x

Henry S

Landlord

602 Profile Views

About Me

small landlord

my expertise in the industry

landlord

Henry's Recent Activity

Far too few proposed changes, and Minister Jacob Young has been sent a list of others needed, by an MP I wrote to. Still now, all I got back was Jacob Young's letter, meant to be a reply?, ignoring all of my points (over 70 paras.) and just saying how good the Government was in its stupid RRB. With muppets like him as ministers, to quote the old Dad's Army phrase "we're all doooomed". (That's tenants, especially the hard-working poorer ones without rich parents that Labour also ought to be thinking about- like NHS and Care staff, and landlords.)

From: Henry S 15 April 2024 08:52 AM

5 year tenancies -by mutual agreement- is what many renters wanted, so they could be sure of living in the same home while children at school. But then we got the Renters (Reform) Bill which will allow tenants to stay as long as they like, unless we sell or accommodate a CLOSE relative. I know which of the two I'd prefer (and probably wouldn't mind a 5 year, after an initial 6 month 'test' one first). My house tenants recently left just before their S21 period expired, after 8 years: but the state they left it I assume to be Revenge For Eviction, not Revenge Eviction. Lazy idiots. If you had a new tenancy comprising a family of three adults all with posh German cars in coastal West Sussex in March... There really ought to be a rogue tenants database, to go along with the RRB one for rogue landlords: that's discrimination for you.

From: Henry S 15 April 2024 08:42 AM

A good analogy Daniel. Far better than the hire/lease car one that had occurred to me.

From: Henry S 07 March 2024 21:35 PM

Agree with you Wendy. Although there are some tenants who want longer tenancies, safe from s21 eviction, to make sure they had the same home and don't get chucked out of it while their kids are at school (particularly if the only place to move to could be a long way from that school). I can sort of see their point, but it doesn't require s21 abolition. Instead, quite simply, tenants and landlord could agree say a 5 or 6 year tenancy, perhaps after the initial 6 months shorthold. And it could be good for a landlord to know the tenants would stay for the say 5 or 6 years, possibly longer by agreement, either agreed initially, of during the period if things were going well. Which could cover the situation and everyone would know where they stand. And it wouldn't be the forever open-ended, one-sided loss of control many landlords fear.

From: Henry S 07 March 2024 21:31 PM

Simon, actually decades ago, Local Planning Authorities of all colours used to refuse planning permission for new homes in flood plains. Then Mrs. Thatcher (though she made some better choices later) appointed her Transport Secretary Nicholas Ridley (we called 'Old Nick' as in the Devil) as Environment Secretary: he stopped councils refusing permission for housing on floodplain grounds. If they tried he would over-rule them and make them pay (costs). His stupid free-market, laissez-faire reasoning (I wouldn't call it logic) was that the market would stop people buying homes where there was a flood risk. As we anticipated, it didn't; and more people bought increasing numbers of homes, affected by more and more floods over time; which will happen again and again (likely with increasing frequency) for the probably hundreds of years these homes may last. (Don't bank on the Environment Agency having money to build defences, they can't do all they need to now and so are having to give up some land areas to the sea). In the end, it is all of us insured people who continue to pay for this -completely foreseeable- gross Ridley mistake, through the Flood Re reinsurance scheme; not the long-dead culprit (or his party). Unlike s21, the loss of which may be reversed in coming years (like the 1988 Housing Act reversed the Rent Acts), it is hard to see how this will be resolved-completely impractical when you think about it. The article does actually say that some homes can be flood-defended, or built to avoid worse effects (I know some different examples which don't rely on 'last-ditch' stopping water lapping at the door). In the past certainly, flood risk maps didn't always reflect the true flood risk, which MAY explain Peter WDIB's experience. I own a couple with some degree of flood risk according to the maps, but haven't flooded in 50 years. For new developments, the actual risk is (or should be) ascertained on a site by site basis during the planning application process. (Though we do know developers' sales teams aren't always transparent - like with previously contaminated land.) But as the last paragraph of the article implies, this may change in the future; and storm return periods (e.g. 1 in 100 years) become closer together/more frequent with climate change (some already 'baked-in'). If you choose to believe that it isn't (at least in part) man-made, or that mankind can do nothing-at-all to reduce the ill-effects, go argue that with the hundreds of thousands clever scientists: don't bother me! Sorry, I had enough before retirement. I had hoped to build a new house for rent (not a high-storey shoe-box BTR) with s21 in place. If sense prevails I still might, to make up for the loss of the house I've recently had to serve a s21 on on before we loose it. In any case, I don't like at all the sort of version of the Future Homes Standard we probably should be having to meet; not yet accepted by the politicians. While understanding the reasoning, my blame and annoyance is reserved for those who bequeathed us the mess by varying degrees/stages of denial in the past. As the old adage says; "a stitch in time saves nine". This could gave been avoided! Readers will know how s24 and s21 are a slow-motion 'car crash'. I've seen the other looming car crash coming over decades. Lastly, if the figure of new homes subject to flood risk -without mitigation- are as high as may be implied by the article, one wonders if the buyers and their legal advisers are checking out properly the risks and differing causes/types of flooding (pluvial, fluvial, groundwater, tidal/coastal etc.). Having commissioned one, I'd check a local Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) as one information source if I were to buy new property. Though now it is sell, rather than buy.

From: Henry S 23 February 2024 23:08 PM

Heard yesterday the moving out date of the family of working adults I had to give s21 notice to (gave them a bit over the minimum 2 months). That was directly as a result of the Minister's non-reply (just a general 'aren't we great' type letter) to the numerous points I put to one of my MPs: I didn't get any assurance the RRBill wouldn't be changed. Also, the risks of what a new Govt. would do. To give credit, I just learned that the MP has passed my not-at-all happy response to the Minister's useless letter back to him (Jacob Young) for proper answers - if he can. My chaser may not be comfortable reading for DLUHC: I don't like being patronised or 'fobbed-off'. My original was over 70 paragraphs of points, RRB omissions, and unintended consequences: likely to harm both landlords and tenants; and help no-one. The all working adult family has found somewhere else, so won't be homeless. But I guess someone else lower down the tenants 'pecking order' (e.g. lower income and/or with non-working dependents) won't fare as well. Hope the supposedly tenant assisting charities are happy with the results of their s21 campaigning. I may send this to the chief executive of one I complained to about his past inaccurate comment about the effects of s21, as I have his e-mail address from the excuse reply he tried (which itself contained an un-thinking glaring fault).

From: Henry S 21 February 2024 12:18 PM

My guess is the 1,000 Llds they spoke to were all from their own client database (easy to contact and a cheap to do 'survey'). Likely including those currently looking for or considering a mortgage. So not representative of landlords in general. Goes against other figures we've seen; including reputable (I recall ONS) ones showing: -lowest number of rental acquisitions; and - second lowest number of rentals sales (highest was in the preceding survey/last year).

From: Henry S 21 February 2024 11:43 AM

Get in touch with Environmental Health dept. of your local council, to see if/what any action might be taken on noise/disturbance grounds. They may claim a shortage of staff and be unwilling to act; but part of the idea is to ascertain what they might do, and what rules are being broken. (They may know of other potential rules in such circumstances - unlikely to be the first they've had complaints about.) Not sure, but the number of children being cared/childminded for may be under a number of kids threshold for town planning enforcement action being taken. (Don't know if they need to be registered to operate with an official body: if they were you could possibly complain. You could always Google childminding rules) Armed with knowledge of what rules they may be breaking, go to the landlord and urge him to take action under Section 21 of the 1988 Housing Act. Under that section the landlord doesn't have to give/state a reason for eviction (unlike section 8). Do section 21 ASAP, before it is abolished by this Government or the next one. Say to Landlord (and anyone official you approach how it is affecting your health) and to the Landlord that if he/she gets rid of the current tenants such is the demand for rented property they might get a better replacement tenant who may be better for the landlord to deal with (guessing from what you say they are not ideal tenants). AND if re-let then the landlord is likely to be able to demand a higher rent. Best if landlord does this before general election (either well before May 2nd of Autumn election). Which is why I served a Section 21 about a month ago (giving time for eviction if tenants don't leave within the 2 months S21 notice period). Presumably you have already tried Citizens Advice for helpful advice? Does your insurer have a free legal advice helpline? If so may be also worth a try before approaching the landlord. All ammunition to encourage the landlord to act (as s/he will likely take some financial 'hit' in the short term between existing and a new tenancy). As this thread is quite old there may be limited input from other readers: hence me writing something that hopefully helps. I just happened to have subscribed to links.

From: Henry S 15 February 2024 14:36 PM

There may be a faint possibility they learn from the apparently large increase in s21 notices being served, due to past landlord bashing and now the RRB proposals. For which they will be left picking up the pieces, somehow (no idea how they might). Though their ideology would be the socially rented sector instead of the PRS, even if they can, it will take years to build enough; and where will they get the money from anyway? One time to wish for the mother of all flip-flops.

From: Henry S 10 February 2024 10:40 AM

Energy Savings Trust figures for typical Solar panels: cost =£7,000; saving p.a. = £545; payback period =12+ years. But who is still going to be a landlord in over 12 years time? Only hope would be that the investment is reflected in selling price or property, and I'm not sure about that. I may add PV to the new roof shape of the house I've recently served a s21 on. As I am doing an entirely new roof it is a sensible time to do it. Should get a good price on the sale either way (before the CGT); but not sure yet how much having PV will add to that, or even if it would cover the £7k outlay. I won't be doing a heat pump; boiler is only 2 years old anyway.

From: Henry S 09 February 2024 13:06 PM

Tens of thousands of scientists say climate change is real and a growing threat to humankind, compared to Lord Monkton - who? When the world is struggling to keep climate increase to 1.5 degrees, 0.6 of a degree doesn't sound too bad. Even 0.3 degrees would be better than nothing. Or is that the alternative - do nothing and suffer more in the future? The way science works, as scientists point out, is if one of them could demonstrably prove climate change to be a hoax, they would become very famous and incredibly rich (e.g. well funded by fossil fuel companies). I've seen a lot about China building new coal powered plants; but little mention that they install more solar than the whole of Europe, or all of the USA. This is explained as them wanting energy of any sort to power their economy and huge population (okay their economy not doing so well recently). They have a 2050 target, and with their non-dissent regime may well meet it. Some of the things/changes we are being told we'll need to do to try to limit climate change are unappealing. Which makes it really annoying is that we've known about climate change for over 30 years (Margaret Thatcher was quite right on it, heard her speech again by chance last month - pity she couldn't persuade her party). So could have taken easier and overall cheaper taken steps to reduce it earlier: things we are doing now anyway, but a lot harder, inconvenient, and more disruptive as we are having to do them late. Massive cuts to home insulation immediately after the Coalition Government came back to bite us with recent gas price hikes and having to pay far more. We've know about security of supply issues since the 1970s oil price shock, but the climate change denying views ignored that (together with -at least- likely damaging effects on climate, higher insurance costs of flooding, expensive flood defences that cannot keep up with the likely changes etc). So reliance on gas and oil funded Putin's regime: war in Ukraine and his other 'interventions', whether direct or via his Wagner Group. I could be selfish, or not bother: the worst effects of climate change won't affect me in my lifetime. I could probably avoid the sustained/overnight high temperature effects on the elderly death rates, even without climate spiralling air-conditioning. And not face rebuke by children/grandchildren who will suffer the most. So one advantage of getting old sooner rather than later. Environmentally conscious people used to be labelled by the right wing press as 'treehuggers' at the nicest; also sandal-wearing, muesli-eating (possibly also one-legged lesbianss- sorry, not allowed to spell that correctly on here). I was none of these, and didn't even eat muesli back then (and not tofu now). But look at who is being proved right: un-happily smug :-) Large majority of UK population concerned about climate change and also want Government to do more to avoid it. Indications of what for-profit companies are doing can be seen from e.g. Trending Now- Sustainable Construction: weekly e-mails announcing large and expensive construction and power schemes. Have they all been hoaxed? Or are they investing for the future?

From: Henry S 07 February 2024 12:28 PM

When you say electric Matthew, do you have experience of Infrared - as my post below? Hydrogen, if 'green' hydrogen i.e. produced the right way, sounds good. But as you hint at ("stop gap") may be rather a long time away.

From: Henry S 07 February 2024 11:26 AM

Has anyone, in their own homes or in rentals, had experience of Infrared Heating? E.g. as an alternative to heat pumps and gas heating boilers. Supposed to be 100% efficient use of electricity, heating objects rather than the air/space. Also, I understand, as Infrared warms the surfaces of objects without warming the air, the relative humidity in the air remains low and when the air meets a warm surface, condensation does not occur. Said to be one of the primary benefits to buildings of Infrared Heating. At a Futurebuild or similar exhibition at ExCel a couple of years ago, they had two full size rooms heated that way. Were toasty warm, when in the main exhibition space you were comfortable going around with a coat/jacket on. Panels weren't obvious as blended into the walls (another benefit - no visible rads, but understand there are visible mirror panels available). But not seeing 'behind the scenes' I couldn't tell how many infrared panels they were using, nor running costs per room. Also, with apparent lack of trained people to do heat pumps, and other disbenefits commonly mentioned (like bigger rads), would installing Infrared heating be easier?

From: Henry S 07 February 2024 11:22 AM

Robert, Good points: thank you for setting them down. In my representations, I've said that if English s21 is to go and be replaced with not-very-beefed-up section 8 Grounds, then many/most section 8 Grounds need to be Mandatory. Also I've pointed out aspects of the needs of elderly or infirm landlords (who are still legally responsible even if agents act for them). Under current proposals, English landlords will be able to gain possession in order to sell-up (some are doing already anyway) or house a -CLOSE- family member. But that category is far too limited. Imagine trying to tell the proverbial mother-in-law that she isn't close enough to be classed as family! Or you won't be able to house one's only Auntie, now old and alone, who trusts you and has known you for 60 years, rather than some LLD she's not met. She even looked after you sometimes when you were a child. But you can't help her back. That's what the Renters (Reform) Bill implies: just two instances of how poorly thought-out it is. But Govt. think they are being fair to LLDs.

From: Henry S 06 February 2024 12:00 PM

Fortunately, more out of concern for the environment than tenants noticing lower bills (before Putin's gas price hikes - though after the warning given by the Oil Price shock of the 1970s), I got insulations installed when they were free! (From energy companies made to do them.) So all that was needed to get a Grade C for two was me fitting all LED bulbs. Other one will probably get a C when it is reassessed ready for sale! I'd like a good grade for that, even if only in case my ideal buyer is also conscious of the EPC grading. Lets not forget folks, a 10 year old "expired" EPC doesn't need to be reassessed, as long as the tenants haven't changed. And with the RRB and shortage of stock caused by loss of s21 etc. tenants will probably be staying a lot longer, if they can. I had two lots of agents trying to tell me I needed a new EPC because the old one had time-expired, even though same tenants still residing.

From: Henry S 05 February 2024 11:37 AM

Following on from Peter WDIB's problem with the guy he liked's "head falling off"... Without s21, or Section 8 being beefed up more than currently proposed in the RRB, how would one get rid of such a tenant? This links back to the mental health article here on Saturday's LLD Today and comments following it: -not all those who end up suffering mental health exhibit symptoms when they first move in. I had a nice tenant for 12 years who gradually developed dementia; becoming a danger to herself and my tenant upstairs (to both of whom I had a 'duty of care'). Because her son (living in the USA) knew I could use s21, though a bit in denial he arranged her move to a suitable care home; once I'd raised several concerns. With fingers crossed, I even let him have more time to find a suitable place. When I bought my first home, the elderly lady owner next door started going mad. Collecting shopping bags of rubbish from the town centre and bring them into her house. She was eventually "sectioned", after many visits from social services and sometimes police, but it took ages. Worrying, e.g. in case she accidentally set light to her house and fire spread to mine. If as a landlord with a tenant like that, I'd want at least the threat of s21 to get prompter action to get her into care accommodation. I've raised this sort of issue with 2 MPs now, one of whom (not allowed to speak in parliament being a deputy Speaker) sent my numerous concerns onto Jacob Young, the current Minister responsible for the RRB. His reply didn't address any of my detailed points: it was just a aren't we good non-reply. The other MP is a party whip for housing and levelling up, so claims they aren't allowed to speak on those issues; despite being on the Committee considering the RRB in detail (they rushed it and finished early). So pretty useless, and hasn't come back to me about my suggestions for the parliamentary questions that they are allowed to ask. There is one other MP I could legitimately approach, fortunately now no longer a Tory minister. But I wonder why bother, if I am just wasting my time. House of Lords stages of RRB might be better, but I guess too many Shelter no-one, Crisis-what Crisis?, Generation Rant, Acorn-brain, cronies in there. Hopefully a few landlords too though. But how to know who in the lords to approach? NRLA should be spotting and picking up these type of issues. One rental just got their s21 notice, and will be sold (no tenant could ever afford that one). Other pair I'd like to keep, partly for my older age. So under current RRB proposals, I could get them back when needed. But don't know if that provision will survive a Labour Government.

From: Henry S 05 February 2024 11:12 AM

I took the time to write to that committee when they were considering the White Paper that then formed the Renters (Reform) Bill. A complete waste of time. Didn't hear anything back apart from an acknowledgment. Looks like they just wanted to grandstand on TV and hear 'evidence' from NRLA Beadle and the usual collection of supposedly pro-tenant charities. They came to some conclusions, some of which then ignored by Government. One is now being pursued by a Conservative MP and a group of colleagues for when the Report Stage of the Bill happens; which was due around now, but won't be this week.

From: Henry S 30 January 2024 10:56 AM

45 years as an MP - and what has he done about it. That includes the whole time since the 1988 Housing Act. He could have put pressure on the council/s in his constituency to act repeatedly against the worst landlords (who do tenants and us landlords no favours) if he had evidence from his constituents. Have the problems he alleges somehow only come since the Tory and coalition governments? Otherwise what was he doing when supporting those of Blair and Brown: who didn't seek to abolish S21?

From: Henry S 29 January 2024 12:08 PM

Wonder if NRLA in their submission illustrated their points with practical examples like your excellent ones. Probably not. Paul Johnson of the IFS usually says a lot of sense: just like in the above article. E.g. when commenting on Budgets and future taxation and spending realities. Good and impartial. Nice when sense and honesty is so lacking among politicians. Even with the tax changes, I won't be buying unless S21 is sorted satisfactorily. So my planned small build-to-rent probably won't happen. Not even building it for sale as it would work best with very closely neighbouring rentals under my CONTROL as a landlord, when I can sort any neighbour issues that might occur.

From: Henry S 29 January 2024 11:49 AM

Its not just about the really bad tenants you want rid of ASAP (even Torbay might understand about those). It is the non-good, but not terrible, tenants one may have put up with in the past knowing you had S21 to use if they went too far and you got really fed up with them. (And you didn't want a void period an having to re-decorate.) With S21 going, whether by this Government (who aren't strengthening Section 8 adequately enough to make up for the loss) or the next one, it is politicians and the supposed pro-tenant charities/groups who are bringing matters to a head: not tenants or us. So we react rationally. For me: one s21 just served, when otherwise it wouldn't have been. A family will have to find somewhere else; good luck to them with that. Doubt they'll find anything as good as they currently have (and would never afford to buy). Through a complaint to my MP about many things that need improving to Section 8 if S21 is to go, I got an 'aren't we good' letter from Jacob Young MP (Minister responsible) which completely ignored all the matters I set out in detail. Now I've done a letter back to my MP, complaining about that non-response. Also pointing out that due to the Minister not addressing two of my specific concerns that I had since served the S21 notice. Making clear the Minister's poor performance and lack of action being directly related. In effect saying he's putting a family out of a home. Wonder how he'll try to answer that. But not holding my breath.

From: Henry S 29 January 2024 11:24 AM

Things that need fixing in my rentals = Zero Things that need fixing in my own house: quite a few, and some outstanding for quite a long time. E.g. All rentals re-wired, but my house not. But with a -RRB and s21 abolition inspired- Section 21 notice just been served, the sale proceeds will give me loads of money to do my own places up nicely. Not just what needs fixing and renewing, but several extras as well.

From: Henry S 24 January 2024 10:38 AM

"Landlords who do not wish to continue to operate their properties as HMOs can apply for Temporary Exemption Notices if they are able to bring the HMO use to an end within an agreed timeframe." Just how are they going to do that without s21? And if the Lld re-lets to a single person after removing a couple (to get under the three or more people in 2 or more households rule) how is a landlord without the threat of s21 going to make sure the new single person doesn't bring in a friend/partner, or a single mother have a baby (even if the father doesn't move in, the baby presumably counts as a person)? The Warwick scheme is to apply to "landlords with houses, converted flats or purpose-built flats". I've seen a south coast authority introduce a HMO scheme in its poorest housing standard Wards, and only for properties converted to flats with the Building regs. approval not being after a certain date (so older conversions to lower Regulations standards). But 'mission creep' will probably extend these limits. Looks like Llds with converted flats, or even purpose built flats in Warwick (can't see any justification for that, even if one might for older conversions) might want to look at selling up just to avoid licencing bureaucracy and fees. Or have I got this wrong?

From: Henry S 23 January 2024 11:42 AM

Here's what the Minister said to me... My MP, who as a Deputy Speaker cannot act as an MP should do, but passed my letter to MHLUC and got a reply from Jacob Young MP. Hadn't heard of him but he says he is the minister responsible for the RRB, not Lee Rowley. I'd set out my detailed concerns about various things a Lld can do under the threat of s21, which the Govt. isn't beefing up Section 8 to provide for. Like serving a notice on a tenant who gets dementia and becomes a danger to herself and the tenant upstairs (as happened to me and the USA based son knew I could use s21 if necessary). And also the need to make a number of Section 8 Ground Mandatory, not Discretionary. The reply back didn't, of course, answer my concerns in any way!!! It instead was a 'aren't we good letter' saying how the Govt. has listened to Lld concerns and made some changes: on student lets; not enforcing EPC grade C; and delaying s21 abolition until the courts get their act together. That was basically it, apart from some flannel about valuing good Llds. Another MP is a party Whip for housing and levelling up issues, so used that as an excuse not to act on my concerns as constituent, even though she was on the House of Commons Committee considering changes to the RRBill - useless. All she can do is ask parliamentary questions, so I'll investigate what might be gained if I spend time on that. In the meantime, two of my concerns which apply to a rental haven't been answered: their s21 notice came into effect today. Well done Jacob Young MP. You could easily have made/promised two simple changes to help Llds and tenants, but chose not to even answer/address the issues.

From: Henry S 20 January 2024 21:24 PM

Absolutely right Emily. And the article's text was referring to homeowners, including shortened to owners. Only the intro referred to landlords, presumably so it could appear on Landlord Today and garner comments. That is poor journalism / editing. Graham Norwood didn't specifically identify bits of the study that reported on landlord attitudes. Which presumably there might have been, having surveyed over 250 landlords as part of the study.

From: Henry S 19 January 2024 12:35 PM

The 'flame-haired one' has promised that s21 would be abolished on day 1 of a labour Government. I'm not sure how they can do that so quickly as it would be overturning primary legislation (not regulations made under legislation), and am sure they will have lots of other things they want to do very soon. But they may be able to suspend evictions, perhaps as a temporary measure until they can make s21 evictions permanent. They managed to do temporarily during Covid, and Scotland managed a temporary before permanent rent freeze. While not agreeing with everything he says, I think NVH may be proved to have been right in his previously expressed concerns about what Labour would do. So a s21 notice is being served today, to make sure of my best chance of eviction (if necessary) before a General Election, should it be on 2/5/24. Even though Sunak said he doesn't expect it to be that date, with an apparently earlier than usual Budget being on 6/3/24, and with some expected tax cuts (which won't reverse higher taxes due to frozen thresholds) they MAY decide to call it soon rather than wait until Autumn. I'm just not prepared to take the risk, and that Labour won't even strengthen section 8 as is currently being proposed. There are some in Labour who want to reform, not abolish s21. But they aren't being listened to above the clamour of the homeless charities (who are meant to prevent homelessness, not promote measures that will increase it) and Gove going for abolition.

From: Henry S 19 January 2024 11:43 AM

Please everyone... I've said on this site before... The interesting Michael Foley post includes "Solicitors advice as they said she couldn’t make a Will if she had nothing to leave". Please make a will even if you only have a couple of pennies to leave, unless you hate those you'll leave behind. My late partner (we weren't married or in civil partnership etc.) didn't make a will, because she didn't accept her cancer would be terminal: absolute denial. She owned very little, mainly just her clothes, ornaments, and a few hundred pounds in the bank; though had a small old life insurance policy. BUT the problems she left behind by not making a will were terrible for me and her two grown up children. So please, please make a will everyone. We have enough else to deal with in life. If you don't, then the law determines who gets what assets and money, but it is more hassle.

From: Henry S 16 January 2024 18:39 PM

Translation = Reducing valid grounds for objection when a planning application for a new housing estate is submitted and consultation takes place (usually the first time people hear about it). Design codes are now encouraged by Govt. in its national planning policy, anyway. Quality can be very variable. If you do hear about and take part in the "upstream" consultation i.e. when the council's Local Plan is being prepared, it is now more of a waste of time than it used to be. Government has rigged the public inquiry system in favour of just getting more land for houses allocated in the Plan, and starting from the assumption that the local authority's plan is correct, unless proved otherwise (found to be 'unsound'). Plans still need to be 'evidence based'. But the quality of the evidence can be complete rubbish. E.g. assuming a sustainable walking route, when in reality the footpath is only 0.5m wide, on one side (and not always the same side) of a busy 'B' road between 2 towns. Which is why you never see anyone walking along it. Also, a safe walking and cycling route along a narrow country lane (no footways or cycle lane) between 2 towns, which has no street lighting and is used as a 'rat run' by work vans at high speeds. Not having a death wish, I wouldn't dare walk along it; particularly on a dark winter late afternoon. Looks like the consultants producing this evidence hadn't even tried visiting the location, just worked off a map. I was at one Local Plan Public Inquiry hearing when I was the only person not being paid to be there. Yes, the 5 year land supply and targets bits would be just re-instating the current Government's previous policy, before it had to cave in to back bench pressure. Lots of people on here have said more homes need to be built: that cave in won't help. But it means rents will rise.

From: Henry S 15 January 2024 12:53 PM

Don't know if you heard Radio 4 Today programme yesterday: Burnham being interviewed. Interviewer mentioned Landlord Today and quoted directly to Burnham a striking/pithy comment that had appeared here about the proposals being bad. Burnham couldn't answer the valid points directly, only said that the NRLA backed his proposals. Which when you thought about it just showed how the NRLA doesn't really represent landlords.

From: Henry S 10 January 2024 11:05 AM

At least those selling ex-rentals then (Q2, Q3) will get an increased sale price, to make up for the increased CGT; with more to invest elsewhere or just spend on myself for once - I'd love a holiday, perhaps abroad. Perhaps it is true that every (RRB) cloud has a silver lining. Okay, that view is very selfish. But after the Government, opposition, my MP, national LLD bashing charities and even Citizens Advice Bureau now, making a complete mess and demonising LLDs; should I care anymore?

From: Henry S 02 January 2024 12:12 PM

Sam Reynolds has no idea in saying "Many landlords may understandably be apprehensive about pets within their rental property, but in many cases, a clear and upfront line of communication is the best plan of action for tenants when considering introducing a pet to their home.” BUT NO, tenants aren't going to do that: they are likely to wait until they are in and protected by the RRB provisions. I had tenants requesting pets after they'd moved in, pets they already had, but looked after at home by their parents (where they'd moved out from). They realised I could use S21 if necessary, so didn't try it on. But still caused much damage in less than 1 year. Other tenants paid extra deposits for 2 dogs, then moved in with 3 dogs (before the deposit cap). I guess that Sam Reynolds and other pro- pets in lets people haven't had to remove and dispose of years-old dog ur*ne-soaked carpets at the end of a tenancy like I have. [Incidentally which HMRC apparently class as a hobby or pastime as I can't pay myself for doing it.] I wonder if it would be reasonable under the new regime to only allow pets where there are laminate or other non-carpet floors throughout all of the property- something I wouldn't let out. Though that might be scratched to hell, and pee get into the joints.

From: Henry S 28 December 2023 12:20 PM

WRITE TO YOUR MP- really! A joke. Quite apart from the NRLA agreeing to S21 abolition and then trying to look good by encouraging Llds to use their template letters to MPs... I wrote to my MP, pointing out tenant demand increasing while supply decreasing, so rents rising resulting in harm to tenants. So I itemised a large number of changes still needed to the Bill: - which the Government has missed out from its 'beefed-up' Section 8 if S21 is to be lost; and - many things that would help Llds keep renting, like making Section 8 Discretionary Grounds to instead be Mandatory. - Also things I've mentioned here before like need for a 'divorce' ground if relationships break down irretrievably; and how to deal with a tenant who develops dementia and thus becomes a threat to themself and to other tenants. I made the considerable effort as she was actually one of the few MPs on the House of Commons Committee doing the detailed consideration at the Committee Stage (which I since heard from a good source who watched proceedings rushed through their consideration at the end, so getting it done a week before the 5/12/23 deadline). So she should have been on a very good position to propose changes, with no time pressure. Eventually I got a reply: she was the Labour Party Whip on the Committee; is still the Whip on all matters concerning Gove's Dept. (DLUHC), so she couldn't get involved! Either at Committee Stage, or any other like the report stage. Could hardly believe it. Instead she probably didn't want to get involved on the side of a Lld - even though I pointed out how it would help tenants (and used Jo Westlake's example of how use of S21 can help tenants in debt). I have doubts she bothered to even read my letter. But I bet she voted on amendments anyway, as long as in accordance with Labour Party Policy. In the past she has been a waste of time on local issues, also breaking General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR); making her liable for a formal complaint to Parliament which so far I have held off doing. An MP who has a valid excuse not to get directly involved in debates (one of the three MPs who are The Speaker and two Deputy Speakers) has -at least- sent my letter to DLUHC. I'll see if I get a reply, or a civil servant 'non-reply' reply. Another MP who has been relatively good in the past, and who is now free from being a Minister (and so tied to Government policy lines) hasn't got back to me yet. One to chase in the New Year. But he isn't standing at the next election. Ironically it may be a member of the unelected House of Lords who could be more help; that's if I can identify one who has an interest and who will give landlords a decent hearing. I'm trying hard, and it is taking loads of time. But it appears we are dealing with mindless/stupid/spineless muppets. So 2024 looks like the time to S21 the worst tenants, only tolerated as I've had S21 if things got really bad. [How I can approach 3 MPs is a long story, but legit.]

From: Henry S 27 December 2023 14:24 PM

And they don't seem to understand that they are insulting non-portfolio landlords (I guess they have some) by implying professionalism goes with that: "continuing professionalisation of the private rented sector. This is already apparent in the increasing number of portfolio landlords -" Some of us non-portfolio (less than 4) landlords have been shown to get things right when more than one lot of agents don't. I've done it on a few occasions - I took the time to check properly, not just assume. Even so called "accidental landlords" can become professional. particularly (but not exclusively) likely if they were a professional in another field first.

From: Henry S 16 December 2023 23:05 PM

Good to hear that you did those Michael, and to learn there is someone on here who did. Yes, insulation not seen as important then. But apart from the one-off you've done and mentioned in your reply below to Alison King; there is a valid point that enveloping schemes could be a good way of increasing insulation on lots of homes, e.g. in a terrace where a hotch potch of different attempts could look naff. And if all done individually this is probably likely to involve some cowboys who don't know how to do it properly/don't involve building surveyors or retrofit experts/assessors (I understand a new profession) or good architects who know the issues. BTW for anyone: Planners unlikely to want to get involved in internal alterations that don't affect external appearance (unless a listed building), like Michael swapping around rooms. Though obviously Building Regs. apply.

From: Henry S 16 December 2023 22:45 PM

Back in very old days there were HIAs and GIAs (Housing and General Improvement Areas) to refurb areas of original Victorian terraces. A popular technique was "enveloping" where all externals that needed doing (e.g. roofs and walls, replacing outside toilets, environmental improvements) across whole terraces and streets were done all in one go, I understand irrespective of tenure. I know as visited some such in Coventry 40 years ago with the chap that led them, and by that time they'd been done for years. Long-standing residents recognised and greeted him. So seems like they were done properly. And with help of some grants, which I recall helped all get involved. Cheaper than demolition and building new. Similar being done again could deal with insulation more effectively; and getting non-cowboys in, dealt with as a block/numbers in a terrace, should mean issues like insulation and damp are dealt with properly, by people who know.

From: Henry S 16 December 2023 14:39 PM

Agree it would be good to know which are second homes and which holiday lets. I guess it is the way data is collected, though there should be some way to at least estimate the split; even from different date analysis added on. (I am not volunteering.) For the areas, from Jo's list I guess it is local authority areas. Many counties which used to have many district councils plus a county council have become unitary authorities, so only one council e.g. Durham, Cornwall, Northumberland, Isle of Wight; and now North Yorkshire. Devon hasn't been re-organised while neighbouring Cornwall has. So Devon keeps lots of district councils. Luton has been a unitary council for years, administratively separate from the rest of Beds.. Like Derby, Portsmouth, Southampton etc. Northants is now two unitary councils, as is the rest of Beds. Don't shoot the messenger about local government reorganisation. It is Government pushing it. Picking areas off, one at a time. Going for what the 1974 Local Government re-organisation originally proposed, but at the time the Memorandum of Dissent by Derek Senior prevailed. Sad I know that useless stuff init?

From: Henry S 29 November 2023 10:43 AM

Agree entirely. Spot on.

From: Henry S 24 November 2023 09:46 AM

"the positive news is that landlords demonstrate a much greater awareness of the ways to improve the energy efficiency of their rental properties" (than homeowners). So renters should benefit from this more than if they owned their own home. E.g. my 2 lots of tenants who have EPC - C rating in a 1930s building. (Doesn't get over the viability issues though. After end of coalition, government massively cut numbers of households helped each year.) Good news about landlords for a change. Probably because (professional) landlords know, or research, what to do; more than homeowners. Another downside to policies making Llds sell-up; adding to decreasing supply and thus increasing rents.

From: Henry S 23 November 2023 12:08 PM

Michael. Sorry I didn't pick up your reply before now (and hope you see this). Doing so as writing to a RRB Committee MP about S21 loss. Pity she is Labour, so may follow their party line, even though a constituency MP (which she isn't much good at when I contacted her about a local issue). Yes, insurance was for 2 flats (converted house) + 1 other house. I recall buildings cover was up to a standard amount but not exactly how much (maybe £1million). I too had 2 different agents (one took over the other), both of which said my EPC was expired (which is what the Govt. EPC website also said), so they said I needed a new one. But I checked it out and even though "expired" I didn't have to get a new one if the tenants hadn't changed (they were the same people). So I was okay. Entirely agree it is only we LLds who cannot discriminate against those on benefits: companies can do. My issue is say if a house burns down and they find someone was on some sort of benefit, even top up housing benefit, they can decline my claim and the re-building cost would be massive. So totally unfair. I don't like reading pages of stuff they send: not so bad when on paper but a real pain if electronically. Showing my age, I don't absorb that well; and cannot write in pencil in the margins unless I print the reams out.

From: Henry S 22 November 2023 20:49 PM

Robert, Thank you for the tips. (Sorry for not coming back to you sooner.) Unfortunately, perhaps fortunately, I don't have offspring. My girlfriend is too sensible to marry me and the properties are all solely my own. She said some time ago I should sell the lot and enjoy my retirement. Now I've seen Angela Rayner's Labour approach, I'm rather wishing I had done that. Am starting to record to claim essential mileage.

From: Henry S 22 November 2023 18:12 PM

Nice that Bleate is blaming rising rents, not horrible landlords this time. Must be the season of good will coming, or that blaming landlords might put off donations. Still she doesn't admit her organisation's part in the lack of PRS accommodation; one of the reasons for those rising rents.

From: Henry S 17 November 2023 23:40 PM

Any reason given for it being in private when you first tuned in Ellie?

From: Henry S 14 November 2023 10:49 AM

Really good of you Jo to do all that. I wouldn't, though have helped tenants with various things, including bureaucracy, over the years. Sometimes nothing to do with they being tenants. The assault on LLDs, by supposed tenant helping charities, and now Government won't encourage me. And HMRC's attitude to actual work I do, compared with workmen/women... As you know, their time/wages can be offset against income before tax. My work is unpaid as considered a hobby/pass-time. Unclogging sewers/drains and removing dog-ur1ne soaked carpets at the end of a tenancy for example is NOT a pass-time. Would love more time for my real hobbies/interests, but I have the LLD paperwork and organising repair/maintenance work; just like others reading this. If we were in the social housing sector, we'd be paid for that, out of peoples' taxes.

From: Henry S 14 November 2023 10:46 AM

Quite right on all points: pity you are not the new housing minister. Yes, he was an estate agent; and so (hopefully) might have had some contact with the lettings side of estate agency. Or at least realise the state of it, and where it is heading. Whatever, I doubt he will have little effect on the overall shape of the RRB: its too far advanced now for his input. He may help achieve a few small concessions at most. He is a minister on the greasy pole and likely aspires to be in the cabinet at some point (probably after a Labour Government). So he'll have to toe the party line. As proof, the failed ex-PM David Cameron has voiced concerns/opposition to some Government policy since he left Parliament (even though he decided to be relatively quiet, not a back seat driver). But interviewed yesterday, now he is Foreign Secretary, he admitted he will have to leave aside all those concerns and follow current policy -for the good of the Country (he really meant Conservative Party, trying to save its skin). BTW, the right of the Conservative Party must be seething: they are considered so unsuitable, even as junior ministers, that the PM brings in a centre-ist, EU loving, ex-PM at one of the top jobs. Now, the first no-confidence letter from a backbencher since the re-shuffle.

From: Henry S 14 November 2023 10:30 AM

Good riddance. A waste of space in that role: couldn't even get facts right.

From: Henry S 13 November 2023 14:00 PM

While I don't dispute the figures given by Hamptons, they don't correspond with figures supporting S21 abolition that there are now more rentals than there were in 2019. Wish I had English Housing Survey data showing numbers of rentals available at each survey year over say the last 5 years. Perhaps LLD Today/ Graham Norwood might, or could get these to write an authoritative article on the situation. What Hamptons say, and the Yorkshire Building Society survey reported last week on LLD Today, both go against what the Conservative Home writer said about S21 abolition being okay (also reported on LLD Today last week). Out of the three of these sources, I know which it most likely to be politically biased in favour of the RRB.

From: Henry S 13 November 2023 10:15 AM

Hi Ellie, Regarding planning permission being required... While I would not put it past the numpties in Government, such a requirement is likely to be applied to properties newly being rented out, rather than existing ones. I.e. not being retrospective. And even if applied retrospectively, the chances of getting planning permission should be good if the rental has been that way for years, and well managed by yourself. If its been okay so far, what would be the grounds of permission being refused. (and if it was, you can always appeal (its free)).

From: Henry S 12 November 2023 14:51 PM

Good to hear that your Council acted Worried Landlord. Particularly as councils actions can be very variable (e.g. in enforcing on poor quality accommodation). Quite agree about dogs barking. And you may allow a dog who is well behaved; but then it dies and the replacement dog may not be. If you give permission for a pet, perhaps against your better judgment due to provisions in the RRB, I don't see how one could refuse a replacement pet; or even a second one at the same time. I had new tenants who paid pet deposits for 2 bull dogs, but then moved in with 3 of them. (I know from something else they thought this was smuggling in, and thought themselves clever.) They all bark when anyone is near, and sh*t in the garden (not cleared up) so on a number of occasions workers and I have trod in it.

From: Henry S 12 November 2023 13:51 PM

Shortage of supply caused by RRB and other anti-landlord measures making landlords sell up will make it easier for anyone who controls access to housing to discriminate, if they wish to. With loads of tenants to choose from, an agent or LLD can decided not to let to an individual for anything: even their eyebrows meeting in the middle. Let alone if their English isn't good, they look 'foreign' and may not be legally eligible to rent, etc. etc. (And as others have pointed out, in future tenants with rich parents who can be guarantors will be most likely to get the rental. More often I guess these will be white.) I pointed this -potential for discrimination- out to the House of Commons "investigation" into the then proposed RR Bill. Didn't hear anything back to all the points I raised; and wasn't going to watch hearings on 'watching paint dry' TV. Nothing in their final report that MLUHC responded to (which I did read). In the article (that we cannot comment on) Gen Rant said the RRB will help minority tenants. But in their simplistic way, they miss the point that minority/disadvantaged prospective tenants might not be able to become actual tenants in the first place. As the old saying goes: 'be careful what you wish for'. Unintended consequences: but they have no excuse if they go ahead when we've pointed them out.

From: Henry S 09 November 2023 23:36 PM

With ‘three or more persons from two or more households’, how does the Rent a Room fare, unless it is a single person renting a room to another single person? I recall HMRC having special rules for renting a room. I also wonder how three or more students sharing a house fare? Presumably, three generations of the same family are okay, as long as they live as a family e.g. eat some meals together.

From: Henry S 07 November 2023 18:36 PM

Looks like he hasn't read the Yorkshire Building Society's Home Truths report (as the previous article on LLD Today) including the implication of about one third of landlords not staying for 5 years; which presumably excluded some landlords who have already sold/left and weren't in the survey.

From: Henry S 06 November 2023 16:29 PM

"two thirds intending to stick around for at least five years" the research says. Which means about one third not staying for 5 years; which presumably excluded some landlords who have already sold/left and weren't in the survey. Which should be worrying Government and the supposed tenant supporting charities. It is going to get worse... (Unless the two thirds remaining are going to buy as many more properties as those leaving are selling.) Also "the average age of first-time buyers taking part in the research was 35". Okay, it is an average (with no figure for the mode) but it suggests that many younger renters won't be getting a mortgage anytime soon; and that those first time buying may be living at home and saving up their deposits. We know that the age of those living at home has been rising. So more landlords selling probably won't help young renters, as one well known writer in a national publication, who should have thought before writing it, wrote: she was expecting a mass sell of to reduce prices enough for young buyers. Unless anyone knows/thinks differently.

From: Henry S 06 November 2023 16:12 PM

Hi Nick, Thanks for taking the time to set down details of your bad experience and what you had to go through. I'll remember it should I get into the same position. I so hope I don't. It certainly doesn't help when agents don't do what you want and are paying them for! I've had a bit of that too, where they didn't want to get involved, so had to do it myself. I've had mould in two different properties, but sorted it (without having to evict). Perhaps I was lucky and it is only a matter of time... I really don't look forward to having to work without S21. I'm going to sell one. The others I'd like to hang onto for my personal use in years to come (a long story). So would hopefully still be able to evict on that basis, unless another Government changes the rules further. Will have to see how it goes. Hope you enjoy your retirement from being a landlord Nick, if that is what you are doing.

From: Henry S 04 November 2023 23:11 PM

Sorry Nick, only just picked this up and may be too late for you/others to read. My intention is two-fold: 1) if they complain about damp where there hasn't been any before, then I can point to advice they've already been given in the tenancy agreement which they signed (whether they read it or not). 2) If I get a bad tenant, I anticipate I may have to evict them on several breach of tenancy grounds, and allowing damp with mould accumulating may be one of them. I am trying to be ahead of what they may argue. Yes, of course I'm not there to see what they do. But if mould accumulates in a property where there has been none all the years I've known them, it will show there is something wrong; and not with the property. Also, my agents do the regular inspections (which I very occasionally join them on). Whether or not I do that, the agents can be asked to spot particular issues if I have suspicions, or have previously given tenants "advice". E.g. I can ask them to look out for clothes drying on radiators, and will bad tenants be clever enough to remove cloths on rads. for every inspection? I may instruct agents not to mention what they see, just include it in their written reports after each one. These reports now include photos, so I can get records of clothes on rads. I've dealt with some awkward b@stards in my life (mainly when working full time). Just when provoked l can be even more awkward. Like the idiot who decided to stop paying rent, so got a s21. A few years later, when he wasn't expecting it, with a good deal of effort I traced him, used the High Court Enforcement Group (very good) and got quite a bit of what I'd lost back (a few £thou). Tenant even got a new car Jeep on the HP so it couldn't be seized, and of course his 'essential' nice furniture couldn't be seized either. I understand from The Landlord blog (Property Investment Project) that Govt. have said damp/mould can no longer be blamed on tenants' lifestyle (would be a joke if not so serious). When we all know different.

From: Henry S 03 November 2023 23:39 PM

My understanding is the council has some (environmental health) powers, but could one get a council to actually use them? For a start you'd need to be a person directly affected: I think not a landlord, even if you had a badly affected tenant. Some decades ago, the London Borough of Waltham Forest had a strong team dealing with noise nuisance; know as the Party Poopers. But probably gone now with many rounds of cuts. Also, I think a council is more likely to act when there is noise affecting the public in general, rather than two neighbours in flats one above the other as in this case. Yes, they can ask complainants to keep a log of problems, but are they likely to treat kids upstairs jumping up and down on floors (later carpeted) as seriously as a loud music system at unsociable hours? While councils have many powers, some draconian, in many cases they recognise they often don't have the powers that a landowner/landlord does (or has until S21 goes).

From: Henry S 03 November 2023 21:53 PM

Assuming noise of children jumping up and down isn't classed as Anti-Social Behaviour (which might be covered by the proposed enhancement of Section 8 if S21 goes), without S21 how would a landlord - whether private or social/public- be able to either force the noisy tenant to stop the noise, or evict them? S21 is a useful 'threat' to be able to deploy: so much so it usually won't need to be mentioned. For my next tenancy agreements, I'll make sure my clauses on noise are strong enough, though I don't want to stop children playing musical instruments (unless the drums or electric guitars); particularly in an old house to flats conversion where sound transmission will be greater than in purpose built flats. To try to ensure excessive noise would be a breach of tenancy.

From: Henry S 03 November 2023 10:52 AM

Trying to anticipate the demise of S21 and having to rely instead on enforcing tenants breaching their tenancy agreements (they signed), in my new ones I've included clauses about not drying clothes inside without ventilation, venting tumble dryers externally etc.. Also with a section of "Informative" advice also included about how to avoid damp (which also advises how not to clog drains) taken/copied from reputable published sources. Feel if we lose S21, our Tenancy Agreements will have to be bullet - and idiot- proof.

From: Henry S 31 October 2023 09:33 AM

While you didn't say it originally, you now appear to be okay with charging rent, as long as there's no profit. Which means there would have to be enough charities etc to fill the void left by the PRS. Would they get enough funding to do so? Though the supposed tenant helping charities could always use their donations to actually house people rather than attack landlords. I caught out Crisis telling complete untruths. Should have reported them to the Charity Commission (may still do so, as their 'excuse' showed they were LLD bashing).

From: Henry S 31 October 2023 09:12 AM

Housing may be a human right, though I thought it was actually shelter rather than housing. Whether housing of shelter is a right, that doesn't mean the PRS has to provide it. And if we can't charge enough to make it economically viable then we won't bother. If basing income on charging people for housing is wrong, then there is no point in the PRS (and other housing providers like the state, housing Associations and charities) still charge rents to keep them operating. Perhaps food and water is also a basic human right. In which case Tesco, the Coop et al shouldn't base their income on charging and instead make it free. Reminds me of Generation Rant during the pandemic: wanting free rentals like they wouldn't get free food. Economic illiteracy.

From: Henry S 31 October 2023 09:02 AM

Like D Duck, I used not to increase rents mid-tenancy, even for long ones. But that ended with the Tenants Fee Ban. Someone had to pay for the services those fees used to be charged for: the agents weren't going to, and neither was I. An unintended consequence: long term tenants had rent increases, but usually did not generate work the fees used to be charged for. They effectively subsidised the shorter term tenants who caused the work the fees used to be charged for. I expect lots more unintended consequences from the RRB when enacted. Many of these Govt. are being warned about. With RRB proposals on rent increases, I'll have to start increasing more regularly. I was a tenant several times several decades ago (student and couple of early jobs before I could buy): pleased I am not one now.

From: Henry S 31 October 2023 08:50 AM

Good points as usual, particularly re. overcrowding. With no S21, how can we stop a tenant overcrowding during a new unlimited time tenancy; when the Local Authority can take us to court for allowing overcrowding? I had a tenant who over time overcrowded their 1 bed flat. I was able to use the threat of S21 to get them to move on to a larger place before the Environmental Health Dept. of the Council took action against me (though now with staff overstretched they may not be able to do so). Looking ahead, the proposed beefed-up Section 8 breach of tenancy agreement may be the only way to avoid this situation. So my newest tenancy agreements include a clause not to overcrowd, or permit overcrowding; along with a load of other things in anticipation of S21 going. So once I heard about S21 abolition, I made all the additions to the Agent's standard agreement myself, without getting a solicitor the check them (which I will do next time if S21 goes).

From: Henry S 24 October 2023 12:47 PM

Changes, not just delay, still required to RRB proposals for S21. Like keeping S21 for certain cases at least (where there is a clear reason for serving, some which may not actually be the tenant' s fault e.g. tenant going senile and a threat to themself and adjacent properties). I don't trust the 'pledge' not to bring in implementation of a part of the RRB when it becomes an Act (a not uncommon situation with parts of Acts) What a politician views as improvements to the courts, and what we would see as an acceptable improvement, are two completely different things. If a different party gets in after the election, they can say it wasn't their pledge and everything has changed; and so implement. One hope then is if Labour (and possibly others) implement parts of the Act that the Tories don't, the amount they'll want to do on a range of matters, and the usual limits on parliamentary time (which is why S21 abolition has taken so long since first promised), may mean they don't get to brining forward even more draconian measures quickly. And by then the effects of LLDs selling should be even more apparent: after perhaps another year of rentals sales before the election..

From: Henry S 20 October 2023 22:05 PM

Good to see the culprit being reported as an ex-landlord. But some won't spot that and so the bad reputation will probably still rub off on the rest of us.

From: Henry S 19 October 2023 09:06 AM

Though some good coverage of the very recent Social Housing Ombudsman's report on the number and severity of findings of social housing failures: e.g. boarded-up windows for several months while social tenant living there in the dark. Lot of these seem down to the way social housing bureaucracies act like non-humans, from what the Ombudsman said: pretty damming. This far less likely with the small PRS sector; but don't know how the big BuildToRent sector compares. At least their stock will be new (and expensive), but they still may be bureaucratic due to their size.

From: Henry S 19 October 2023 08:59 AM

I can appreciate LLDs wanting to leave something behind for family members, not just selling to get money to see them out. But selling can have benefits for LLDs and the offspring they want to leave money/assets to, due to Inheritance Tax rules. If you sell and give money to those you love (or pass property to them) and live for 7 years then that amount is free of IHT. If your loved ones don't want to be a LLD, or can't handle the bureaucracy of selling up themselves (and especially the eviction beforehand) then you may be best to evict and sell yourself. I see the RRB is to still allow eviction for selling up, but doubt if the other proposed ground of eviction -move in a close family member- would be of use to most of one's loved ones (unless they themselves were renting and weren't buying their own place). So evict and sell, or evict and transfer title, would appear a sensible option at least in IHT terms. My late father sensibly used the 7 year rule to the max, by careful planning getting in under the IHT threshold. My uncle didn't. (I dealt with both estates, without having to engage and pay for solicitors. The uncle's estate IHT cheque to HMRC was the biggest I've ever written, and so avoidable.) And remember the Roy Jenkins quote about IHT: IHT is a voluntary tax, paid by those who trust their relatives less then the Inland Revenue. BTW, leave a will: even if you are only worth tuppence; unless you hate all those you leave behind. My late partner didn't as she was in denial about terminal cancer. The (second) grief this caused was immense, and some of those left behind still won't talk to each other.

From: Henry S 18 October 2023 10:11 AM

"Landlords must be able to demonstrate that they have adequate procedures in place to manage any anti-social behaviour from their tenants" Blackpool say. So how are we going to do that if/when Section 21 goes, and is replaces by a supposedly beefed-up Section 8 ground re. ASB; which won't be as effective because it will require others than the landlord to give evidence -who can be intimidated- rather than just the LLD serving a S21 without having to give a reason. S21 is no reason given, not "no fault". I did a Freedom of Information request to MLUHC (Gove's dept.) on what evidence do they have on WHY LLDs use Section 21 (evidence which might support the Renters Reform Bill). They weren't able to answer: it would be too costly for them to find out internally, so they can refuse the FOI request. I did point out they could just ask the civil servants promoting the Bill on what evidence they had before the White Paper and Bill, but they still refused. When I have some time, there is one last way to try. My conclusion from what MLUHC said was: they didn't have any evidence on why LLDs use Section 21; and are just trying to cover this up with bureaucratic rules (not in the spirit of FOI Act). Obviously, with no evidence they can't justify removal of S21, nor prove Section 21 is "no fault". That's the poor basis on which laws are made these days. No wonder they are so cxxp and lead to adverse and unintended outcomes.

From: Henry S 13 October 2023 11:36 AM

Government has already made it easy to convert commercial to residential, and have been consulting on making it even easier. But its via Permitted Development (planning application not needed). So a blanket approach that is harming town centres more than already, due to allowing out of town developments (even though two faced National Planning Policy is meant to support town centres). No, like Worried Landlord, I'm not going to convert commercial, nor even go into commercial. Thanks to Gove and the supposedly tenant supporting groups, I'm likely to reduce, not increase, my number of rentals: don't need the hassle. BTW, I was a tenant myself for several years, many years ago: so know it from both sides.

From: Henry S 13 October 2023 11:12 AM

My properties are self-contained. If there is one I haven't seen the inside of for some time (rare as I always look myself at any issues/repairs that need doing), I'll join the letting agent on one of their regular property inspections. Agent can't complain: I'm paying them. Nor can tenant. Hope this idea helps someone.

From: Henry S 01 October 2023 00:17 AM

Don't know if these two items helps anyone... 1) On tenancy agreements, my address is given as the Agent's Offices, so tenants don't learn where I live (unless the person doing the Gas Safety Certificate writes it down, instead of the Agent's Offices). I hope to do the same if the stupid Renters Reform Bill proposal for a Lld Register and Ombudsman comes in, as I fear it will. 2) In anticipation of S21 going, and having to rely on an amended Section 8, I've already tightened my new tenancy agreements massively, even though the Agents weren't happy these were going far beyond their standard terms. After S21 goes (Boo, Hiss), I'll check my terms carefully with a solicitor before letting to any new tenant, and look to see if/how I can make them even stronger.

From: Henry S 30 September 2023 23:16 PM

Michael, That sounds a lot, especially per property I don't know where you are renting out/insuring (West London?). Just renewed my Lld insurance through my good broker and it went down (amazing as no other of my insurances has recently) as they moved to Royal Sun Alliance (so no Micky Mouse insurers). £580 p.a. for two flats and one house; no Lld contents as no common parts. In coastal West Sussex. I laughed at the bit where they won't cover lets to tenants on benefits (I don't have any). Am told by agents it is illegal to discriminate against benefits recipients (but who are unlikely to pass referencing as rent too high a proportion of income). But what happens if a tenant looses job and goes onto benefits? If insurance company won't pay out, might they be guilty of the same discrimination as a Lld could? In that case I'd investigate if it were an unfair contract term.

From: Henry S 30 September 2023 22:43 PM

Agree with the need to insulate etc. to future-proof properties and help tenants not waste energy/money. BUT I've found the current EPC system has some perverse results: just crazy. So can't agree they "are an excellent national measurement system". And some of the recommendations for improvements ...

From: Henry S 12 August 2023 11:50 AM

Can't see the delay in the EPC-C requirement will be for long. If Labour get in at the next election they'll probably implement it. IF the Tories get in again, they can go ahead anyway with the election after that being a few years away. Gove's announcement is probably just to make the Government look a little better, following their surprise win in the by-election in Boris's old constituency. Might be he realises he's negged-off the PRS with the RR Bill, but doubt that much thought has gone into it.

From: Henry S 12 August 2023 11:37 AM

The EPC Action Plan for England - to improve EPC quality- is news to me. Improvements would be welcome, but we still have to wait for the outcome. Hope "the forthcoming Great British Insulation Scheme" isn't the screw-up that the last few Government attempts at schemes have been (those commencing with Cameron's Green New Deal). Article is wrong to say: "unglamorous fabric insulation measures which cannot be seen or marketed very easily". These should be reflected in the EPC grade, required information to give prospective tenants. In adverts, I point out that my EPC Grade Cs are better than the national average of Grade D (pretty certain this is for all tenures, including owner occupied-. When doing viewings I explain that the cavity wall insulation makes the place warmer in Winter and cooler in Summer. Plus the white painted external render and cross-ventilation availability (due to window positions and layout) will help alleviate summer overheating - its not just about winter cold down-South.

From: Henry S 12 August 2023 10:54 AM

Yes Andy, Another area they've screwed up it forward planning, Town Planning and development of land. Pleased I am somewhat less exposed to that now, but I still see their mistakes and the constant tinkering that wastes time and effort. One very small but clear example: they are proposing to remove the Permitted Development right to convert laundrettes to residential without planning permission; that they introduced! Recognising their mistake in doing that in the first place because it isn't levelling up for those who reply on laundrettes. But their view they are always right may mean the proposed reversal doesn't happen: would be embarrassing. Then there's the whole housing targets fiasco...

From: Henry S 11 August 2023 11:01 AM

While I agree with most of what Jo says, indeed her comments are usually very good; I would point out that a small number of rentals doesn't equate to "amateur landlords". Sorry. The meddling politicians peddle the line of needing to professionalise the PRS as a reason for their current Bill. Which is why I am writing this, pushing back on it. I'm a small LLD, with just the right number for me, but I have got things right several times when a couple of lettings agents got them wrong: so I was both paying them and having to correct them. Because I took the time to check things out, they didn't. Very small LLDs I know (one property e.g. to aid their pension) use Agents -who should be professional- to manage their rentals, and so avoid much of the hassle etc Jo describes. If they don't they are leaving themselves wide open: to con-artist tenants, and the increased rules that Govt. have introduced over the years.

From: Henry S 11 August 2023 10:47 AM

Interesting thought Tricia. When new to Self Assessment and in a hurry, not wanting to pay a late penalty, I overpaid my tax. A few months later got a refund with interest added. Hadn't thought of it as a way of short-term saving. No need to set up a new savings account either :-) Unless they pay a lower rate on overpayments.

From: Henry S 09 August 2023 11:20 AM

Absolutely right Michael. The councillor I heard said it was lack of PRS accommodation that had "silted up" temporary accommodation, so B&B occupants couldn't move into it. Lack of PRS availability seems due to both increasing demand (e.g. rising interest rates starting with the Truss mini-budget) and reducing supply (landlords leaving, instead of investing which might usually be expected when demand for their product increases).

From: Henry S 09 August 2023 10:51 AM

Heard short bit on national radio that a fortnight ago had seen the highest ever demand for councils temporary accommodation. The councillor who spoke said temporary accommodation had become "silted up" because of a lack pf private rentals for people to move out of it into. As a result, more people were stuck in council B&B accommodation, rather than moving onto temporary accommodation. Only a short item, so don't know if that councillor had ben asked if he thought the Rental Reform Bill would make matters worse.

From: Henry S 09 August 2023 10:28 AM

Think landlord blaming is partly a diversionary tactic, to deflect attention from not building enough homes. And from internal Conservative MPs rebellion over their own Government's 300,000 homes a year target. The 'new' Govt. "brownfield first" is not new at all: Governments have been told this for at least since the early 1980s then Environment Select Committee report showing that (cheaper to build) green field building risked damaging regeneration attempts. Governments not listening: what's new?

From: Henry S 07 August 2023 10:16 AM

One good to hear is that Labour’s shadow housing secretary - Lisa Nandy - has "ruled out rent controls" should Labour come to office in the next General Election. And said that rent controls were merely a “sticking plaster” that risked increasing homelessness. So if we get a Labour Government, at least we shouldn't get rent controls. Seems she understands some of the reality: “When housebuilding is falling off a cliff and buy to let landlords are leaving the market, rent controls that cut rents for some, will almost certainly leave others homeless”. Just Khan and Generation Rant don't, along with the Scottish Govt.

From: Henry S 07 August 2023 09:58 AM

Electricity has been too expensive due to past green levies only applying to elex., not all fuels, nor general taxation. Govt have realised this is a problem, so proposed to reduce elex. costs c.f. gas. I don't know how effective that will be if electricity demand massively rises, e.g. lots more electric cars etc. A real problem with elex. prices is the legislation about these. Intelligent power suppliers want electricity prices to be able to be based on the power supplied by lowest cost generation like wind turbines, not the present higher cost generation methods.

From: Henry S 05 August 2023 12:49 PM

Doesn't help that Govt. grants/assistance for insulation has been cut massively, probably due to politics. (Those who deny climate change, just want minimal public expenditure; whatever the costs, financial or social. And by ignoring security of supply and the need for reducing demand by insulating -which we've know about for decades, when the sheiks controlled oil- unwittingly helped Putin finance his Ukraine invasion and ongoing war). Can't recall exact figures, but under coalition Govt. hundreds of thousands of homes were insulated per year. After the coalition that went down to less than 100,000 p.a.. Insulation can reduce NHS costs of ill-health due to fuel poverty: the North of Tyne Mayor gave the figures for his are on BBC Radio 4 yesterday. Insulating reduces demand for fossil fuel, like Putin's gas, and far quicker than developing new gas/oil fields which will take decades; probably cheaper also but the investment system works against that.

From: Henry S 05 August 2023 12:31 PM

Yes John Adams, And a reason why tenants with a brain won't want serious energy saving measures ATM. But with the RRB ever-lasting tenancies and no S21, perhaps tenants would be able to make us provide them with alternative accommodation while improvements are carried out? They'd have to pay rent, if another vacant rental can be found! But the rent amount presumably would not cover the higher amounts of hotel/B&Bs we might be forced to provide. A nightmare if my suspicions are correct. I have one which isn't rated EPC C. Probably is, or near to it, if re-assessed when current tenants leave. I've used void periods to uprate energy performance/insulation. Though with doubts/uncertainty about the EPC regime changing to carbon assessment rather than costs (when, not if) I haven't considered air-source heat pumps; having seen other people's comments on this site. If I have to change a boiler and rads, I hope my tenants can go away for a weekend: I once paid 2 night B&B to get the family out of the way (they do fast cars, not holidays). {Cheaper than a void if I'd done S21 to get them out.}

From: Henry S 05 August 2023 12:14 PM

At least, while commercial EPCs are to be raised to B rating, they unlike us resi LLDs have access to finance it seems.... I've seen on the reputable BDC publication: "To meet this demand and make building conversion affordable, specialist financiers are now offering financing packages which use future energy savings to finance building technology upgrades – covering condensing boilers, solar panels, heating ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC), insulation, smart buildings controls, and any other technology required to upgrade a building to much higher energy-efficiency levels. These financing schemes allow buildings managers to achieve a strategic upgrade at low- or even zero-net-cost." Nothing like this for us. Only possibly some 'green' mortgages, but no way I'm going to start getting mortgages now.

From: Henry S 05 August 2023 11:11 AM

Completely misses the point that we want to keep Section 21, for where the proposed strengthening of Section 8 still won't cut it. E.g. 1) ASB where those affected are too scared to give evidence under an enhanced Section 8; 2) Complete and irretrievable breakdown in landlord-tenant relations (more likely to be a problem with the never-ending tenancies), that if it was a marriage would end up in (that really is no-fault) divorce; 3) Where tenant is likely to cause harm to themselves or adjoining properties (e.g. where they get bad dementia and need to be accommodated in a nursing home); 4) Other things readers of this comment can think of... This may mean reform of S21 so that a limited category of fault is stated; but importantly still giving the mandatory ground for eviction that S8 doesn't. The safeguard against misuse would be the penalty for a landlord lying to the court. So as long as the judge was convinced the Lld wasn't lying, possession would be granted. If the Govt. wanted to make council accommodation not having to be provided under this revised S21 (the reason they seem so keen on getting rid of it, to help Tory councils) I would be okay with that. This change would get rid of the (supposedly) pro-tenants groups argument of no fault existing. It would give us a backstop for the worst tenants: otherwise the only safeguard is a Lld selling up or using the home for themselves or their family (which would deprive other good tenants of a rental and further reduce available stock).

From: Henry S 05 August 2023 10:43 AM

I've seen this for commercial buildings with regard to EPCs on a reputable website (BDC). They're being made over time to achieve a 'B' rating by 2030, but non-Govt. help appears to be available based on future savings (so presumably there will be some). A report entitled Urgent Upgrade, highlights the serious financial impact of recent legislation which demands that commercial buildings have an EPC (Energy Performance Certificate) rating of at least E to continue to be let. This equates to £93 billion worth of commercial properties in Great Britain including across industry (£25 bn), offices (£28 bn), and retail (£31 bn). This is only the first in a staggered approach by the UK government to achieve its net zero goals, with plans to raise the threshold to a C rating by 2027 and to a B by 2030 adding further future pressure to buildings owners and facilities management. As the research makes clear, without immediate investment owners of F- & G-rated buildings will be left without income and face the possibility of significant fines as well as reputational damage. This means energy efficiency improvements are now a top priority. To meet this demand and make building conversion affordable, specialist financiers are now offering financing packages which use future energy savings to finance building technology upgrades – covering condensing boilers, solar panels, heating ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC), insulation, smart buildings controls, and any other technology required to upgrade a building to much higher energy-efficiency levels. These financing schemes allow buildings managers to achieve a strategic upgrade at low- or even zero-net-cost.

From: Henry S 03 August 2023 10:04 AM

Perhaps would be worth reminding tenants who are about to have their rent increased: how much goes in income tax and VAT (and licenses where applicable); also how much agents charge. Then they realise how little of their rent the landlord actually keeps, and has to pay for repairs, Gas and Electrical Safety certificates, out of. And that's just for unmortgaged properties.

From: Henry S 03 August 2023 09:45 AM

Generation Rant say: “The government’s response to this needs to put tenants first...". NO, the Government need to put the stock and supply of rented homes first, including those provided by us in the PRS. So stop punishing those who provide such housing. Otherwise, things will get even worse for renters, especially the poorest ones. Gen Rant also complain about multiple viewings: this has been happening for years with properties for sale where I live. Several potential buyers have a short time to look around and make their best offer. That's when they are committing to buying a place; not renting it where they can easily leave if they find they don't want to continue to live there (or e.g. damp problems covered up, and they have to pay out even more to fix those - which for rentals would be down to the Landlord). I wouldn't rent to any Generation Rant supporter/social media poster: they'd either be economically illiterate or stupid; or both.

From: Henry S 03 August 2023 09:35 AM

A council I wouldn't normally regard as sensible, allowed 3 months zero council tax if major works are being undertaken in the void period. Just as well when Covid lockdown/distancing made renovation works take forever. Though haven't checked if they still do so. Also, zero council tax if/while the property couldn't be legally let. So if works were going to take longer than 3 months, getting essential gas/electrical safety checks/certificates done right at the end of works could be sensible. I recall council tax exemption for properties that cannot be let legally is a national exemption. But haven't tried that one out, nor researched it, so might be wrong. Not planning to try any of the above anytime soon though. All tenants want to stay, and properties in top/good condition: when re-let after the long void the agents said the condition was "immaculate". Though agents have been known to exaggerate!

From: Henry S 02 August 2023 10:45 AM

Not sure how useful a Waste Carriers License is. A year or two ago, an expert in waste disposal, to prove how unregulated licenses were, successfully applied for a Waste Carriers License in the name of his deceased dog! No checks by those who give out the licenses. If this has been tightened-up since, I'd like to know. But not holding my breath.

From: Henry S 29 July 2023 11:39 AM

Agree with what you say Tricia, apart from the bit about not supposed to stay for ever. Some tenants will want to, and I've had one who only wanted to leave 'in a box'. (I know I'm not the only one.) But she got dementia so that didn't pan out. Such long-term tenants should look after the place and always pay rent on time. No void periods and little hassle. As long as a LLD knows what they want, and are okay with that timescale, then there are few problems apart from their eventual decline/demise (which will come to all of us eventually).

From: Henry S 27 July 2023 09:36 AM

Thank you Michael. And others' comments. A good point about BTR and I have seen Barratts agree a deal to sell hundreds of new build homes to a BTR investor (Lloyds?). But have also seen BTR scaling back due to interest rates.

From: Henry S 25 July 2023 08:55 AM

Andy, Doug, All who liked their comments, I've heard back from DLUHC, they sought clarification of my FOI request (I'm okay with that). They've said they'll reply to me by 21st August. When I get something I'll try to publicise via LLD Today. Or if they meet their target date you should be able to view their reply via WhatDoTheyKnow [dot] com

From: Henry S 25 July 2023 08:39 AM

Well done to the LLD lady for writing to her MP and pointing out the problems prospective tenants in difficult circumstances have in not even getting viewings. Perhaps those tenants ought to also be contacting Ministers via their MPs, so Ministers don't just hear from non-Shelter, Generation Rant and Acorn-brains; instead the people Govt. claim to be helping. But rubbish replies like that one don't give much cause for hope. If I write to my MP, I'll be likely to refer to the McLean rubbish reply.

From: Henry S 25 July 2023 08:03 AM

Who thought Brexit would have the effect of making finding a home in the UK more difficult: for those who cannot afford two homes. Which is what the article doesn't say. BTW, this isn't a pro or anti Brexit view, just an observation. Either I didn't hear the concern (quite possible as I don't read Estate Agent Today), no-one thought it might be a problem, or someone knew it would but kept quiet.

From: Henry S 24 July 2023 11:08 AM

Climate change is not a "scam", as you've called it twice in one comment, Gareth. We've known about it for about 30 years: even Margaret Thatcher acknowledged it was a fact (but didn't do enough about it). But those who understood were derided as muesli-eating, sandal-wearing, tree huggers in the right wing press. Look who've been proved right! Increasingly, more people have realised: a changing climate is fact, and then that it is man-made. Even, eventually, some stupid politicians I had to advise. And some energy companies realise, to a greater or lesser extent. If it is many thousands of scientists (like all those on the IPCC) and the UK's independent CCC, or those who have vested interests and investments in fossil fuels, I know which I'd believe. If proper action had been taken over the decades we've known of the problem, when it was easier to do (and when we knew the risks of energy insecurity) there would be a lot less to do to deal with the problem now: so a lot less inconvenient and far less expensive/costly. BTW, for those affected, ULEZ is a child health thing, not primarily a climate policy action. Being poorly implemented in London, unlike I understand in other cities. Luckily my car is ULEZ complaint. But my district next door may get a pollution reducing vehicle use charge, for use of any vehicle. Due to poor planning for thousands of new homes (and regional planning being abolished by Eric Pickles, to win votes from those who were led to believe things would be better without it).

From: Henry S 23 July 2023 10:44 AM

Pity he doesn't explain where the solver lining of some increasing stock comes from: I thought many LLDs were selling up, and not all to other landlords. Perhaps, being London, some is foreign investors? But a 5% annual rise - how??

From: Henry S 22 July 2023 12:25 PM

Pleased I don't have to pay £80 each for Gas Safety Certs. Get mine done in the same afternoon, with me attending these. Nor 10-20% agent fees. Also pleased to be mortgage free (apart from fully Offset one on my own home). At last I'm seeing benefits of my cautious approach - compared to what I was advised in the past about doing lots of new BTLs. I'm old enough to remember negative equity, and viewing flats trashed by their owners that they had to leave due to it (when I was first looking to buy my first home). Unless of course someone sees something I've missed.

From: Henry S 22 July 2023 11:37 AM

Quite right Robert - well said. And new builds should be designed for natural ventilation (and not large expanses of glass, for excessive solar heat gain, and heat loss in winter even with triple glazing). We only have just the one planet.

From: Henry S 21 July 2023 10:14 AM

To "step up and shut up" you should add Rents Up. Looks like they are going up due to interest rate rises (see e.g. good, kind and thoughtful comments from Jo Westlake); and then likely for costs of meeting EPC-C requirement (amount depending on how much the LLD has done already). BTW mine are either EPC-C already, or would be if reassessed now. I do this mainly for the environment, assisted when help has been available but also out of my pocket; not because I see direct or immediate benefit to me in lower bills. Govt. ought to be going back to the help given to hundreds of thousands of households during Coalition Govt. (not the drastic cuts since) to help both homeowners and LLDs increase energy efficiency: to help the planet, cost of living, energy security (which some of us have known for 30 years), and the poorest in society - including poorest tenants. The EPC system does have real flaws/anomalies, as I've found.

From: Henry S 21 July 2023 10:06 AM

Quite right Andy Marshall and The Maluka about statistics on why S21 is used. When Govt. published the White Paper, before the current Bill, they didn't know why S21 was used. I recall one of the people they spoke to, only after publishing White paper!, was Paul Shamplina of Landlord Action: to ask him and others why. So I've just done a Freedom of Information request to DLUHC via WhatDoTheyKnow [dot] com to ask. I may get a reply within the 20 working days allowed under the Act, or they may be late. If you want to see the request, and any future reply, they'll be on that website, under that Department; in my name: Henry S

From: Henry S 20 July 2023 10:58 AM

Some councils make dealing with bad properties / landlords a priority. They even put adverts on bus stop shelters to encourage tenants to report. Other councils don't. They could do it if they want, and give it some priority.

From: Henry S 19 July 2023 09:54 AM

Wonder if Generation Rant, Shelter, Acorn-brains et al. back this call. I guess not for two reasons: -would mean less homes available for their (non-Afgan) supporters; and -would also mean they would have to be nice to Landlords, when we know they aren't and we'd just laugh. The cheek of Councils etc. asking LLds to help when they and Govt. want the Rental Reform Bill and no Section 21 is massive.

From: Henry S 19 July 2023 01:07 AM

To go back and add to Tricia's 6 points, and in view of the discussion between Jo and Ellie on Monday, here's a real problem... Like Jo's old tenant who wanted to only leave in a box, I had an older lady who often said the same. BUT she got bad Demantia, and would become a risk to herself and the tenant upstairs. Her son, living in the USA, realised I had Section 21 available, which helped him recognise the inevitable he was trying to ignore. It prompted him to organise a Dementia Care Home place for her. Don't know what I could have done if no Section 21 as a longstop. Nor if no offspring or relatives. I have a Duty of Care to both the tenant and the one upstairs, so can't tolerate one putting themself or another in potential danger. There is a need sometimes for real 'No Fault' evictions; which doesn't mean "No Reason". And if that means the local authorities need to house a tenant in an appropriate (care) home, then good for all concerned. It is their job in such a circumstance.

From: Henry S 19 July 2023 00:34 AM

I'd go for a twin track approach (further to my evidence to the select committee): -oppose removal of Section 21 and give reasons why; and -mitigate its loss as far as possible.

From: Henry S 14 July 2023 16:44 PM

One thing which really worries me about periodic tenancies is if they don't look after the place, and then the original deposit (after inflation and after damage) doesn't anywhere near cover the damage caused. Let along any unpaid rent in the last few months while the court process grind slowly as they get Section 8 evicted. I had an older tenant who caused no damage in 12 years. The young couple after caused more damage in 1 year than their deposit (they left voluntarily and at least paid all rent until they left - and cleared out nearly all their stuff, returning on the day of checkout to collect the last two items).

From: Henry S 14 July 2023 12:51 PM

Yes, developers are allowed to use the 'not economically viable' argument to reduce the standard 30% affordable housing requirement (50% in London). Where they can argue it isn't viable to hand any actual homes over, a financial contribution to the council building affordable homes elsewhere means they can say they are still making a contribution to affordable housing provision. Not saying this is right or wrong, but some can be more creative with figures. When I last looked at it, the allowance in guidance for developers profit in viability calculations was still 15-20%.

From: Henry S 11 July 2023 14:54 PM

Only a couple of months ago, some moron from one of the supposed tenants groups (Generation Rant?) whose name I can't remember wanted tenants to share in the capital appreciation of rentals. Wonder if he'd like them to share in capital depreciation, particularly newer tenants who haven't been in place during previous uplift?

From: Henry S 10 July 2023 09:44 AM

While I don't want to be charitable to those working in Government, especially as their politicians introduced the Renters Reform Bill, it is possible they realise they need to revise the EPC system: before they mandate it on us. Imposing an EPC regime as it is currently, then changing it afterwards, possibly while we are implementing EPC-C will make them look incredibly stupid. Beyond the normal bounds of stupidity.

From: Henry S 10 July 2023 09:35 AM

Absolutely spot on. In every respect! Good point about the first 20% going to Govt. May mention that next time I have to increase rents mid-tenancy; though that's not something I usually do. And another x% (whatever the figure) going to the agents + 20% VAT to Govt. on that fee.

From: Henry S 09 July 2023 02:10 AM

NO FAULT is considered good for divorce. But bad for LLDs and tenants when the former wants to separate. Illogical! Used to be if a married couple's relationship had broken down, or one party wanted to get out, to be granted a divorce one party had to be 'at fault'. Then 'no fault' divorces came in and were considered to be a good thing (faults didn't have to be invented to get the divorce, and -usually- wives were no longer trapped in unhappy marriages). But if the relationship between a LLD and tenant breaks down (they don't have to live together under the same roof, but still share a property) then the current 'no fault' through Section 21 is going to be got rid of in the renters reform bill. When something is so clearly illogical, it is bound to be wrong. Wonder if I'll live long enough to see the whole thing go full circle, with some sort/version of Section 21 coming back to encourage people to buy and rent out properties (like in the original Housing Act by the Thatcher Govt.). Because landlords ARE needed. And I was a tenant decades ago, with two landlords as I had to move around for work.

From: Henry S 09 July 2023 01:59 AM

Gove even stabbed his own mate Boris in the back when Johnson was first trying to become PM. Though IMO they deserved each other. BBC Radio 4's 'Dead Ringers' comedy had a long-running sketch series about Gove being two faced. Funny, but unfortunately true.

From: Henry S 09 July 2023 01:04 AM

Rob Crawford, Alas the process doesn't start all over again. Hopefully when the Bill gets to the House of Lords, they will give it a through going over (although unelected, they tend to consider things properly, like the Commons don't). Though in the end the Commons can over-rule the Lords, so we'll still get landed with at least some **** stuff. As I originally wrote to the House of Commons Housing Select Committee: the shortage of rental stock being caused by increased demand and LLDs selling up will increase the opportunities for discrimination by those LLDs who wish to (even where it is illegal). Simply because with more prospective tenants to choose from, there are more possibilities to do so. And easier for any racist, sexist, ageist etc. discrimination easier to hide. (I didn't track the Housing Select Committee's outcomes (their Report) as had too much else to do at the time. Don't think they did a great job.)

From: Henry S 09 July 2023 00:54 AM

Franklin I, Pleased I haven't had to experience your problems. As DWP is part of Government, you may wish to complain to the Government Ombudsman about their behaviour (Maladministration). Though you may well have to go through their internal complaints process first before you can do. Same way as you can complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman about local authorities. You can complain and request compensation. If nothing else, it causes grief (whether internal complaints or full Ombudsman process) to the body concerned. In internal stages they have to be careful in case it does go public (i.e. to the Ombudsman). I know the Local Government Ombudsman publishes cases where local authorities have screwed-up; which is highly embarrassing for them. Partly as the other of the some 400 councils in England read the formal reports, even if the public don't.

From: Henry S 09 July 2023 00:11 AM

Agree with particularly the last bit of what Ferey says. A tenant not paying rent for several months sent his solicitor to Magistrates Court hearing with a rubbish argument, But cheaper for that tenant to pay solicitor to turn up than paying rent for the period that delay bought him. My revenge, some years later when he was least expecting it (and near to the claim deadline timescale) was sweet.

From: Henry S 28 May 2023 11:23 AM

I think ! but could be wrong, that someone intending to become a LLD can register that with HMRC (so they can start claiming some expenses against future income - but that is from a property accountant on online seminar, and I'm not sure it tallies with what HMRC say about not claiming for anything that puts you in a position to run a rental business).

From: Henry S 28 May 2023 11:14 AM

At the moment, tenants have the right to know my name and address; but my address is given as my lettings agent's office address on the tenancy agreement. So unless tenant is very clever (I won't say how) or uses a tracing company (as I did for a departed ex-tenant non-payer to then send High Court Enforcement Group onto him to collect some of that unpaid) they cannot find where I live. hopefully they won't think of Land Registry as Jo Westlake says below. My tenants have my e-mail address to contact me re any issues, but not my phone number; just the agent's. I would be worried if the same provision for a nominated address were not to be allowed in the new database.

From: Henry S 28 May 2023 11:04 AM

to Martin Dell, I think you could find out. Possibly in tenant referencing (as I mentioned) e.g. when obtaining, or possibly not -which would be a 'red flag' to me, a reference from the previous landlord. If previous LLD had evicted, they'll have no reason not to say so. Or other searches. I did my own search, apart from what the Agents did, of new tenants recently. That name came up with a rent arrears court case in Scotland; but at that time, and for years before, my prospective tenants were renting on the south coast of England (they had to move because their LLD was selling up!). Tenants now in and loving it - they'll probably stay for years. I don't 'do' social media, but my girlfriend does. SO when I get a list of names for viewings by prospective tenants, she does a trawl of social media to find anything available. I do the viewings of prospective tenants, and ask them any questions (a nice sort of interview where I also tell them useful stuff and commiserate about Govt. actions pushing rents up). Like where are they now and why wishing to move into my property (incl. whether notice to current LLD required); and their long-term intentions: are they looking to buy a place of their own (so they may not want to stay forever).

From: Henry S 28 May 2023 10:19 AM

I share Ellie's concerns about loss of control. Particularly as my properties are not just any old BTL ones I have no connection to. Tom Bill's point about "One fifth of households in England is a lot of voters." may be right. But with the allegations of so-called pro-tenants groups who are anti-LLD, and still bleating like ignorant stupids, will the scale of selling up by LLDs sink in before the next general Election? Article is one of the most thoughtful I've seen for ages. Though it could say more, but then might be too long. E.g. Now LLDs are not buying 'off-plan' plan like they did, and developers -particularly of blocks of flats like a % of off-plan sales in the bag before building; what will this do to the supply of new builds that the Govt. target wants more of. It will decrease it. I won't start on other/better alternatives to existing use / 'no-scheme' value here....

From: Henry S 27 May 2023 12:10 PM

I guess that any tenants subject to a Section 8 eviction would, if they are not at fault, want to make sure the Ground for that is stated when they are looking to rent again, e.g. upfront to the Agents. Ground 2 (Mortgagees) could indicate they've done nothing wrong. Ground 1 and new 1A might actually raise a warning flag, I think Vanda: is the LLD using this when they are fed up with a tenant's antics and selling (or possibly installing a relative). This could be verified by the reference request of the previous LLD, as part of usual referencing. For the other Grounds listed in the article, unless I've missed something then the tenant will have a 'record' and be at fault. If they are then barred from social housing for the reasons Vanda gives, and they are made aware of that risk by a current LLD; it might make them behave better (or at least be more careful about not breaking new arrears rules). What still concerns me is: what will be the penalties for breaching tenancy agreement terms (those which aren't about rent payment) with no Section 21 mandatory evictions? And whether there are changes proposed to help with this? I understand the relevant Ground for breaching tenancy agreement terms is currently discretionary, not mandatory. So under current legislation I'd be inclined to instead use Section 21 which I understand is mandatory. Though if breaching a term can be classified as anti-social behaviour, then the proposed changed may then cover it. As Simon says, we may have to wait and see on that one.

From: Henry S 27 May 2023 11:34 AM

Here is some actual evidence of LLDs leaving/not investing (extracts from longer article from Mail online 22/5/23 found on This Is Money): "The proportion of new homes sold off-plan in England and Wales has dropped to its lowest level in a decade. A total of 34 per cent of new homes in England and Wales were sold before they were built last year, down from a peak of 46 per cent in 2016. It is the fifth time in the last six years that the proportion of new homes sold-off plan has fallen, according to the research by Hamptons. The estate agent attributed the decline to a fall in the number of landlords and property investors, who it said are the most likely group to buy off-plan. It claimed that the decline can be traced back to 2016 and the introduction of a 3 per cent stamp duty surcharge on second homes. The surcharge made it far more expensive for those who already owned a property to buy a second home or invest in a buy-to-let. In 2015, 70 per cent of off-plan buyers were investors, a figure that fell to just 12 per cent in 2022." Thought I might have seen this also reported on Landlord Today, but so far not. It is on Houseladder, online, today.

From: Henry S 24 May 2023 09:55 AM

It annoys me that these groups are Charities (and so get tax breaks). But they are uncharitable, as well as mis-representing facts.

From: Henry S 23 May 2023 11:39 AM

Stepchange Charity just doesn't understand. It states "there is more to do to protect those who should be in socially rented accommodation but have no hope of accessing it". NO: the answer is more socially rented accommodation; not more impositions on private landlords which will only lead to less private rented sector stock, and even higher rents, Get a brain Stepchange.

From: Henry S 23 May 2023 09:30 AM

So councils are now getting the criticism previously only Landlords did from renters groups. Though the groups conveniently seem to forget that 'revenge evictions' are now banned (as I understand).

From: Henry S 23 May 2023 09:21 AM

Does anyone know if previously envisaged "Pet Rents" will be allowed (saving on insurance by either tenant or LLD, and the hassle of dealing with insurance companies)? Amount could be likely damage divided by expected length of tenancy (and once the target income is met, the pet rent element of total rent could be reduced). If they are allowed, there still might be problems when rents are raised if a tenant complains to the first tier tribunal that the increase is excessive, even if the pet element stays the same, due to total rent being higher than market rates. Might not be a problem if lots of landlords adopt pet rents so there would be a market rate for these. More regulation - more hassle.

From: Henry S 23 May 2023 09:05 AM

I'd generally agree with Michael's point, but I've had new tenants without pets. they later wanted some (not during Covid lockdowns) and asked me; but realised the tenancy agreement didn't allow pets so didn't bring any in after my refusal (a decision made after my specific research). After allowing dogs in a house (twice) I'm less likely to want to do so again, even though that property is suitable.

From: Henry S 23 May 2023 08:54 AM

Thankfully I don't operate in Scotland. UK Govt. wanted to try to reverse the retirement of (often older) workers who 'retired' early during the pandemic: as they found it has affected UK productivity. But Govt. found they couldn't do much about it. Just handwringing. Now they are going to find same problems with older LLDs, and those who are a bit younger but also find they don't have to work. Who can sell up and live well, with less hassle. This time, they'll only have themselves to blame. While reversing the mistakes will be in their control, even if they thought enough to do so, it will be too late. At least early retiring LLDs won't face the problems tenants will: far less supply, increasing rents (until rent freezes are tried) etc.. But at least we'll get some reward for hard work. Best wishes: enjoy your retirement if you choose it. And be content that you are in the right!

From: Henry S 21 May 2023 00:05 AM

Sales of some rentals may wait until the Bill is enacted, to see if things turn out as bad as we are predicting. In the knowledge we can still evict if we want to sell. By which time selling prices may be firmer (should be in the long term as not enough homes being built and numbers of households still increasing for several reasons). And when we know plans of a new Govt. after the general election for the PRS. Also, I recall seeing something about CGT possibly being fairer with a different Government: wish I could remember the details.

From: Henry S 20 May 2023 16:36 PM

If this comes in as expected, I'd have a 'discussion' with any prospective tenants about the suitability or otherwise of the rental in my view for different types of pets so they know in advance. Which won't be unreasonable as I accept dogs in one large house with garden. Even though I'd prefer not to have to step in the uncleared dog faeces when the several large trees need pruning back every few years (and tenants know in advance I and arborists will be visiting, but don't clear up). At least they've been there long enough that even if the deposit doesn't cover all pet damage, the amount of rent paid should cover a future re-dec. and replacements. BTW My latest tenants are because their old landlord was selling up. I conduct the viewings, not the agents, and I know MY properties very well. Wonder how many realise the viewing is also thus an interview of them (bit like a job interview but not so one-sided). While one could discriminate (illegally on 'protected characteristics') I don't. But as I pointed out to the House of Commons Select Committee looking into the RPS proposals, reducing supply by ill-thought out 'reforms' will only make it easier for the less law-abiding landlords who might do. Which about sums it up: proposals intended (supposedly) to help tenants could rebound on the tenants who most need help; negging-off decent LLDS, while helping the less scrupulous ones (likely also to take advantage of shortage of supply and do the most 'greedy' rent rises).

From: Henry S 18 May 2023 15:50 PM

Absolutely, and those 'concealed households' living at home with parents are likely to be able to save more for a deposit. IF there is a mass sell-up or rentals, house prices might drop a bit in the short term. But is that going to be enough to make housing affordable to FTBs in large numbers? And a drop in prices may be soon overtaken by the house price inflation that has generally happened over decades; made worse by any repeat of Govt. schemes (like Help To Buy -Votes and the Stamp Duty Holiday) that inflated prices even more. The 'reforms' might be best for Mortgage Advisers like the pair quoted, not LLDs or tenants, including those who don't want to buy. I've had several tenants like that (usually older single females who don't want property maintenance responsibilities and if on a pension may not want the high rents of BTL investors). May be more student lets available if remaining LLDs switch to them (they don't stay long, and generally don't have the bigger pets). As to the new 100% mortgages, I'll wait to see the effects long-term. I don't recall 100+ % mortgages fared too well, but no experience of those. Can't see too many people being offered 100%; unless perhaps some sort of guarantor involved? If 100% is great, why were not loads of mortgages of say 95% previously popular?

From: Henry S 18 May 2023 10:55 AM

Dogs Trust say: “The measures announced as part of the Renters (Reform) Bill will mean that many more dogs can stay living with their loving families. This is great news for both owners and for the animal welfare sector alike.” BUT when LLDs sell up, due to some or all of the changes being forced upon us, some of those with their dogs will become homeless anyway. They will have less choice of other properties to live in (and higher rents). Even if some of those remaining to rent are forced to allow pets they previously didn't (and it is not going to be all properties that have to allow pets) will those extra homes that are forced to allow pets make up for the loses of rental stock (some of which might currently allow dogs but the LLD sells due to S.21 abolition etc)? Possibly not quite the "great news" the Dogs Trust claim. Whole package of 'reforms' hasn't been thought through, and those most affected are being ignored by Gove & Co..

From: Henry S 18 May 2023 10:11 AM

Martin Lewis is wrong, for the first time I've known of. My properties aren't in a limited company. I am an individual. Can't think of any other case where an individual is someone who can be complained about to an ombudsman (compared to councils, other public bodies, estate agents etc). Even financial advisers are companies, as I understand it. Okay, MPs conduct can be complained about; but to Parliamentary authorities, not an Ombudsman. And for MPs, their colleagues decide the outcome, and in the Owen Patterson case even tried to change the rules -retrospectively- to let them off (though thankfully that failed, but Rees-Mogg didn't resign for trying).

From: Henry S 17 May 2023 11:35 AM

Marco Longhi MP is right in all the quotes above, likely because he is a LLD. In particular: "These properties landlords are now selling aren’t even affordable for the majority of renters, so where are these people going to go?" Especially if, as reported, other landlords aren't buying.

From: Henry S 17 May 2023 11:20 AM

Help to Buy was, and if done again will be, inflationary. Just like the Stamp Duty Holiday became; as many predicted. One commentator/wag dubbed Help to Buy: "Help to Buy - Votes". (His name was Andrew Rawnsley, and hasn't been on BBC radio since). The truth - buying votes- obviously hurts.

From: Henry S 16 May 2023 11:39 AM

Good that some MPS are seeing sense, and that i newspaper is doing stories on problems. BBC has recently done a little from LLD point of view when discussing tenants plight. And good for the MP pointing out that Govt. abandoning its previous planning rules that might help meet Govt. new build targets of 300,000 homes p.a. will mean rent rises due to PRS 'reform' won't be dampened by more new homes becoming available/being built.

From: Henry S 16 May 2023 11:06 AM

A very small sample of 105 renters, as it says. As Peter points out, we don't know if the survey sample 'controlled' for ethnicity of landlords. So we don't know if it was e.g. Asian landlords treating Asian tenants badly (perhaps according to cultural background/s the norm elsewhere) or not. The survey also mentioned income. It isn't much of a surprise that those on lowest incomes get worse treatment as they may be in the poorest position to challenge it. And it is not unknown for many on the lowest incomes to come from ethnic minorities; so the survey appears to be finding the same thing (bad treatment) two different ways (poverty and ethnicity) but may be the same individuals affected. Good that Generation Rent recognise there are good landlords and agents, even if they describe them as "professional" and "qualified". Don't know what qualification there is in land-lording though: so not one that we or the big Build-to-Rent operators can study for. But the policies they promote are driving out landlords, from what I can see without distinguishing between good and bad ones (whether professional/qulaified or not). I've long thought that just introducing a Decent Homes Standard (effectively enforced), not scrapping S21, would drive out many of the worst landlords; being a proxy. And that we should have nothing to fear from that.

From: Henry S 15 May 2023 09:53 AM

My agents do property inspections, including internally, every 6 months. The staff who do these thus know tenants quite/very well. No chance of this terrible situation occurring in the small Landlord Private Rented Sector (conceivably it might in big Build-to-Rent schemes - I don't know for sure). We/I think of our tenants: including e.g. a longstanding one who started to develop serious dementia. I worked with her son who lives in the USA to resolve matters. He knew I had Section 21 powers to evict should she become too much of a danger to herself and the occupant of the flat above (also mine). I allowed more time than one might, and the agents advised, so she could transition to a specialist dementia care home. One wonders if govt. plans for S21 abolition will still leave us LLDs enough powers to be able to cajole/act in such circumstances as the example above. If she hadn't had a son, I would have approached social services myself and pointed out I was able to evict, so they would have to get their act together (personal experience is it has to be pretty bad for them to get really interested, I know they face pressures): they have access to care homes that I don't have.

From: Henry S 15 May 2023 08:53 AM

Joe, I see other sites as well as LLD Today. You might be surprised that not all landlords vote Tory: some even were going to vote Labour at the last election when Corbyn was leader. And there are fervent 'Corbynistas' I know who understand the realities of letting; and that hurting Landlords doesn't help tenants. I hope you are not a tenant. If you are, in the long term it may be you who is backfired upon. Enjoy. Remember: Section 21 is NOT 'no fault'; it is no fault stated/given. Only the most stupid, and very rich, Landlord will wish to evict for no reason at all. There are plenty of things we can blame many Tories for. But with your attitude, I am pleased I'm not providing a roof over your head. Though I have even done so for Covid deniers, at some actual health risk to myself; as well as plenty of nice tenants.

From: Henry S 13 May 2023 23:53 PM

I read on the web that bills are included. Also "high spec community kitchens, a gym, cinema room, gaming room, lounge and on-site bar for residents". Wouldn't fancy community kitchens. In my experience of similar: always left in a mess. Agree above comments about not for families, not even single parents with one child. Web doesn't mention pets, which we LLDs are encouraged to allow; and some of my tenants have/had.

From: Henry S 12 May 2023 10:45 AM

I had to laugh. Saw Shelter saying Govt. should hasten -not further delay- abolition of Section 21 because of it recently being used to evict so many more tenants. But they have cause and effect the wrong way round. They are just too stupid to realise: its the prospect of S21 abolition, on top if other anti-landlord policies, that is causing LLDs to leave. And to do that they have to evict tenants. This research shows the sell-off, on top of the recent prediction of half-a-million LLDs selling. Gove and Govt. won't be able to say (unless lying) they weren't warned. Just like Govt. was warned about Smart Motorways: they've now at last realised the safety problems with those and so have now halted new ones. A few people had to die first though, sadly. Remember the Poll Tax? Had to be scrapped some years after introduction by Tories who were warned at the time how stupid it was. These examples don't bode well for PRS legislation. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news: don't shoot the messenger!

From: Henry S 12 May 2023 10:19 AM

I hope you've told Government the effects of Section 24 (luckily doesn't affect me) and that but for your portfolio being able to spread increases, the effects would mean rent rises of £900 per property (which I guess might about double a rent in many cases). Of course Govt. won't do anything, but they should know the results of their stupidities - which they are about to repeat. Just as we told them that Smart motorways were unsafe and wouldn't work: they have belatedly at least stopped doing new ones (but won't reverse the existing). We told them so.

From: Henry S 10 May 2023 12:44 PM

John Smithers, you obviously don't know what being a landlord entails. It involves work, i.e. 'labour', which can be paperwork/admin (which to non-landlords is a paid job - just ask agents or lawyers) or manual stuff like repairs; or unblocking drains when tenants have flushed the wrong stuff down the toilet (as all tenants and homeowners shouldn't - its national advice to avoid things like 'fat-bergs'). If I do some work myself, rather than engage a tradesperson, HMRC rules mean I cannot deduct payment for my time -even at minimum wage rates- off my income before it is taxed. So as Jo Westlake has reported on here HMRC regard work by me as 'a hobby'. I could have far better hobbies than messy drain unblocking!

From: Henry S 10 May 2023 12:15 PM

The old saying: 'be careful what you wish for has never been more appropriate', as John Smithers and others will find.

From: Henry S 10 May 2023 11:55 AM

I see John Smithers has one 'like': made by himself. Like others, I've never trousered tax payer benefits - not intentionally. Though once when -properly- clearing a house after tenants left, I found paperwork at the back of a drawer that suggested one of the extended family had been claiming a local benefit I thought they weren't entitled to. Which may say something about some tenants. And I certainly don't treat tenants with minimal regard to importance of housing and wellbeing of tenants! Its not just LLDs who may call the changes Marxist that tenants need to worry about selling up, with consequent even higher rent rises. Half a million LLDs in one recent report. So I'd be interested to know how those tenants Smithers is addressing 'plan accordingly'.

From: Henry S 10 May 2023 11:43 AM

I've only had to evict once, for several months of rent non-payment: agents advised S21 as easier than Section 8; which is what they advised all landlords! So that may tell us something. (Afterwards, I left it quite some time, tracked down the ex-tenant (not easy as he was keeping very low profile) and then used the High Court Enforcement Group to get quite a chunk of the unpaid back - they were very good. I doubt there is any real evidence of the use of Section 21; instead a Manifesto commitment without any. As I recall some months ago, but after the White Paper was written, Paul Shamplina of Landlord Action said he and others had been approached by Civil Servants about why S21 was used: indicating such a lack of evidence. One could make a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request to Gove's department (I think online, for local authorities I've used WhatDoTheyKnow . com) asking what is the recent evidence and to produce it to you. As you may know under FOI rules they should reply in 20 working days, although sometimes it takes longer. I'd thought of doing so, but have too much else on right now. And have just spent 6 years with others in a (now successful) battle with a council about a historic footbridge they wanted to demolish, so need a rest from FOIs as had to do lots of them.

From: Henry S 10 May 2023 10:50 AM

A pity the Government/Gove aren't hearing all of this. I'm sure you'll tell the poor affected tenants who is to blame, and sorry you're being made to do it.

From: Henry S 26 April 2023 16:02 PM

One might hope that such a headline causes Government to pause and think, but don't hold your breath. I understand it was the Thatcher Government's introduction of the Housing Act with Section 21, so landlords could be in control of THEIR properties, that led to the boom in new private rental properties, after years of rent controls and decline. Scrapping Section 21 is bound to reverse this for individual landlords, though I don't know about large Build-To-Rent companies: are they somehow going to avoid the negative affects or perhaps they don't care? If there are valid concerns about the mis-use of S.21, presumably it could be changed to avoid these; as done with 'revenge' evictions following tenant requests for repairs. But arrogant politicians want to be seen to do big things, rather than small changes which may actually help (and less likely to have unintended consequences).

From: Henry S 26 April 2023 08:52 AM

I wish we'd all call them No Fault STATED evictions! I've seen NRLA Ben Beadle use another word after No Fault, but not as memorable and not as clear in saying that no fault is stated, i.e. given as a reason. There is going to be some sort of fault/reason for evicting, unless a landlord is either crazy or very rich (so doesn't need the income). "No fault" implies landlords evict just for the hell of it, even when the caveat of "so called" is added to the phrase by some commentators.

From: Henry S 25 April 2023 12:12 PM

After sending the above comment, I read that: "The Government found that one in three private tenancies was ended by landlords due to tenants’ antisocial behaviour.". Don't know exact source but from High Court Enforcement Group who I've used in the past for a b'stard tenant who decided to stop paying rent: most professional. So seems Govt. has done some research. Previously it hadn't when coming up with scapping S21 idea. Wonder if it found which powers were most used to get rid of ASB tenants: S21 or Section 8? Understand Govt. plan is to reduce notice when there is ASB to 2 weeks (not current 4 weeks), but by changing Section 8. So still evidence and retribution possibility problem. As I recall Jo Westlake said when she reported an ASB problem her tenant suffered to the offender's landlord: but her tenant got the retribution anyway.

From: Henry S 20 April 2023 12:25 PM

Clearly Section 21 the easiest way to deal with an anti-social tenant; and as no evidence required, so better/more effective than anything Government may come up with in their attempt to remove S21. And I've know a North-East council to readily evict ant-social tenants (don't know if they used S21): they had a many years long campaign on the issue, and as far as I know still doing it. Somehow an 'improvement' in Gove's mind; when he says they want to crack down on ASB (though that could be only just in time for local elections in England).

From: Henry S 20 April 2023 11:46 AM

"Thanks to the Conservative Government giving all UK landlords plenty of written notice and encouragement...". I've not had any written notice, even though HMRC know I am a landlord, and certainly not encouragement of any sort to meet minimum EPC level. Before the minimum came in, luckily there was some help to all households to improve insulation (from energy suppliers subject to Government pressure, I think the Coalition Govt. and one before it) and I took advantage of some of that when rentals were vacant. Luckily cavity walls as I am cautious about insulating solid walls successfully. Did so as offers available (or free); I hate waste (including wasted energy); and I've known about the climate change issue for many of the over 30 years since the warnings about it were known. Good idea about bolting down loft-hatches, if padlocked.

From: Henry S 20 April 2023 11:09 AM

Wish (?) I earned that much.

From: Henry S 12 April 2023 00:35 AM

Yes, I want to, and do, what I can to help towards a sustainable environment for future generations (though not so sure about the multiple spawn of Johnson, and any offspring of Truss, or Gove). Though if Govt. is SAYING it wants us all to 'do the right thing', why does it continue to kick us PRS Landlords; instead of incentivising us to help renters (who tend to be poorer and most in need of the help we can give them - environmentally, and with costs of fuel)? It could be fairly easily done, and benefit renters, in ways the supposedly 'pro-renter' groups cannot ever do (as they don't actually provide rented homes). But seems to much for thick headed politicians.

From: Henry S 12 April 2023 00:31 AM

Am I the only one who hasn't heard anything from HMRC about Making Tax Digital? Thought they should have notified us by now, in writing, on paper. And where was the public consultation they should have done? Plus 'stakeholder consultation', well prior to introducing it to us, that such public bodies should carry out?

From: Henry S 12 April 2023 00:00 AM

Good article, but would have been a lot better with comparative figures for Housing Association and Council housing properties. And owner occupied housing as a comparator/yardstick. All should be available from the English Housing Condition Survey, though TBH I haven't checked it.

From: Henry S 15 April 2023 16:40 PM

Great article. "led to a huge hike in rents and even that benefited only the incorporated community landlords, which were and still are overrepresented among the politician-landlords and upper middle classes." Saw recently a sizeable number of MPs rent out property (I recall over 100 of them), and not all just Tories. Presumably most of them incorporated, from what he says; which may explain how the attacks on unincorporated landlords got through Parliament. Don't know though how proposed abolition of Section 21 No Fault Stated evictions is going to get through Houses of Commons and Lords, as I cannot see why most landlords would support it, including the big Build To Rent ones. Unless I have missed something.

From: Henry S 11 April 2023 13:00 PM

Is anyone else finding it hard to reconcile the end quote with what we hear about LLDs selling up: “Despite this, we’ve actually seen an increase in the total value of buy-to-let loans issued in the last year which suggests that, despite all that’s been thrown at them, the nation’s landlords are still largely undeterred and the buy-to-let sector itself remains a lucrative one for those looking to invest in the right areas and with the right financing in place.” But we don't know if Octane Capital compared the total value of BTL loans to increases (?) in total purchase prices; increases (?) in the % of loans to purchase prices; or possibly both. Obviously Octane are finding some new BTLs, but we cannot be sure from their figures that the number of these equals or outweighs the numbers or old BTLs being sold. And this is only one company. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can enlighten us.

From: Henry S 01 April 2023 10:02 AM

Another reason for wrong EPCs to the two you stated in your penultimate paragraph Jo is: even if there is a poor rated >10 years old 'expired' EPC, you don't have to get a new one unless the tenancy agreement has been renewed. (Two different agents got that wrong and told me I needed a new EPC.) But you probably know that, just didn't say it. So longstanding tenants have a 10+ year old poor EPC, even though they know I have upgraded the insulation to more than was assessed long ago and so aren't bothered by it. Additionally, some old EPCs were done with inaccurate assumptions (they didn't bother to check properly, as clear from the EPC report). because at that time the Govt. requirement was only to have an EPC, no matter what the EPC grade was (Govt. assumed renters and buyers would decide for themselves). Quick and poor EPCs, were cheapest, and enticing as part of a 'tick box' approach by the then agents (I was in more than full-time work then, so had to leave it to them). So as the tenancy agreement hasn't changed since it expired, this is still the valid EPC. Sad/worrying to hear of all those insulation problems. Hope my British Gas free cavity fibre insulation of a few years back doesn't lead to the same. At the time I didn't know about the bead alternative, which wasn't on offer (did the installers, but not say or offer me that?). I had to lick the installers up on bits of wall they missed: a bit more effort for them.

From: Henry S 31 March 2023 11:23 AM

Good observations Nick. And even if one believes the 70% DLUHC figure, that still leaves 30% who wouldn't re-let. Which is a large %. Also, if say those 30% of landlords tend to own more properties per person than the 70% (though we know most landlords own only one or two properties, possibly as part of their pension) then 30% of landlords could equate to a lot more than 30% of properties not being re-let. Two days ago the BBC reported on Zoopla figures saying: "Large numbers of landlords are leaving the market - 11% of homes for sale on Zoopla were previously rented." I'd believe the BBC and Zoopla, rather than the biased Daily Mail; who are hiding a significant problem by saying it is not "en masse". At least if the BBC get something wrong, as they sometimes do, they tend to bleat about themselves and their mistakes on air. Newspapers instead tend to hide away any apologies for mistakes. BBC Radio 4 even airs a complaints programme about itself.

From: Henry S 31 March 2023 10:32 AM

Harsh Reality... needs to recognise economic reality. Yes, high house prices tend to affect buyers (homeowners and BTL landlords) and renters (whether they are renting to save a deposit, or long-term renters). High house prices greatly benefit landowners selling land for housing development (not much developers/builders who tend to get their usual %). Also people downsizing (who can pass money gained to help children or their pension). If it were "not moral to make profit from someone else's need for a home" housebuilders wouldn't build (nor housing associations who depend on some % of sales on a development to make schemes viable). Only that with direct Govt. subsidy would be built if there was no profit incentive. As others have said (very eloquently by Jo Westlake) what landlords want is equal treatment to ordinary companies; fair treatment - not special treatment. If investment landscape becomes less favourable in general, this can affect many people's pensions funds (including some parts of public sector pensions indirectly): not a good thing as I see it. If Govt. action makes renting out even less favourable, this harms tenants as well as LLDs. Some tenants understand this; but not the usual anti-landlord groups.

From: Henry S 29 March 2023 12:27 PM

Good this got into the Metro paper, so tenants might read it. Though doubt Rachel Maclean, housing minister will: she'll probably just keep to her unsubstantiated views; and avoid reading anything which might challenge them. Did anyone hear Radio 4's File on Four this last week about terrible social landlords, including repeated problems of toilet in one flat leaking and flooding other flats (tenant had to be moved to hotel)? Their Ombudsman interviewed and highly critical of Housing Assns. conduct and attitude. And follows child dying after health problems in Rochdale Council owned flat. But Ombudsman complaints only 0.1% of social housing tenants (yes, 1 in 1,000). And we're going to get an Ombudsman imposed on us LLDs, even if we are not incorporated businesses - just private individuals, unlike letting agents. They'll likely charge costs of setting up Ombudsman onto us. So rents will rise even further, just like after the Tenant Fee Ban. Even if the charge is an allowable management expense that can be set off against income before it is taxed. Do feel free to correct me anyone if I have got this wrong.

From: Henry S 28 March 2023 11:14 AM

"Accidental" does NOT mean unprofessional!!! I really resent such allegations. But perhaps you want to play into the hands of anti-landlord groups; when enough of them are getting things factually wrong (including Crisis who I may take to the Charity Commission). I became a landlord 'accidentally', but became more professional, and proved to be more correct on various aspects of law and practice on a number of occasions than a couple of letting agents; who got things wrong and I had to correct them. And I always meet my obligations: so don't "get away with it". There are sometimes obvious good reasons for authorities not being able to act on reports from third parties not directly affected. And well done Kathryn.

From: Henry S 25 March 2023 20:19 PM

Robert, Andrew, others, I've found the % agents charge for rent collecting etc. varies with competition amongst agents. One quoted me 12% for a small historic city, but 10% in the case of a south coast seaside town 9 miles away in which several agents operated (their reason for the reduction). In the seaside town I went with agents whose charges went down to 8% when I put a third property with them. As I get contacted by tenants with any problems direct, they don't have to do much work: which I'll tell them should they try to increase above 8% +£20pcm (the £20 flat rate after the tenant fee ban came in - which got passed on in rents, just as LLDs predicted to Govt. it would: there really is no such thing as a free lunch).

From: Henry S 25 March 2023 16:05 PM

Another article in this LLD Today bulletin (about Govt. LLD tax changes resulting in less Treasury revenue) states: "According to Zoopla, compared to the five-year average, demand for rented housing is up 46 per cent whilst supply is down 38 per cent." Why, with rents rising more than previously - which should be attracting landlords to increase supply, is supply going down unless it is a result of Govt. policies (past and forthcoming). I believe Zoopla more than a stupid politician like McLean.

From: Henry S 23 March 2023 19:49 PM

Jo is even more right than usual in her first paragraph, including the last sentence. The target is Net Zero or we'll all suffer, inreasingly. If Government don't want to make energy saving improvements tax deductible for all homeowners and landlords due to the amount of tax revenue forgone, they could at least do it for landlords' properties rented out. This could help meet the EPC C target, and fewer emissions. But importantly help renters, who tend to be less well off than homeowners, so they then spend a little less on their heating (as soon as improvements are complete, into perpetuity -- unlike a one-off benefits rise). Perhaps wishful thinking, but perhaps even Generation Rant [sic] might back that kind of help to landlords as it would help tenants.

From: Henry S 17 March 2023 12:18 PM

Interesting to hear the predicament of HTB buyers. As one commentator dubbed the scheme: Help To Buy:Votes. Perhaps I should have more sympathy for those who got a HTB mortgage; even though the Government help presumably partly relied on our taxes. But I have more sympathy for those who found themselves unable to buy because house price inflation was increased by HTB and Stamp Duty Holiday, as many predicted these would. Those suffering from the current effects of HTB Jo points out might get to blame the politicians who set up the market distorting scheme (the market now correcting itself). In doing so they can join the club of PRS Landlords being 'stuffed' by stupid politicians interfering. Though at least we shouldn't become homeless, even if some of our tenants might as LLDs sell up.

From: Henry S 17 March 2023 11:49 AM

From what I heard of the budget, businesses will be able to deduct before tax their investment on machinery, plant and premises for 3 years (which may be extended). Presumably we're still not classed as a business through some twisted logic. Allowing similar deductions might help with EPC improvements the Govt. want, non-decent homes they want to eliminate, and more generally in improving rentals. I've done most of what I want to do already, but if solar PV was deductible I'd do it. Good to hear Kennedy is outgoing, but doubt replacement will have more sense.

From: Henry S 16 March 2023 11:36 AM

Some honest answers: As long as they are good tenants, I feel more comfortable taking the not inconsiderable rents (I especially go for top amount at the start of a tenancy, though try to avoid raising rents afterwards) and providing a service they can't complain about. Most are grateful, but I did get a pair of idiots 2 years ago (who lost all their deposit). If I got bad tenants I may care less about then paying extra heating costs, as payback for their stupidity. Some of my tenants have said they see me and I do stuff on that house; not just a landlord they never see who just sits back and collects the rent. I make it clear that I care about the properties (not Buy to Lets) to try to encourage them to do so (though they rarely take as much care as me - few tenants do). I want the boilers serviced as a condition of the long warranties. And bleeding rads. means they should last longer, so I don't have the outlay replacing them (couple of years ago I had to replace rads. installed when that house was built in 1970s, the house had been looked after). Tenants then don't complain about cold rads. My longest tenancy was 12 years (she left for a care home); then 9 years (she left to retire to Portugal); then 7 years and counting (they've now been trained, realize I could evict if they don't take care, and know they live in the best house they've ever head and couldn't afford to buy anything like it). When Generation Rant [sic] and other numpty groups claiming to represent tenants interests unjustly criticize 'greedy' landlords, I can feel smug and righteous: I recently complained to the main person in Crisis about his completely incorrect comments about evictions. Didn't like his excuse, so may report him to Charities Commission. Abolition of Section 21, and some other PRS proposals do make me think of selling though. Each to his\her own though.

From: Henry S 15 March 2023 23:29 PM

I presume that as a letting agent, he hasn't had to take up a carpet soaked with stale dog ur1ne over many years, and recently; like I have. I've allowed dogs in the past, one was okay, the others not for various reasons. I've learnt to be very cautious of dogs, but I'll be more likely to consider other pets. He misses that some tenants want a quiet flat without a dog, and without a barking dog next door/downstairs/upstairs. While not legally trained, in anticipation of Section 21 going, I am making new Tenancy Agreement terms as tight as I can make them. Including regarding pets; saying there will be an additional pet rent should pets be kept or tolerated in future (to try to catch unauthorised pets being brought in). Also a term requiring honesty by tenants; so if they aren't that is another term of the tenancy they are breaking (and another for a judge to consider in what would be a long list if I try to evict after S.21 goes). One can but try, as long as one doesn't try an Unfair Contract term.

From: Henry S 29 December 2022 18:29 PM

I had a prospective tenant offering to pay £100 pcm more than the advertised rent. Nothing to do with the managing agent as Generation Rant [sic] want people to believe. And as I'm not a greedy landlord, I recall another claim of them and their associate pressure groups, I didn't accept the extra £100 each month; and said I'm not keen on gazumping. Also, I don't go around spreading lies like I've seen Gen Rant and Crisis do (formal complaint about a Crisis lie likely, then to Charity Commission). We have moral high ground (says a somewhat smug me).

From: Henry S 29 December 2022 16:31 PM

In anticipation of the PRS proposals going through, and being harder to evict in the absense of Section 21, I've just massively 'beefed up' my tenancy agreement for a new tenant. I've included some of the things this article sets out in its section 1 - as detailed requirements of the tenancy, e.g. what they should and must not do to avoid damp and mould; requirements to ventilate adequately; and reporting any issues promptly -before they get worse and more expensive to fix (no matter who has to pay for fixing). Not sure most will read or remember these clauses of their contract they sign with me. But if we are to get tenants who will have a right to stay as many years as they like, I want my contract with them to be as 'watertight' as I can make it. Such is the demand for rentals, I doubt anyone will question it (though my letting agents did). If they do then they are probably not the careful tenant I want. If tenant turns out to be a complete pain and I have to try to evict, then there will probably be more tenancy clauses they've broken; hopefully adding weight to my case. Time will tell if this approach works: just hope I don't have to find out. BTW, last tenants caused much more damage in 1 1/2 years than previous one did in 12 years (they lost all of their deposit and it cost me more than that to remedy).

From: Henry S 26 November 2022 21:28 PM

Whatever you think about the bank and its motives (I have no experience of it) at least they are making the right sort of points to Govt. Perhaps more chance of Govt listening to them than they appear to have to small landlords. I was a bit surpised, though I should not have been, when a month or so ago Paul Shamplina said he and others were being consulted by civil servants about the impacts of the PRS white paper: that should have happened before its publication! I wonder which idiot wrote the PRS bit of the Tory manifaesto: anyone know their name/s?

From: Henry S 26 November 2022 21:11 PM

I'm not going to get into an immigration argument. But would just point out that immigration numbers (in persons) doesn't equate to housing numbers. In many English districts, the number of persons per home (household) is 2.1. The average may not be too different for immigrants as many may be single males coming for work, balancing out migrant families somewhat. 374,000 persons / 2.1 = 178,000 (so yes still more than the 174,000 figure, just not as far away from it). Number of new homes does also need to meet the increase in the resident population, and Govt. has not met its 200,000p.a. target for all the years it has had it. It was decades ago that housebuilding numbers were about that level. Trying to plan for, and get built, more homes will always be hard as people tend to be understandably NIMBY (I used to do it as a job). Local politicians tend not to want to put the 'housing needs' case to their voters. Not building enough homes will help higher rents for us landlords though: if we can withstand the stupid new PRS proposals. As Govt. cannot build enough homes and rents rise further; rather than taking the blame for not building enough, politicians blame landlords for being greedy. Typical of so many politicians = blame someone else for their faults.

From: Henry S 26 November 2022 20:08 PM

Re. No. 3 On old central heating systems you might NOT want to power flush your radiators. Good plumber has advised me that this can cause leaks in old pipe joints. Flushing through, without power, can clean out rust and dirt deposits, including with a cleaner additive. You may wish to add rust inhibitor when re-filling. And I understand bleeding rads. not only reduces cold spots and increases efficiency, but also will reduce rust where trapped and water meet.

From: Henry S 26 November 2022 19:31 PM

Breaking News