x

Matthew Payne

Business & Property Consultant

3217 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

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