x
By using this website, you agree to our
use of cookies
to enhance your experience.
SEARCH
Search
STAY
CONNECTED!
Sign in
Sign in
New here? Sign up
Feedback
My Account
Feedback
Sign out
×
Make Today's Website as home page
Menu
Estate agent today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Letting agent today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Landlord today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Property Investor today
News
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Introducer today
News
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Property Jobs Today
Home
Find a Job
Search Recruiters
Recruiters
New
m's
Personal Profile
View my company profile
m d
382
Profile Views
About Me
Send message
View company profile
Follow all comments made
my expertise in the industry
m's wall
m's
Recent Activity
It takes character to acknowledge leveraged BTL as a house of cards (assuming that was what you meant by deck of cards). It is innevitable that every house of cards tumbles eventually, in a sense they are just patiently waiting for a gust of air or a bump against the table.
From:
m d
10 November 2020 13:49 PM
As LLs you and I get only 1 vote each, just like every oneof our tennants. There is no electoral incentive to implement what you propose, and in fact the prevailing current has been moving in the opposite direction for years
From:
m d
10 November 2020 13:46 PM
These homeless tennants, will their former LLs be burning down the houses? Otherwise there will still be the same number of people and rooms for them to sleep in overall, just with changed ownership. Will the banks want thousands of derelict empty properties, or to flood the auctions with stock? Surely you could see banks leasing reposessed properties to housing associations to avoid either of the above. We have heard for years about LLs being held to higher standards for their properties than HAs, so surely ex LL stock will be good to go. Either way the taxpayer will be paying for someone's home, just without a private LL as middleman.
From:
m d
10 November 2020 13:44 PM
Which property would you be on the electoral register at? Obviously a housing officer would have access to that info, and would likely rely on it to determine if you were living at the address. Breaching buildings insurance or mortgage conditions wouldn't really preclude an AST being inferred to exist, as landlords regularly do such things. The fact that residential mortgage lenders already have conditions limiting the number of lodgers shows that they consider the inadvertent creation of an AST a credible risk. I would also argue that the rent a room scheme was never intended to subvert an AST when a landlord rents a property out while not living in it, so enforcing the original intent wouldn't really damage the scheme. Ultimately we will have to agree to disagree. The .gov website uses the term rent a room scheme, which I had obvs heard of, hence I hadn't encountered the RFRA anacronym.
From:
m d
08 August 2020 22:04 PM
LL rights are habitually overiden by missinterpreted statute applied by council housing officers. Do you think that you would be the first LL trying to dodge AST protections by claiming the tennants are merely lodgers? There is nothing new under the sun, and that is hardly a devious gambit. I repeat: an AST is automatically created under certain circumstances, even if nothing is ever put to paper. A civil court may eventually rule in your favour on the nuances of what constitutes living in a house with lodgers, but that will be a harder and more protracted legal road than a normal AST eviction. In the interim it will be a council housing officer or a police officer that attends the initial call. They won't conduct a full court hearing on the doorstep, but will use their judgement and (limited relevant) training. I am still interested to hear about RFRA strategy, the only thing google brought up was a US religious freedom restoration act. I doubt christian bakers and gay themed cakes were what you were referring to.
From:
m d
08 August 2020 21:12 PM
You reference the rent-a-room scheme, I think. That is a tax matter. You mention mortgage and buildings insurance requirements. None of that is relevant to the crux of the matter. You tell someone out and they say no, or leave but come back. You will either have to forceably remove them or force entry into your own property, or have the police do this for you. This will likely end up being assessed by a police officer or a council housing officer, once either you or the tennnant picks up the phone. The council bod will be looking to avoid having to emergency house someone, and will be an expert on the automatic creation of an AST. The police will take their word as gospel on matters of law, and tell you that you will have to go civil if you disagree. A police officer will have had training on illegal evictions, public order offences, and telling people that everything is a civil matter. They won't have a clue about the ins and outs of your scheme, but in the abscence of a council bod they will fall back on the sniff test and the narrow areas of relevant law they are familiar with. If you actually live there, have an actual room full of possesions there, have that address on your drivers license etc then they will see things one way. If you start being evasive, or admit to not actually living there then they will see it the other way. Can you tell me about the RFRA strategy? I haven't heard the term before.
From:
m d
08 August 2020 20:35 PM
I don't know you Paul, maybe your mother's maiden name was Kray or Capone. Otherwise you are going to be relying on rule of law to defend your property rights, just like the rest of us. Failing the sniff test when dealing with the police tends to make everything a civil matter. I can also clearly visualize a policeman looking at you with a selection of warm beds to go to by your own admission, and three tennants saying they have nowhere else to go. I imagine that would end up with you given a section 5 public order act instruction to disperse "to avoid disturbing the neighbours", and the tennants going to their beds in your house. Section 5 is police for "you didn't pass the sniff test so I won't help you, and I have had enough of you so go away". You admit that you entered into BTL under the niave assumption that no court would deny a LL their property rights, and found that to be far from true. I suggest if you ever put your one-night-per-month scheme into practice that a similar learning curve would apply. Squatting and illegally evicting someone on an AST are both criminal offenses, but officers wouldn't get involved with that sort of splitting hairs. They tend to solve problems and move on, and suggest Citizen's advice for your next step.
From:
m d
08 August 2020 19:37 PM
I imagine the council would start by visiting every property concerned where the same person is paying CT for multiple addresses and asking the people there "do you live here, and does Mr X?". When informed that they are lodgers, but that the CT bill payer only visits once per month, the council busybody would tell them all about ASTs/illegal evictions/etc and make sure that they "knew their rights" and had contact details for the council in case they have any problems. "just change the locks" has the disadvantage of them just getting in and doing the same to you. Several lodgers' word against one of yours would also potentially be very persuasive, even if you were the one bloodied. Coppers tend to view people as either "honest" or "pulling a fast one", and actively dislike helping the latter group on principle. Your one night a month scheme wouldn't pass the sniff test. A police officer would also likely decline involvement once you admit that the person lives there in exchange for rent, and that you don't actually stay there regularly. Of course one could lie, but if the officers asked the neighbours who did and didn't live there you could be the one lead off in shackles!
From:
m d
08 August 2020 18:37 PM
I agree with a lot of what you say. My mentor (back when an 'injection' badge on your car was aspirational) preached that 1% MONTHLY yield was the cut off for viability when buying. As prices rose I stretched that a little, but subsequent rises brought me back over that threshold. I haven't bought in nearly 20 years, and have been selling selectively for over 10 as long-term tennants left. If your "one day a month" lodger scheme ever becomes popular I can readily imagine laws being brought in to counter it. I can also imagine police officers bouncing it back as a civil matter if asked to evict a lodger that asserts they have a tennancy, and that LL only stays occasionally. Remember an AST is created automatically under certain circumstances. I can also imagine council busybodies crying "illegal eviction", and looking to catch someone out with questions like "show me your drivers license if you say that you live here". On a lighter note you would be like Uday Hussein, never sleeping in the same bed two nights running!
From:
m d
08 August 2020 18:11 PM
I always say my business (as a LL) is people first, regulation second, houses a distant third. Too many recent LLs think that should be in reverse order.
From:
m d
08 August 2020 17:49 PM
You appreciate that anything can change, legally speaking re licensing? I also doubt many recent LLs would relish sharing a 4 bed house with three randoms, as a lifestyle choice. It would rather detract from the "white RR Evoque" look to be seen as living in a house share. This model also doesn't scale, unless you plan to "live"in a dozen different houses at once...
From:
m d
08 August 2020 17:28 PM
@paul. I wish you well in exiting the BTL sector. I actually admire someone that can admitt they entered into a six (or seven?) figure business (using leverage to boot?) based upon a niave assumption of the law concerning the business. 3 months was always a best case scenario for regaining posession, and could be multiples of that for a tenant that goes the distance with the court process and uses the legal protections available to them to best advantage at each stage. The real issue is that recent LLs have bid rental properties up to prices (and hence down to yields) that are just not viable with adequate contingency. 3% yield less 1% IO mortgage is dancing on a razor's edge if you have a non-payer or full refurb. The good BTL game peaked over a decade ago, and now we have a sector full of get-rich-quick chancers chasing one last burst of capital gains. People have been told that a heavily regulated people centric industry could be hands off and predictable, which is ludicrous if you think about it!
From:
m d
08 August 2020 17:21 PM
@Andrew that is fair enough, when in compliance with the law. A bad tennant is certainly worse than no tennant, but only a business with financial contingency can afford the short term cashflow implications of that kind of long term thinking. The DSS issue is more nuanced though, as many employed tennants will be finding themselves claiming over the next year.
From:
m d
08 August 2020 17:10 PM
"So tenants should offer to vacate IMMEDIATELY but leave it for the LL to decide if they wish to retain the tenant...I think perhaps tenants should state they will remain but leave IMMEDIATELY the LL has sourced a replacement" How about no? The tennant is likely in a world of **** financially, and they aren't going to put themselves in deeper to bail out your precarious business model. If they have another property to go to, they will without concern for your CT problems etc. If they don't then tough, use the courts. A business has to price risk and contingency into it's model. The absence of an instant eviction option for landlords should come as no surprise to you, and you shouldn't expect sympathy for this oversight!
From:
m d
08 August 2020 16:19 PM
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Breaking News
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Video Archieve
Today 14:58
Portal Discussions
Joined Group From: Your Community
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Industry View
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Industry View
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Conversation Comment in: Interior Design
Today 14:58
×
Send a message
Message
×
Write on Wall
Message
×
Send a message
Reply to:
Message
Breaking News
Paul Shamplina demands government set date for Section 21 abolition
More tenants must borrow to fund deposits - survey’s claim
Renters Reform Bill - what happens now in House of Lords
Landlords urged to apply for energy efficiency funds
Jonathan Rolande - Why the Section 21 Debate Is a Smokescreen
Rent Control zealot dropped from Scottish government
Gove Hits Back! He says Reform Bill is STILL a Renting Revolution
Rehashed research again slams MPs who are landlords
Surprise move as agents issue ‘how to complain’ guide to tenants
Where to find tenanted buy to let units for investors to purchase
m's Recent Activity
From: m d
10 November 2020 13:49 PM
From: m d
10 November 2020 13:46 PM
From: m d
10 November 2020 13:44 PM
From: m d
08 August 2020 22:04 PM
From: m d
08 August 2020 21:12 PM
From: m d
08 August 2020 20:35 PM
From: m d
08 August 2020 19:37 PM
From: m d
08 August 2020 18:37 PM
From: m d
08 August 2020 18:11 PM
From: m d
08 August 2020 17:49 PM
From: m d
08 August 2020 17:28 PM
From: m d
08 August 2020 17:21 PM
From: m d
08 August 2020 17:10 PM
From: m d
08 August 2020 16:19 PM