x

Laura B

-

78 Profile Views

About Me

-

my expertise in the industry

-

Laura's Recent Activity

Sorry, but you only need a single 'episode' for an animal to cause mass destuction and having insurance doesn't guarantee that you'll get a pay out. Insurance doesn't compensate for time and hassle either. I have a responsibility to myself and to my mortgage lender to keep my assets in good condition. No pets here, thanks. Personally, I'd like to see automatic fines for tenants that bring animals into a property when expressly forbidden in the contract.

From: Laura B 01 April 2021 16:53 PM

Guide dogs would be a totally different prospect given their training. They are by definition much more controlled and would always be with the owner, so wouldn't suffer from abandonment anxiety. I've never heard of an assistance dog going nuts or damaging furniture/the house. I still wouldn't want them though because of hygiene. As to allergies - several members of my family develop both asthmatic and other allergic symptoms where dander is in carpets. It can never be removed completely. Even if the sypmtoms are mild - runny nose, tight chest, hoarseness, itchy eyes - it can make life miserable. A severe allergy sufferer would be able to tell as soon as they walked through the door for the viewing and would make an immediate decision not to take the property. They wouldn't say anything but would just walk away. Which is probably why you've never heard of it.

From: Laura B 02 February 2021 03:30 AM

...and therein lies the problem: "I have a RIGHT to have a pet", so they'll start ignoring those clauses like some have decided not to pay rent during COVID because LL can ask for a mortgage holiday.

From: Laura B 02 February 2021 02:54 AM

'weapons grade bellends'. Can I borrow that in future? :)

From: Laura B 30 January 2021 00:40 AM

It's not just 'smells' it's allergies. My current tenants asked to have a dog, despite the contract being 'no pets'. Given lockdown I did genuinely consider their request but refused on the ground of potential damage and my allergies, my family's allergies and those of future tenants. A cat, dog or house rabbit will leave fur everywhere and it can't be fully removed. This isn't damage per se, but for an asthmatic / allergy sufferer the carpets would have to be changed before they could move in. I'm not footing that cost, or limiting my pool of potential tenants, for someone else's pleasure.

From: Laura B 30 January 2021 00:36 AM

Google 'dog damage' and see what images comes back. You're looking at thousands of pounds that most renters couldn't afford to fix properly. I have a duty of care to my mortgage provider, as well as myself, to not cause uneccessary loss of value to my property. I'd consider fish and maybe snakes. My property is almost competely plasterboard. Consequently, anything with teeth, including small rodents, are off limits. I don't want to be that harsh but this is a business decision and given current laws, I have no way of recovering the true costs of the damage if a tenant is unwilling / dishonourable. BTW I am currently renting myself. I'd love a pet but my contract says no and I am happy to repect that. That's what I signed.

From: Laura B 29 January 2021 23:38 PM

I suspect that the guarantors will be able to use this defence as well. I think LLs will need multiple guarantors, income protection insurance (for the tenant) or in my case, 1 have year's rent up front. It's getting ridiculous, almost like they want to encourage eviction by baseball bat.

From: Laura B 18 January 2021 23:39 PM

Re the comments about guarantors; are there any insurance policies available for people to pay their rent in event of losing their job? As LLs, should we be demanding that for the duration of any tenancy, tenants have income protection insurance? In Canada it's normal for the tenant to have to prove they have contents insurance as part of a tenancy; so why not income protection insurance to cover the rent? That would make a legal case for rent recovery / eviction easier because they should maintain their income in event of accident / illness, or otherwise would have deliberately caused their loss of income by getting sacked or walking out. Think I'll want more than one guarantor when this comes in - they could all claim MH crises!!

From: Laura B 18 January 2021 23:34 PM

Guys, this is the wrong forum. We all need to be actively engaging with our MPs, local news outlets and social media to provide a counter narrative. These loud, vocal, fringe campaigners (like BLM and XR) gain traction because normal people roll their eyes, stick their heads down and just try to get on with life. By the time they raise their head again, it's too late and the lunatics have taken over the asylum. If the Renters Reform Coalition are planning for a blitz campaign, ending next September, we all ought to be prepared to do the same. It's only nine months.

From: Laura B 23 December 2020 18:01 PM

My big annoyance about this scheme is people taking a copy of my passport. Most LL & small agencies have little understanding of data protection (of course they may say/think they do) and no policies regarding destruction of documents. As individuals we are responsible for keeping our identity safe but the government then mandates that we give our most sensitive documents to all and sundry. Having rented a lot (9 places in 11 years), this is one of the most frustrating parts of the process. To 'satisfy' themselves of identity, a LL only actually needs to have sight of a passport/residence doc, but being terrified of fines, everyone wants to retain 'proof'. If requested, I supply a redacted copy. They can see the original but not take copies. As both a tenant and LL I see both sides.

From: Laura B 24 November 2020 17:19 PM

Interesting logic. "The vast majority of LL are compliant and offer good housing, but rather than using our comprehensive array of powers to tackle the few transgressors, we want to create a burdensome system that means we have to interact with the entire market; creating another tier of bureaucracy and cost and undoubtly requiring more staff, in order to achieve next to nothing". I paraphrase. As far as I can see this is another interfering power grab and a money making racket.

From: Laura B 23 October 2020 01:54 AM

Paul, do you seriously think that any government body would keep the price at £20 per year for a single property? It might start low but they'd add a few noughts on to the cost in very short order. Plus, I already use a property management service - for a hefty fee of course - and they check my certificates and advise on property condition. Why should I pay a second time to be added to this register when I am already doing everything right? Now you could require that every property be checked by an approved person (condition and certificates), which could either be a certified management firm or a government scheme. The choice would be the LL's. That keeps the quality up but costs down by not duplicatng work and leaves the private sector (who generally want to make things work) to lead the way in good practice. Supporting a LL/property register is basically giving local councils permission to soak LL further....and they will because they know that LL are way down the sympathy list for most people. It's an open goal for them.

From: Laura B 20 October 2020 20:11 PM

Sebastian you are deliberately comparing apples with oranges. International media behemoths are entirely different to the rest of the business world and have built up significant 'war chests'. Their business model is to charge regular small amounts to millions of subscribers simultaneously. They can afford to be generous at this time. For LL it isn't cash flow, they are prevented from actually trading whilst incurring additional cost because they are denied access to their assets by government edict. LL have to charge relatively large amounts to a handful of clients for discrete assets. If they lose a tenant it has a higher proportionate effect on their income and as Paul said, if they can't get the asset back they are prevented from generating income from it with an alternative client. The current system means that some LL will have had to house someone for over a year at their own cost. They may even have to pay the council tax and for repairs to the property while the thief still lives inside for free. How is that a reasonable expectation of a business? Weatherspoons aren’t expected to feed the nation without charging for the food. ...and what of 'accidental' LL that only have one property. They aren’t running a business and may expect to go for 3 months without income but 12+ months with additional expenses, on top of the mortgage??

From: Laura B 24 September 2020 19:51 PM

Paul, please do not presume to speak for anyone else. I for one would object to council licensing. Councils already have extensive powers to inspect property and would offer nothing to landlords (or tenants) for the 'service' charged for. Licensing would be used as nothing more than a cash cow and worse; it would require having to actuallly deal with the morons and pen pushers at the council. My property is full managed already. The agent checks yearly that all required inspections and permits are valid and sends me a property condition report. Why should I then have to sign up for a 'service' which would try to replicate (only some of) these actions, but do it badly? The agents provide a year-round full service (for a nice fee!) that benefits both the LL and tenant. The council license would be a one-time box checking exercise (yearly at best) which will add no value for good LLs and their tenants... and the bad LLs will just carry on as normal.

From: Laura B 24 September 2020 19:03 PM

Breaking News