April 2020 15:01 PM

All you can do is negotiate at the moment if you want to get to an outcome where the tenant pays all or most of the rent, ie: educate them that this approach will backfire, as you may ask them to leave, take them to Court, and ultimately it will make it much harder for them to find anywhere else, get credit etc etc. Many tenants like are just clueless to the realities and it sounds like your agent cant be bothered. I know of quite a few cases where tenants have jumped on the rent holiday bandwagon, but also ones where a landlord who has then provided them with all the guidance available and constuctively spelled out to them the different scenarios that could play out, have then decided that paying their rent is probably the route of least pain in the medium term. You can go the guns blazing approach, section 21, MCOL etc but that gaurantees they will pay you nothing, and even then they may not move out.

From: Matthew Payne 09 April 2020 13:11 PM

Any price drop will be an articifial one due to the current cirmcumstances, ie the housing market has shut down. Imagine a rubber band being pulled down. When the market reopens and you let go, snap! The wobbly house price line always goes up and has been since 1970. That wont change now.

From: Matthew Payne 09 April 2020 12:52 PM

Yes feels a little bit high. There are the lost months, but eveything will be a lot slower when we are back up and running for a while and I think many people will let the dust settle a bit, sort out other stuff in their lives, which for a lot will be employment, and any renaissance will be in 2021.

From: Matthew Payne 09 April 2020 09:52 AM

Who says these tenants were on long term fixed contracts that they will now avoid? The facts are they stayed 4.4 years up from 4.1 years which in my experience has no correlation to initial contract length, an AST can only be 3 years long anyway, but they are a small minority. Most would have been an initial 12 month contract layered with renewals and many turning into stat periodics. Dont see any change to that recipe going forward, the flexibilty she refers to has existed all along.

From: Matthew Payne 07 April 2020 10:14 AM

The rent holiday myth was media driven as the lobbyists planned and then misinterpreted as fact by many landlords, tenants and commentators as Shelter and others wanted who were sucked in by the headlines and didnt read the detail from source. Then misreported again and again, a modern day variation of cyclonic fake news.

From: Matthew Payne 07 April 2020 10:04 AM

Hi Sharan, you are obliged to continue paying the rent as normal, the 2 agreements are separate and not relevant to each other.

From: Matthew Payne 03 April 2020 16:03 PM

Hi Tim, yes comes into effect 1st June, for new tenancies exectuted from July 1st, existing tenancies next year. I had heard rumours a delay will be put into place for obvious reasons, but I havent seen anything to that effect yet, I guess not a huge priority for HMG at the moment, albeit they might have forgotten, they did forget to offer any guidance on people moving home until someone pointed it out to them. I cant see them enforcing it even if there is no official delay, they will struggle to issue penalties when they have told everyone to stay at home.

From: Matthew Payne 02 April 2020 13:25 PM

A final point on this rent holiday confusion. The government was asked directly in the Lords yesterday whether there were plans to introduce a rent holiday for tenants, recognising of course that one had not been introduced up to now. Their reply was “As such, the Government does not believe a ‘rent holiday’ is necessary at this stage.” So as per the updated guidance, there are no advocated rent holidays, it is an urban myth and it appears that nearly all BTL lenders are not offering a payment holiday either. Government advice is for all tenants to continue to pay their rent and honour their other responsibilites, but where there is a genuine case where a tenant has been directly financially impeded by CV they should speak to their LL immediately and try and come to a mutually agreeable solution for both parties. The guidance does not demand, but implies that LLs should be sympathetic to these requests on the basis they should be getting a payment holiday from their lender, but it appears to be discretionary. Obviously it would be appropriate in many cases to provide the tenant some form of holiday to be compassionate, maintain the relationship which in most cases would have been good up to this point, and to avoid racking up huge arrears, this is for each LL to decide.

From: Matthew Payne 01 April 2020 11:57 AM

Hi Antony. Current guidance from government is published FYI. Google Covid 19 guidance for LLs & TTs. TTs are not entitled to rent holidays, and HMG hasnt even implied they can have one, but up to your wife whether she agrees to one. Lobby groups have made so much noise about them that many LLs think they exist or have to give one. I have only seen 5 BTL lenders offer a holiday so far, so dont assume you will be entitled one, best check. It is not a right as HMG would have you believe on TV, there will be an application process as well, albeit most lenders underwriting depts are closed, so you could be in for a wait. No you arent missing anything. The self employed offer isnt as generous as Mr Sunak would have us believe anyway. It is based on average profit from last 3 years declared in accts in tax returns, so very few people will be eligible for much. Directors dont qualify either. So yes, universal credit, but again there is a 100+ page application form which normally takes weeks to process even when the DWP isnt processing 1000s of extra claims.

From: Matthew Payne 31 March 2020 10:27 AM

Hi Hayley, sounds like you have a chancer here. Tenants are not entitled to rent holidays whether you have a mortgage holiday available or not, and most lenders FYI havent yet offered one. Current guidance from government is published so might be worthwhile sending him that. Google Covid 19 guidance for LLs & TTs gov.uk. Your options are 1) surrender the property to your lender, but for me that is a last resort. 2) continue to negotiate with your TT with reason and evidence to get them to pay the rent 3) serve section 21 and write off the next 3 months rent. We dont know the tenants so only you can judge whether 2 might work or 3 will be necessary. Whatever happens and whatever you decide, make sure all correspondance is by email or whatsapp so you have a record of what has been said.

From: Matthew Payne 31 March 2020 10:19 AM

If you serve section 21 with 3 months notice they move out in June...thats it. Are you anticipating the need to take them to Court?

From: Matthew Payne 27 March 2020 15:00 PM

You would hope Paul, but no it is all recalculated over the same term, and of course there is a little bit more interest to pay as a result, the holiday comes at a cost.

From: Matthew Payne 26 March 2020 10:13 AM

As with everything we are seeing in the press and trade rags, it comes down to what is considered essential movement. There is a huge debate going on about completions and whether people can move home or not. Apparently Michael Gove has said yesterday if you have exchanged then completing is considered essential. I suppose the same principle will apply to lettings. If a tenant gives notice yes you have to accept it. Does a landlord therefore have to suck up the void period until these measures end? It certainly seems that speculative marketing is considered as non essential, but if you have a committed tenant who wants to move into a property when it becomes empty then I dont see why that cant happen. Will have to wait for further guidance I suppose.

From: Matthew Payne 25 March 2020 11:29 AM

4 out of about 700 lenders...with some like Barclays at least for the time being implying there will be no holiday on offer. The headline had so much to live up to when trumpted in the press.

From: Matthew Payne 25 March 2020 11:19 AM

Barclays up providing an update later this week on an online option for Resi and BTL? Will be interesting to see what they offer if anything. Might set a precedent.

From: Matthew Payne 24 March 2020 09:22 AM

It was more a Q for you, I am well read on the subject, but I am not trying to score points here, I just want to make sure everyone understands what they are obliged to do or not. The government has not condoned or even mentioned rent holidays anywhere, they cant be seen to be getting involved and making recommendations that ultimately breach a contractual commitment, the banks would have kittens, and ultimately thats what we are talking about, so instead they have simply said in a press release, whatever happens in the next 3 months you cannot be evicted, releasing pressure etc. However, interestingly, the government press release only talks about starting proceedings by landlords, whatever that means. Is serving S21 notice starting proceedings or is that a Court matter only? I was expecting something more specific on landlords serving notice or no fault evictions, so it will be interesting to see the detail of whether they mean Section 21 or Section 8 especially in context of a lenders right to repossess, they wont be able to stop that from happening unless they are prepared to spend a load more money reintroduding legal aid so a tenant can take on Barclays or whoever in the Courts. It may just be as usual, the government has no idea, in this case about how tenancies end. If the RLA are advising landlords they must give rent holidays when asked, they have misinterpreted what has been said. Even the template letter I have seen circulated by the lobby groups doesnt say that, its says, please Mr/s Landlord, will you please consider a rent holiday. Consent is the key to all of this which is why HMG is being very careful in how it articulates its message. Much more to follow on this when we get some flesh on the bones.

From: Matthew Payne 23 March 2020 18:44 PM

That just confirms what I have commented, no fear of eviction for tenants and a mortgage payment holiday for landlords if needed. Where does it say the government is requesting or expecting a rent holiday for tenants and if asked one needs to be provided?

From: Matthew Payne 23 March 2020 15:32 PM

Just to clarify, the government hasnt issued requests or permission for tenants to be allowed a rent holiday. These calls have come from Shelter, Acorn and the like the and government has said that it planned to introduce emergency legislation (still not passed) that prevents tenants from being evicted in the next three months. At the same time they have announced that the 3 month mortgage payment holiday will be extended to landlords where their tenants are experiencing difficulty in paying their rent due to the CV, but that again is not a requested or sanctioned rent holiday by HMG. We are yet to see what conditions are attached by lenders to these holidays and they may well want proof from a LL that their tenants have not paid their rent or has been affected by CV. Whilst you may choose to do so, or it may be appropriate to do so, the government hasnt actually officially commented on a rent holiday for tenants and I assume they are deliberately not doing so, as there are no doubt some legal implications of doing so ie: encouraging unilateral breaching of contractual obligations. They are due very soon to publish some guidance for landlords which is due to set out how landlords could be compassionate to tenants who are affected by CV. I guess it will encourage some mutual agreement to be reached between LLs & TTs to avoid a breach and be in a fluffy language that avoids that specific sanction once again. So there is an implication of a rent holiday for tenants who are affected CV, ie you cant evict them even if they dont pay their rent, but the government has not said that tenants are able to request a rent holiday, or that landlords have to agree to one, and their guidance comments have been aimed at those directly affected by CV, so again by implication it could be perfectly reasonable to expect them to have demostrate how they have been affected to qualify, as those unaffected by CV are not entitled to any such compassion or changes. Whlist many tenants may simply choose to stop paying their rent as there is no fear of eviction in the next 3 months whether they have LL consent or not, there are clearly implcations for tenants who do so as they may face a section 21 later in the summer or their credit rating will also be affected, so it is not the case that LLs are over a barrel and have to just accept whatever a tenant chooses to do. Ergo, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for a LL to ask for proof, as these measures are designed only for those affected by CV, not for wider PRS tenants, most of whom will remain unaffected.

From: Matthew Payne 23 March 2020 13:19 PM

It also demonstrates that it is either a cheap gimic to catch headlines for the government as Labour backed them into a corner, or once more they have no understanding whatsoever about the cost involved in being a PRS landlord especially after they now force them to pay tax on turnover as well as profit. With interest rates as low as they are the mortgage is only one small part of a landlords costs, so giving them a potential 3 month holiday (we have yet to see lenders agree to this and what conditions may be attached) is tinkering at the edges. What about a holiday from services charges that are now as expensive if not sometimes more expenseive than the mortgage? Ground Rent, sinking fund contributions that block managers will still expect paid each month, insurance, tax, maintenance? Will tenants still expect everything to be fixed if they choose not to pay their rent? The government talks about protecting people when they lose their incomes. Many older landlords use this rent as their income, and all the government is doing is greasing the wheels for them to lose it whilst still leaving them burdened with at least 60% of the costs.

From: Matthew Payne 19 March 2020 11:56 AM

Ian, I think you miss the point on risk and the commitments faced by a landlord. A 3 month mortgage holiday will just be that, and the lender will be very robust about any defaults and have the power to remedy pretty quickly. Moreover, then balance of the mortgage will increase as will then the amount of interest paid over the term. Who pays for that? A 3 month rent holiday will inevitably result in rent arrears when after the 3 months, many tenants will not be in a position or choose not to pay the outstanding balance owed. Landlords will have little remedy through the courts as court time will be scarce in the next 12 months. It doesnt also address the issue that the rent also pays for ground rent, service charges, sinking funds, insurance and maintentance where there will be no payment holidays. Finally it doesnt acknowledge that rent is also an income for many landlords, no different to interest on savings, or dividends on shares. A mortgage holiday doesnt replace that balance. The net result will be when life returns to normal is many tenants wont have paid their rent in full, but many landlords will actually have larger mortgages that still need paying. It is a recipe for disaster. Many excellent tenant/landlord relationships will be ruined as a result, many section 21s will be served as a result and everyone will go through a lot of unecessary expense and upheaval for something I dont believe is necessary. I dont believe there are as many destitute tenants out there who dont have the ability to pay next months rent with an income that same month, most employers will allow home working or pay sick leave, and many tenants have income protection. The number who would genuinely need this 3 month rent holiday is very very small indeed, but I fear many would take advantage of it. It would make more sense to allow landlords and tenants to find their own agreements on any delayed payments for those few, and I dont think there are many landlords who would not be sympathetic to any genuine cases where they have a good tenant they want to keep.

From: Matthew Payne 18 March 2020 10:18 AM

Its not a 5 minute job to do this anyway, and the worst may well be over before they had time to anything about it. They would be passing legislation to interfere in existing legally binding contractual arrangements between 2 parties, that would have a knock on effect in the supply chain. The lawyers would need to pour over the implications of such a move for weeks and no doubt be challenged in the courts. I am sure most lenders up and down the land would not support such a move either unless it was somehow underwritten with government cash. Thats the only way I could see it getting off the ground. 3 month rent roll would be £4 billion. Do they have the appetite?

From: Matthew Payne 17 March 2020 10:05 AM

It wont be a question of rejecting DSS tenants diplomatically as we head towards 10 tenants for every property available over the summer. The Alpha tenant has been born. The safe low risk tenant. The tenant every landlord now wants, pays a market rent on time, flies through references, looks after the property as if it were their own, considerate and polite, no pets, no kids, over 25. Section 24, Section 21 abolition, the Tenant Fees Act created this genetically mutated PRS tenant but there are plenty of them even if they are in the minority. DSS tenants like many other reasonably sound tenants not on benefits will simply be told the LL has rented to someone else whose application was more suitable.

From: Matthew Payne 16 March 2020 13:58 PM

This is the thin edge of the wedge. Renewals will start to increase with C19 set to be here for a few months exacerbating the other policy changes that are starting to have an impact on the high street. Almost a perfect strain of hopelessness for millions of tenants cultured in the conservative policy petri dish. Welcome to the new jobs Mr Jenrick, Mr Sunak, time to find a cure.

From: Matthew Payne 16 March 2020 13:48 PM

Savers create liquidity in the world economy. They are in effect lending the banks money, hence they pay interest on it, for the banks to lend other people. Your mortgage is someone elses savings account, thats how the world keeps turning. You may have noticed the wide spread panic at most banks and building societies in 2008 when everyone starting queuing up to withdraw all their savings fearful of a banking collapse. No savers, no banks.

From: Matthew Payne 13 March 2020 08:41 AM

Interesting that over 50% of tenants would favour paying a larger deposit and committing to addtional end of tenancy cleaning. Not even tenants like the Tenant Fees Act, so who was the government thinking they were supporting when they passed this bit of legislation?

From: Matthew Payne 03 March 2020 07:49 AM

It is not always possible to make improvements either, many have solid walls that cant be insulated for example and you wont be able to change the appearance. Some things would also be too expensive to get a return on in 7 years as well like digging up floors and adding insulation. I looked into it, the process is you need to pay to get your local council conservation officer to inspect the property and if they agree you cant make the changes they will give you what you need to register it exempt.

From: Matthew Payne 28 February 2020 15:37 PM

The problem with politicians in their attempts to assist a certain part of society to buy their votes at the ballot box is that they often interfere in a very disjointed way in markets they know nothing about, strangely ignoring all the learned council from those that do. No one is grumbling about anyone’s desire to help solving the housing crisis or protecting tenants’ rights, far from it, but the attempts of the last few years have been so painfully misplaced. Wealth creation, and I include a tenants right to an index linked affordable rent, reasonable fees, an affordable property to buy is not achieved by punishing those that supply that housing stock or services around it, no different to taxing job creators or the highest tax payers at 50%. As Tories know only too well, you tax too high, people avoid paying the tax or leave just as Landlords are starting to do in the last 12 months. Anyone celebrating this fact though or regard it as progress, like the government, simply doesn’t understand the mechanics of the PRS. Pretty much every attempt to assist these tenants has unfortunately and perversely backfired. Cap deposits, ban end of tenancy commitments? Families with pets and young children, younger tenants under 25 now have less choice and have to pay a higher rent as predicted, but who expected any other outcome? Ban tenant fees? Tenants are now paying new different fees with zero security deposit options as lettings agencies seek to survive having lost their entire profit margin overnight. Becasue of both, landlords are already selecting only the very best calibre tenants who represent the lowest risk, who pretty much had their choice of any property anyway and didn’t need any help from the government. Higher taxes mean the PRS is shrinking. Less property, less choice, higher rents. What did the government expect? We have already seen a 3-6% increase in 2019 in most parts of the UK. Most are predicting similar again this year. Ban the use of section 21? That elitist selection of the very best tenants will get even worse for the landlords that remain and with others selling, the millions of tenants that need somewhere to live will have to pay higher rents, won’t have the choice they have now, and whose costs to commute to work, and childcare for example will increase as they have to move further afield. All that will happen is a minority of tenants will have improved security, the majority will be worse off. 90% of section 21s are served by tenants. However, we will see an enormous spike in Landlord served Section 21s before the legislation comes into effect and potentially tens of thousands of tenants who like their landlord were perfectly happy with the status quo where they lived will be forced to look for somewhere new to live at a much higher rent as landlords play musical chairs. Some won’t find anywhere they can afford. No wonder quite a few tenants are now already starting to wish that things could go back to the way things were, and the worst is still yet to come.

From: Matthew Payne 18 February 2020 11:56 AM

I wonder how lenders will feel about the increased risk. LTVs will drop I imagine to build in more comfort.

From: Matthew Payne 12 February 2020 14:08 PM

The Tories have worked out that most LLs will still vote for them come what may as the alternativer is far worse. Tenants however who are also far greater in number and younger represent a huge opportunity to increase their poll ratings and essentially keep Labour out of power for a generation, maybe forever.

From: Matthew Payne 07 February 2020 11:57 AM

The government should be embarrassed, ashamed even, to ignore an entire industrys fairly sober forecasts, when they have never had any experience of getting involved in the PRS, becauase they simply don't understand it. Their desire to win some quick votes at the ballot box has clouded any common sense that was lurking in there somewhere. They need to act quickly this year to address some of the changes they have made before it becomes a crisis. Wherever you look it's the tenants that are suffering and it will quickly get worse.

From: Matthew Payne 07 February 2020 09:41 AM

Monthly UK rents rose by about £40pcm last year alone. That's £480 a year they will never see again versus £163 they may well have got back. I dont see that many tenants will be celebrating the £163.08 "saving" as a result of government interference, albeit I dont think many of them have worked out what its costing them yet. When they do, you never know we may get a tenant campaign to have fees re introduced.

From: Matthew Payne 06 February 2020 15:21 PM

Sounds like a £90k fine for not wanting to pay Brents' licence fee. The article confirms his properties were compliant otherwise. Not sure why his tenants would have more confidence that he was obeying the law by paying the council a fee for them to enforce that legislation. Surely legislation needs to be obeyed and enforced whether you pay the council to enforce it or not? What next, pay the police to a licence fee on top of road tax, fuel duty, council tax etc for them to enforce the speed limit? Probably not as this licencing scheme is simply a) a vehicle for local councils to increase revenues, b) it allows them to create a database of LLs that is very useful for HMRC and other agencies, and c) applies more thumb screws to PRS LLs.

From: Matthew Payne 04 February 2020 10:57 AM

Hi Sara, no it has not become statute yet.

From: Matthew Payne 29 January 2020 12:54 PM

Those numbers from Benham and Reeves were wrong, these look more in keeping with what lenders and referencing agents will allow. Anything much over 30-35% is too high. I can see London might get to 40% as there is a hard deck on studios and small one beds that will force up any average.

From: Matthew Payne 27 January 2020 10:55 AM

And maybe written at a different time and in a different market, not sure why this is appearing now. Yes Landlords should of course look after their tenants, especially if they are as Daniela suggests, but I think we are way off needing to buy Christmas presents in order to keep tenants long term. Everything I read and experience tells me, demand is outstripping supply by some distance, rents rising, not enough properties, 5 tenants per property etc. I dont think void periods are a concern for any landlord at the moment.

From: Matthew Payne 27 January 2020 10:42 AM

If you look at the detail of Hometracks latest rental survey, rents in H2 2019 increased yoy in 26/40 cities at a rate above inflation, and the remainder were around or a fraction below inflation, bar the 3 where rents dropped. The top 20 were 3-6% higher and in places you may not expect like in Leeds, Stoke and Norwich, there are not may places in the country that are not affected.

From: Matthew Payne 22 January 2020 11:01 AM

LHA rent is a hot potato, no one wants it to hit their acct first, as it's the first recipient who are subject to the clawback. I stopped renting to LHA tenants after my first clawback, too much risk, and you never know when it is coming, they reserve the right to come after you years later if need be. I am too surprised more LLs are not wise to this and make agents collect the rent, however, there will be fewer and fewer of those prepared to do it either. I am most surprised that HMG doesnt even consider this to be an issue for us all, and to be fair for the tenants as well.

From: Matthew Payne 17 January 2020 13:51 PM

Hi Paul, I have read the consultation report and its says "private rented sector residential properties" and later "privately rented homes", so it doesnt get into any detail. If I had to make an educated guess I would say they would need to be done in your scenario. The legislation is about tenant safety whether they rent a room, house, flat. Whether the LL lives there is irrelevant, they would still need protecting from sub standard wiring. We will have to wait and see.

From: Matthew Payne 17 January 2020 13:32 PM

Most lenders allow up to a 35% net spend on a mortgage payment commitment. In my experience, these numbers look way too high. We strictly referenced all of our tenants and we wouldnt have let people move in commiting to paying 75% of their salary on the rent, way too risky for us and the landlord. Im not sure where the sample came from when Benhams are a London zones 1-3 agent, it must be a small or niche sample to arrive here.

From: Matthew Payne 17 January 2020 10:55 AM

I posted this on MEES, the other day which answers your Q. "1.5 million landlords in the PRS are difficult to manage, diffcult to track, many they believe are non compliant and avoiding tax. At the same time many institutional landlords are getting heavily involved in the BTR sector at the request of HMG, but in return they want the competition from the PRS reduced. This suits HMG for the reasons above. 15 big institutional landlords on speedial are easier to manage than 1.5million, most of whom are unknown. Ergo they are turning the screw to make private LLs sell up, it will turn tighter yet. Solves another problem of the "housing crisis". The market floods with former BTL properties. Prices will come down and there will be lots of availability and choice for people trying to get on the housing ladder. Win Win Win for HMG. Less headache, more tax, housing crisis aleviated."

From: Matthew Payne 16 January 2020 14:25 PM

It appears will apply to all rented residential property. We dont have any detail on other exemptions yet. New build or recently certified fully rewired proerties will be exempt for the first 5 years.

From: Matthew Payne 16 January 2020 14:15 PM

Completely agree Mo, and I am not sure why it has taken so long when gas was done over 25 years ago. As usual though it appears it is going to be yet another poorly executed piece of legislation by a government who are completely detached from everyday life. I hope they do not plan to levy fines during 2021 and their deadline is simply designed to focus everyone's efforts. On the basis their agencies are still failing to properly police every other piece of legislation that has been passed in recent memory, I doubt they have the capacity or appetite anyway.

From: Matthew Payne 16 January 2020 10:44 AM

At 1.49% it's news otherwise a typo perhaps.

From: Matthew Payne 15 January 2020 11:02 AM

Capacity? Where? I have a fantastic relationship with 2 local sparkys locally that I use, but they are constantly booked up at least 6 weeks in advance unless it's an emergency, sometimes longer. I havent even asked them yet whether this is something they plan to do either, many trades stick to what they know, or what gives them the best return. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that deadline will be hit and it may well be a year or so after before we get anywhere near. There are 2.7m properties that need checking and the clock hasnt even started ticking yet. With Brexit, it will probably be a few weeks yet before it become statute, so let's say a year to get 54,000 properties a week tested.....

From: Matthew Payne 15 January 2020 10:55 AM

Whilst I appreciate the NLA possibly wants the attention focussed on this point alone whilst they lobby the government to remove the freeze, I hope behind the scenes they do completely understand what is actually driving decision making. As I posted on another article yesterday, whilst yes it could be a contributing factor where LHA rents have been frozen for 3 years, it is naive to think this is the main reason for Landlords or as importantly their agents being deterred by this alone. There are some significant other factors which would still deter them even if LHA rents were set at market levels.

From: Matthew Payne 15 January 2020 10:25 AM

This simply demonstrates once again that HMG is not in touch with the challenges faced by Landlords or Agents. Contrary to the well peddled stereotype that led to a ban on the portals allowing adverts saying "no DSS", most agents will not accept LHA tenants due to the clawback if a tenants eligibilty changes after the rent has already been paid to the Landlord. If that rent has been paid via the lettings agent they are responsible for paying it back to HMG even though it may have entered and left their account the same day. There is almost no chance of recovering the monies from the tenant or landlord, so the Agent just has to take it on the chin. After my first clawback many years ago, the following day, I stopped renting to LHA tenants, I couldn't expose the business to that kind of risk.

From: Matthew Payne 14 January 2020 12:44 PM

These particular measures (MEES) are driven by the Kyoto protocol on climate change, however, if anyone is wondering why the government is focussed on making LLs as uncomfortable as possible, here is why. 1.5 million landlords in the PRS are difficult to manage, diffcult to track, many they believe are non compliant and avoiding tax. At the same time many institutional landlords are getting heavily involved in the BTR sector at the request of HMG, but in return they want the competition from the PRS reduced. This suits HMG for the reasons above. 15 big institutional landlords on speedial are easier to manage than 1.5million, most of whom are unknown. Ergo they are turning the screw to make private LLs sell up, it will turn tighter yet. Solves another problem of the "housing crisis". The market floods with former BTL properties. Prices will come down and there will be lots of availability and choice for people trying to get on the housing ladder. Win Win Win for HMG. Less headache, more tax, housing crisis aleviated.

From: Matthew Payne 10 January 2020 13:53 PM

Its a good point from an animal lover Kathryn. I think noone is tackling the elephant in the room that you have teased out. Damage is a gaurantee with even well behaved cats and dogs, there is no avoiding it. Perhaps not to the extent you describe, but anyone who has had cats and dogs at home know that furniture, carpets, paintwork, window/door cills, doors etc all suffer. At home you tolerate it, its your home, your pets. It doesnt mean you will tolerate other peoples pets in an investment property and foot the bill to rectify. It is not about the pets, it is about how these dilaps are remedied, so if HMG say no cleans, small deposits, no remedy, then of course all landlords will say, sorry no pets. This might even extend to young children if they arent careful, that will play out in months to come, but I cant see landlords wanting redecorate family homes every 2 years as all the walls have been scribbled on.

From: Matthew Payne 09 January 2020 10:49 AM

Let's see what the proposal is before we pass judgment, it may well be just some recommended wording that HMG would like to see people adopt so they have been seen to do their bit. I don't see how HMG can force Landlords to accept pets. Firstly, they have shot themselves in the foot capping deposits and banning contractual cleaning obligations. Many landlords would happily accept pets if they had some comfort on a larger deposit and a guaranteed pro clean. Many landlords are still accepting pets to accoomdate tenants but have been forced to charge pet rents to get this comfort. Secondly, such meddling would actually have the opposite effect intended. Forced to choose, a landlord would reject every tenant with a pet if they had no remedy on dilaps. At the moment the pet rent is a workable solution that tenants and landlords are happy with. HMG interference would mean tenants with pets would have even less choice. A landlord can reject a tenants offer for a variety of reasons, and in fact doesnt even have to give one, so I dont see how a ban on rejecting pets can be enforced. Thirdly, many purpose built properties have lease restrictions on larger pets, cats & dogs, and where there are not there are knock on implications for block managers and then landlords on communal areas which will require more cleaning and maintenance. Will all the flats in a block be happy to see their service charges rise to cover this when they are owner occupiers?

From: Matthew Payne 07 January 2020 10:09 AM

Breaking News