x

Kristjan Byfield

13287 Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Kristjan's Recent Activity

Personally I don't feel we need the government to mandate any one system, we have a marketplace becoming increasingly diverse- some do cash deposits, some do alternative products and some have forgone deposits all together in return for a slightly higher rent. The licensed cash schemes are looking at a 'passporting' solution where the majority of a deposit can be transferred to another property whilst deductions are finalised also reducing outlay. A marketplace with options where the landlord & tenant can choose what solution they want is the best for all concerned.

From: Kristjan Byfield 30 October 2019 10:47 AM

We were quite frankly staggered by Airbnb's 'not our problem, talk to the host' approach when we advised them the property was being illegally sub-let. Their attitude and (lack of) action was clear evidence that they are complicit in these actions and actually enable them. Unbeknown to us, the sub-letting had caused misery to several neighbours for months before we discovered the situation and commenced action. The tenants that did this think this is all over for them- that is not at all the case as our client will be pursuing them through the courts for his losses once we have finalised what those exactly are having secured a new tenancy. With increasing legislation across PRS the government need to legislate across all markets otherwise the very miscreants targetted by this legislation will simply move to a nother market-sector where they can act largely as they see fit- in this instance the short let market. I am not against short lets but it should be regulated (in line with PRS) and stock levels limitted to avoid negative impacts on general housing market supply. Airbnb must also be held to account for its role in matters and be forced to act more diligently or fined heavily when seen to be facilitating an illegal sub-let.

From: Kristjan Byfield 28 October 2019 11:58 AM

Part of this problem is that ownership is still portrayed as somehow better than renting. The second has less to do with rent levels and more to do with the fact that the average London property price for FTBs is around x12 the median salary here.

From: Kristjan Byfield 29 July 2019 10:51 AM

Wouldn't it have been really great if Katie, after posing as a tenant, had called those same agents back as a journalist and spoken to the owner/managers to better understand why there is such an issue. The media are quick to suggest that landlords & agents are simply being discriminatory without understanding the structural underpinning that creates this mess. Shame.

From: Kristjan Byfield 21 May 2019 11:20 AM

Do these figures take in to account renewals? If properties are being re-let without going on the open market surely this would create the impression of a shrinking market. I cant speak for anyone else but our August was up nearly 20% on last years letting figures and was our best ever month for new business.

From: Kristjan Byfield 20 September 2018 10:39 AM

Who were the agents? If they were so bad why not name & shame? How were these agents selected- did they target bad agents intentionally? Don't rate an entire industry of around 20k agents on the experience with 30. Grrrrrrrr.

From: Kristjan Byfield 05 July 2018 11:24 AM

Did the tenants completing this review understand that the alternate products charge a fee that is not refundable and that, under those, the tenants are still liable for any and all damages typically claimed from a deposit? Also, that some require a renewal fee each year they are at a property? Deposit free renting is an alternative but is not quite as simple as tenants think from the name of the product.

From: Kristjan Byfield 05 April 2018 10:35 AM

I always feel a great way to win over potential clients is to call the way they conduct themselves professionally as bonkers.

From: Kristjan Byfield 26 March 2018 10:46 AM

Most agents and landlords do not discriminate benefit tenants for reason pf 'class' but find it hard to fully vet the fiscal risks and admin headache that often comes with them. The three key issues are that: 1 councils pay rent in 28 day sums in arrears rather than monthly in advance causing an accounting headache for many as well as a months (further) delay in income 2 If the benefits are found to be fraudulently/inaccurately claimed the landlord must immediately return all applicable funds to the council and then pursue the tenant through the courts (which if the need support is largely pointless) 3 councils still by and large require a benefit tenanted to be evicted before they can be housed elsewhere. As such, how can an agent/landlord opt for a benefit tenant over a professional/private income one with these risks? It's not bonkers, its business sense. The councils can make some easy tweaks to make their tenants potentially more attractive than private tenants- underwrite/guarantee all applicable rent and damages, offer free legal assistance in pursuit of arrears and eviction matters. These changes would solve the issue for many.

From: Kristjan Byfield 26 March 2018 10:45 AM

Average rent in London is around £450 pw amounting to a deposit of £2700 but average tenancy has 3 people so £900 per person. Not cheap but not as dramatic as this article likes to make out. As for K&C residents shelling out over £8k- I don't think people paying £1200+ per week in rent are too worried about affordability factors. Would be nice to see DLighted take a slightly less scaremongering approach to its pieces once in a while.

From: Kristjan Byfield 20 March 2018 10:35 AM

The Noddle article actually went on to say that tenants have to save up to 4 months to get on the rental ladder, not that it was impossible. It also ignored the fact that, whilst the average deposit is around £1,000 the average tenancy has 2-3 people actually making the deposit around £333-500. Credit score issues would not be resolved by a 'no deposit' solution (if that was the main reason for decline) and this can be worked around with a Guarantor or the simple explanation that their credit score is low because they have zero debt- most Landlords would like that advantage.

From: Kristjan Byfield 07 February 2018 11:53 AM

7% of the population have bought in the last 7 months? I call BS. Intrigued to know what size survey they have extrapolated this from.

From: Kristjan Byfield 22 November 2017 11:06 AM

Based on that he's only making £260 pw in rent which is very low for London- sounds like he'd be better off doing long term- more rent, less voids, less hassle.

From: Kristjan Byfield 14 November 2017 11:13 AM

As agents and landlords know all too well- when you look at the risk involved in terms of the possible rent void when evicting a non-paying tenant and/or the possible damage an unruly one can cause, asking tenants to part with £1,000 (or more) is not really that much to ask. Whilst references can tell you so much, holding a sizeable amount of Tenant cash is a useful leverage to have should things start to go awry. What is also concerning is the questions over the genuine value to the tenants that some of these schemes offer- and it is essential that tenants are very clear on what they are and aren't getting under what is being offered. For instance, I am aware of one scheme where, should a tenant contest a deduction and it 'fail' they are charged a fee of £120 + VAT. One of the large selling points is the reduced admin placed on agents however the tail-end process of check outs, deductions and the process involved remain (by and large) unchanged. As such, the savings are at the start of the process- but those with good systems in place know this is not the onerous part of deposits. Of course, I would say this, as I am building The Depositary which is focusing heavily on the tail-end system.

From: Kristjan Byfield 03 October 2017 16:01 PM

If personal debt is spiralling then surely this supports the need for cash deposits. Almost all deposit replacement schemes work on the basis that the tenant pays 1 week's rent but is still liable for the full 6 week liability of the deposit (and of course liability beyond that under the tenancy agreement). However, this will have to be money which, if needed, they will need access to. If debts are ever higher, suggesting that savings are non-existent, then surely you want as much as possible set aside to be accessed as needed- not to have to chase a tenant that no longer has that money available. Or am I missing something here?

From: Kristjan Byfield 26 September 2017 11:33 AM

Only worth it if enforced and most of these regs are already in place and arent being enforced anyway. About as useful as the LRS (London Retal Standard)- sounds nice, means little. Councils need to stop releasing soundbites and put effectove legislative compliace checks in place.

From: Kristjan Byfield 13 July 2017 15:16 PM

This is still predicated on having a tenant that spends all of that money (that they wouldn't otherwise have) leaving nothing in their bank account creating a high risk situation underpinned by reports of escalating household debt. I still don't understand this argument.

From: Kristjan Byfield 05 July 2017 09:24 AM

This isn't your typical Landlord- a single, large site brings with it huge efficencies fo management. They also manage the whole processs in house enabling them to save on additional costs such as agents. Combine those two things and they can probably offset this risk against boosted margins. What is more, they have probably calculated that, charge no deposit but increase rent's slightly and the boosted income will cover the average claims. Tenants are still contractually liable so not a crazy move- but only works on this sort of scale & set up.

From: Kristjan Byfield 26 May 2017 10:09 AM

Oooops. Indeed.

From: Kristjan Byfield 23 May 2017 13:47 PM

Ondeed. Dare I say it, there are a lot of similarities to the 2007 due to a combination of over-heated rental and sales prices and all the (known) mitigating factors. Hold on to your hats people!

From: Kristjan Byfield 23 May 2017 13:47 PM

The only way this would be feasible is if the government licensed our sector (agents and landlords) and ring-fenced those funds for rigorous enforcement (there is no way they will massively re-structure the regulations otherwise). However, since successive goverments have made clear for 20+ years, they have no interest in licensing our industry. Whilst onerous, the vast majority of the legislation isnt that complex and letting agents can easily wrap their head around it with suitable training. For Landlords, however, especially those with 1-2 properties, this is not a 9-5 for them and the time commitment to understage the legislation and ensure compliance is simply not viable- or even possible. The simpelst way forward in this regard is the application of tech. A comprehensive regulatory compliance engine is what is needed to power the back-end of a myriad of applications which can be used by agents, landlords, tenants and enforcement bodies (as well as suppliers to all these sectors) making compliance easy and eliminating a lot of the burden of training. This, in turn, will drive up standards and the perception of our sector. It will also show private Landlords the true value of professional letting agents in today's heavily regulated marketplace and should push a sizeable percentage in to service offerings of one shape or another. I recognised this a while back and we have begun building just such a platform which we have called The Depositary. The platform is, by no means, complete as the amount of legislation to build in (and the varying measures for countries & counties) will take time however we have made a good start and plan to launch our first release in the coming weeks/months. We are looking to work with @ 20 agent branches over this Summer to make sure the platform delivers as we hope and, if all goes well, will start rolling out across England from Oct/Nov. From there we will be constantly developing and growing the platform as we add in further regulations both for England but also to deliver compliance platforms across Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It's certainly not the sexiest topic but we are really excited about what we have been working on. We have worked hard to look at it from all 3 viewpoints (agents, landlords and tenants) and think we have built something that's effective and efficient.

From: Kristjan Byfield 10 May 2017 09:49 AM

Yet another poll, no doubt with leading questions, to create a report to serve a PR message. What is worrying with online offerings for lettings is the questions over how they can ensure that all 400+ legalities are met. How do they fulfil Right to Rent check obligations? I can see no mention of warning ober HMO legislation, Legionnaires checks, Smoke & CO checks and the such like. Whilst the rise of online in sales is one thing, the rise of the online Letting Agent raises some very dangerous questions. A common theme of message is the fact that they deliver better services to both Landlord and Tenant with 'increased transparency' however it appears to me that they are actually creating a much more dangerous rental market for Tenants and Landlords alike with it being impossible for them tpo fulfil their duties of complete compliance to both parties whilst also failing to educate said parties in theor rights and responsibilities. Very worrying indeed.

From: Kristjan Byfield 26 April 2017 12:28 PM

Is it really that high? I can find only 2 on our entire database

From: Kristjan Byfield 15 February 2017 13:21 PM

I'd love to see these surveys quantified. How many completed the survey? How did they choose and approach the tenants surveyed? This article makes out that most Tenants in Hackney are livind in cold properties where I can be adamant this is not trhe case at all. These issues do need to be addressed but why do they have to write a report (udsually based on a handful of research) with market-wide assumptions.

From: Kristjan Byfield 10 February 2017 16:28 PM

With most Tenants paying bills how useful is this?

From: Kristjan Byfield 22 December 2016 13:51 PM

This article, and the comment from David, all point to the lowest common denominator. The agent that charges as much as possible yet does as little. These agents, whilst seemingly reputable, continue to do untold damage to the industry in the prsuit of lazy profits but do damage the perception of the industry and endanger its future. That said, any Landlord that has ever used a good agent will know just how much value they add in terms of rents acheived (in most cases agents acheive higher rents covering most, if not all, of their fees), reduced voids and the professional handling of all issues from compliance to trick issues. Much like the 'threat' of online agents, if you give a great service and constantly look to improve and innovate then you really have nothing to worry about.

From: Kristjan Byfield 14 December 2016 14:36 PM

Personally think that London will stay very flat next year in rent values. History has shown that a soft sales market (especially under economic pressure) also suppresses rent levels with Tenants concerned of job security seeking to reduce ongoing (contractual) commitment and limiting financial commitment- thereby resisting rent increases. WE have already seen this this year with average rent increase of around 3.5% reduced to around 1% this year.

From: Kristjan Byfield 07 December 2016 13:25 PM

Take it this means that next up mortgage application fees will be banned. After all, that is charging someone to assess if you can offer them a product which makes money- and these vary much like Tenant fees do across the country. Suuuurely on this logic, the bank/lender should cover this cost no?

From: Kristjan Byfield 23 November 2016 11:31 AM

This is a very strange article. Cant say I have ever come across this attitude from Tenants- in the rare occasions something goes mising its usually accidental and is promptly returned. Cant say Ive ever rented a property out with its own beehive nor have I had a property handed back with no sink. Much like the eschewed stats regurgitated by Shelter to get across a point DL are clearly trying to terrify Landlords in to taking out insurance. Can any other agents out there genuinely substantiate this attitude from Tenants? Especially at the scale reported and blatant attitude to go with it? As always it would be nce to know more about the DL survey- how many did they survey? Where were the surveys geographically? How was the pool collated?

From: Kristjan Byfield 14 October 2016 12:15 PM

So a few thoughts on this.... Lost Interest- what interest? If you are really lucky you might have a special saver acc offering 2% so working to £1500 that a whopping £30. However, thats an account where you cant touch/use that money. Accounts with rewady access currently pay no interest. People need money- this pitch is working on the premise that tenants should spend every penny they have and not have any savings, anywhere, ever. How many Tenants would treat their property with considerably less care if they knew there was nothing for them to lose? What this (and reposit) also skip over is the Tenants have to pay a fee for this product which is considerably more than the average deduction. So whilst this product 'frees up their deposit' it actually costs the tenants more in typical costs.

From: Kristjan Byfield 28 September 2016 10:21 AM

With lenders driving down available equity and driving up the required return are Landlords left with any chpice but to push for rent increases every year?

From: Kristjan Byfield 05 July 2016 09:47 AM

But lets make the eviction process longer, more costly and more complicated- that makes sense! What is more, with children living there, how the hell were Child services not notified/involved n this disgrace!?

From: Kristjan Byfield 01 July 2016 12:31 PM

Also- this article appears to be more about the manutfacturing standards NOT of testing. No Landlord or Agent will be doing labortaory tests- they will use the test function and MAYBE do a CO test (highly unlikely). Isnt this about the UK/EU needing to tighten manufactirung standards on safety equipment?

From: Kristjan Byfield 21 June 2016 15:15 PM

National statistics show around 40 deaths, 200 hospitalisations and around 4,000 treatments for CO- however, with the rental industry so strongly regulated, I'd love to know what percentage of these relate to those and what relate to to private homes (where there are no maintenance/upkeep regs) or other settings such as tourism sites. However, if the property specifications require a CO alatm then they DO require annual testing- although (after the initial check) this can be got around by ensuring you keep records of requesting tgenants to test on an annual basis.

From: Kristjan Byfield 21 June 2016 15:13 PM

Importantly there have been loads of surveys about this and it's not what most Tenants want. Most tenants move several times in their first 10 years of renting as they decide where they want to live and their career progresses allowqing them to move up the rental ladder. We could introduce longer leases which, like Europe, could be structired more like commercial leases with more upkeep placed on the tenant but lower rent (as lower cost liabiloty to Landlord) and everyone might be happy...?

From: Kristjan Byfield 10 March 2016 11:12 AM

More statistcs with little substance- I would love to know the number of Tenants surveyed. More often than not these are tiny surveys giving nonsense statistics that are then stated as a national fact. The bottom line is- have quality contracts, make sure you meet all regs and either employ a managing agents that does inspections or commit to do them yourself (or pay an Inventory company to undertake them for you). We visit our entire managed portfolio 3 times during a 12 month tenancy and that is on top of the start and end inspections- so our managed properties get checked on typcally 4 times every 12 months. Tenants feel well cared for but also know they wont get away with any breaches of contract such as smoking, sub-letting, etc.

From: Kristjan Byfield 25 February 2016 11:21 AM

Increasingly rare in London, we actually used to accept DSS Tenants and had several very successful tenancies. However, the councils have made this increasingluy difficult in an effort to alienate private Landlords. Their rental payments are a nightmare for accounting as they insist on paying in 4 week cycles instead of calendar month like everyone else. What is more, with limited housing and a long waiting list, the likelihood of a DSS Tenant being rehoused at another DSS property without the Landlord/Agent having ti go through eviction proceedings is next to nothing. As such, what Landlord wants to take a Tenant when so much is stacked against them. The council teams are also incredibly rude and aggressive to agents and Landlords alike- we have a DSS tenant with mental health issues whi is damaging a property whilst making false claims and all that happens is we get very aggressive threatening letters from the council. After 10 years f accepting DSS tenants we stopped in Jan 2015 after too many bad experiences- not with tenants but with councils.

From: Kristjan Byfield 25 February 2016 10:51 AM

Id love to see the 16% unsafe homes statistic quantified- after obver 15 years doing this job I dont think I could equate even 0.5% of the properties I have seen to this category. What is unfortunate is that I do support the move and the Conservatives should be ashamed (although this government is clearly shameless) but Tenant rights groups need to make sure what they state is accurate. When I read claims like this it just leads me to right the group off as I simply cant take them seriously.

From: Kristjan Byfield 13 January 2016 10:58 AM

We used to accept Tenants on Housing Benefits until the start of 2015. The main reason for this shift was not the advice by councils to be 'evicted' (this was mitigated by having a suitable Guarantor in place) but the fact that Councils made it so difficult to process a tenancy application with so many forms and their 4 week (insted of monthly) rental payments is a nightmare for accounting.

From: Kristjan Byfield 12 January 2016 14:22 PM

As long as you have proof access was denied there is nothing any legal authority can do in this regard. Also, vacating the property does not release them of the financial commitment to reimburse you for damages caused. If you have suitable insurance you should be able to have had mist, if not all, of the work covered under the policy and then sought full reimbursement from the Tenants. Now, you would almost certanly have had to accepted a repayment plan but, as you should only be out the excess, over time you end up actually substantially 'in pocket'.

From: Kristjan Byfield 12 January 2016 14:20 PM

I am sorry but this is not new information. This is the approach the council has taken for many, many years. This, importantly, ONLY applies to Tenants needed social housing. Whilst this is horrible for the Landlords (we have had 3 such incidents in 12 years) this aproach is logical as it ensures only those most in need get housed. Thse with other options (family/friends/cheaper areas/lower budgets) move sooner. If you ensure you have a quality Rent Warranty (usually about £100 for 12 months cover) then you get up to 6 months rent cover which would cover the time needed to evict the tenants. Another way to mitigate the issues is to have a Guarantor on all tenancies- but not always that practical.

From: Kristjan Byfield 12 January 2016 14:17 PM

Shock- Landlords are disappointed at paying more tax and intend (hope) to spend as little as possible on their properties. Seriously? Tomorrow I am opening a new research company that will announce other staggering statistics such as- agents want more stock, landlords want less repairs, tenants want lower rents and other ground breaking findings.

From: Kristjan Byfield 20 November 2015 12:13 PM

At less than an extra £3 per week, and when you factor the potential consequnces (poor work, paint on other surfaces, poor paint products, 'interesting' colour selections, etc) this really is a nonsense article! Most Landlords will happily let a Tenant paint their property on the basis that an agreement is reached on colours, that an agreement is reached on what is considered an 'acceptable job' and most Landlords will happiy cover all materials costs (and maybe even some money for their labours). Bizarre piece of writing.

From: Kristjan Byfield 18 November 2015 12:50 PM

EJ Harris need to be very careful here. By securing more than 2 months rent as a deposit the legal framework of a tenancy shifts with the Tenants permitted to sub-let the property without the Landlord's consent. We house a lot of Tenants with pets and simply ask for an extra 2 weeks (8 instead of 6)- the reality is, yes, a dog can cause damage but no more than a bad Tenant. The Landlord still has contractual cover for any iable damages above and beyond the deposit and there are insurances for Tenants with pets so you can require that as a safe guard too.

From: Kristjan Byfield 13 October 2015 10:30 AM

Biggest gripe with people wishing to buy a Ferrari is the price. Interestingly we almost never lose an instruction over fee structure- what clients want is value not cheap. However, choose an agent based on who gives the lowest fee and, surprise surprise, you get bad service. As for valuations, in my experience most agents are accurate with aggressive firms pricing high to Land instructions- clients dont question why one agent says a property is worth 20% more than three others but then complains when it doesnt sell/let quickly.

From: Kristjan Byfield 05 October 2015 12:03 PM

Breaking News