x

Matthew Payne

Business & Property Consultant

1442 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 or on 07970 773 847.

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

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