x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button
Matthew Payne
Matthew Payne
Business & Property Consultant
1945  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

Matthew Payne
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

Matthew Payne

From: Matthew Payne 24 September 2020 11:17 AM

Matthew Payne

From: Matthew Payne 29 July 2020 12:40 PM

Matthew Payne
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

Matthew Payne
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

Matthew Payne

From: Matthew Payne 09 July 2020 12:17 PM

Matthew Payne

From: Matthew Payne 26 June 2020 15:36 PM

Matthew Payne
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

Matthew Payne
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

Matthew Payne
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

Matthew Payne
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

Matthew Payne
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

Matthew Payne
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

Matthew Payne

From: Matthew Payne 29 January 2020 12:54 PM

Matthew Payne

From: Matthew Payne 15 January 2020 11:02 AM

Matthew Payne

From: Matthew Payne 07 January 2020 10:09 AM

Zero Deposit Zero Deposit Zero Deposit