x

Appalled Landlord

3320 Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Appalled's Recent Activity

Good to see that Richard Lambert, CEO of the National Landlords Association, has not accepted the abolition of Section 21, and is fighting to retain it. Well done Richard!

From: Appalled Landlord 15 August 2019 14:08 PM

No, the government interventions in the PRS are designed to get the votes of renters. Most tenants cannot afford to buy, that’s why they rent. Evicting them will not enable them to buy.

From: Appalled Landlord 03 May 2019 16:39 PM

Tom Gatzen, co-founder of leading room share platform, ideal flatmate, said: ”the UK rental market should serve all tenants regardless of financial situation, particularly those that arguably need it most.” What claptrap. He is confusing the Private Rented Sector with the Welfare State

From: Appalled Landlord 30 March 2019 10:00 AM

John Healey is the rogue for suggesting that going back to the era of tenancies for life would benefit tenants. Tenancies for life drastically reduced the number of rented dwellings in the 20th century. They would do the same to supply this century, because landlords would sell up instead.

From: Appalled Landlord 11 March 2019 11:21 AM

Google Was Shelter’s campaign with Rosie likely to succeed if it got to court?

From: Appalled Landlord 27 November 2018 13:12 PM

Alison Butler, Croydon Council cabinet member for Homes & Gateway Services and deputy leader, who proposed the motion, said: “The biggest cause of homelessness in Croydon is evictions in the private rental sector.” Shelter knows different https://www.property118.com/shelters-website-says-section-21-not-cause-homelessness/#

From: Appalled Landlord 18 October 2018 16:21 PM

What Richard Lambert should have said is that landlords do not evict good tenants https://www.property118.com/shelter-ceo-confused-reasons-evictions/ that S 21 is not a cause of homelessness https://www.property118.com/shelter-ceo-also-confused-no-fault-evictions/comment-page-2/#comment-106473 and that if we return to lifetime tenancies the PRS will shrink drastically like it did in the last century. People will not let properties that they might never get back. Beware of ignorant young disrupters for they know not what they do,

From: Appalled Landlord 10 October 2018 09:53 AM

Ludlow Thompson’s claim is seriously misleading nonsense, which could lead to mis-selling.. They have deducted the estimated extra tax payments of £840 million from the expenses of £17.5 billion to arrive at £16.7 billion! £7 billion was 100% of the interest that was paid by landlords and deducted from rent receipts when calculating taxable profit last year. From 2020/21 the percentage treated in this way will be 0%. The amount will not be £6.4 billion, it will be ZERO. Instead, landlords will be able to deduct up to 20% of the interest amount from the tax that HMRC will calculate on their total income from all sources, including rental profit which will be inflated by not deducting interest. So someone paying tax at 40% will pay extra tax equal to 20% of the interest. For a 45% taxpayer the extra tax will be equal to 25% of interest. Some people will be pushed from the 20% band into the 40% band. That is why the tax take is expected to increase. Under this regime the total tax payable can exceed the real rental profit. That is the real message that should be publicised, not reassuring claptrap based on ignorance and misunderstanding... And it is not music to our ears that we will still be able to deduct some of the costs of doing business from our receipts when calculating taxable profit. That is just normal accounting and taxation.

From: Appalled Landlord 04 February 2018 23:26 PM

More trouble with percentages The full report states, at the foot of page 12: “Since 2003, the number of social rented homes has flatlined, while the number of private rented homes has nearly doubled, growing by 186% from 2.5 million homes to 4.75 million by 2015.” The increase is exactly 90%, but this has been more than doubled by the writer.

From: Appalled Landlord 26 July 2017 16:39 PM

There is another area of the report which is misleading. On page 1 the full report states: “National data from the English Housing Survey suggests that just under a quarter of current tenants reported that their last move from private rented properties in England was forced in some way, and was not because they wanted to move.” This implies that landlords had forced almost a quarter of them out “in some way”. This is a gross distortion which the EHS table belies, on page 17 of the report. It shows that 8% had been asked to leave, and 2% had left because of a rent increase, making a total of 10%. The other reasons making up the “forced endings” were Mutual agreement (8%), The tenancy was for a fixed period (6%) and Accommodation tied to job and job ended (2%) which total 16%. The latter group were were natural endings, not forced “in some way”.

From: Appalled Landlord 26 July 2017 16:03 PM

Breaking News