x

Jo Westlake

99 Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Jo's Recent Activity

I think we need a bit longer to see how things really look. September was hectic but that's not unusual. The rest of 2021 was patchy. At the start of the year it was really hard to let rooms. Rooms that normally go within a few days were empty for 2 or 3 months. The summer trundled along in an unspectacular fashion. September was insane. Very high number of enquiries but a very large number of them didn't seem to have read the advert. The last room I let was about 3 weeks ago and the level of enquiries didn't seem to be much different to normal.

From: Jo Westlake 02 December 2021 09:51 AM

Just think how much tax the government would rake in if they brought back taper relief or lowered CGT to something sensible like 5%. Firstly some CGT on all the sales that would actually happen instead of a notional 28% that most of us decide not to pay because we keep our houses instead of selling them. Then all the SDLT on all the extra property purchasing that a boosted supply would generate. Then VAT on all the estate agent and conveyancing fees. Then extra income tax and National Insurance on all the extra jobs created for tradespeople due to people wanting to make alterations to the houses they have just bought. Then even more extra income tax and NI on the extra jobs created to supply materials for these alterations.

From: Jo Westlake 02 December 2021 09:30 AM

We need a full menu of how many points each improvement will give us so we can work out what is possible or desirable. Some work is pretty much impossible in a tenanted property. Solid floor insulation or internal wall insulation would be a nightmare. Other work has approximately no inconvenience factor for tenants, such as solar photovoltaic panels or modern heating controls. The current way just a few measures are listed takes no account of what is legally possible. Leasehold properties can only have certain works done if the freeholder permits it. Listed or conservation area buildings can't have anything out of character.

From: Jo Westlake 02 December 2021 05:20 AM

It doesn't say why those people are homeless or about to be made homeless. My guess is that it's largely due to half baked government policies rather than the more traditional reasons. Landlords being prohibited from renting out properties that score F or G on the EPC would be one reason. The ludicrously low UC paid to single unemployed adults is another. No financial support for landlords during the pandemic while encouraging tenants to demand rent payment holidays. Far too many people excluded from furlough payments or any other financial support while the government had prohibited them from working. These were government failings. Collectively they have made being a landlord feel very precarious. Very few landlords evict good tenants unless they absolutely have to. Even landlords who have never evicted a tenant have found the total inability to be able to evict to be hugely stressful and has certainly stopped me from expanding my portfolio. I'm only one landlord but over the last 10 years I have bought 4 properties specifically for people who were homeless or had had Section 21 notices served on them because previous landlords wanted to sell. In one case I bought the house they were already living in. For the others I bought properties within walking distance to their work that could be viable at LHA level rent. Unfortunately 2 of those properties only score D on the EPC so it may be that at least one of those tenants will become homeless again purely because of a half baked government policy. I truly hope not.

From: Jo Westlake 30 November 2021 10:02 AM

Robert - Thank you for saying so. Doug - You're welcome to help yourself to any bits you want.

From: Jo Westlake 29 November 2021 15:56 PM

I'm not sure we need stimulus as such but we certainly need clarity, consistency and an end to the constantly moving goal posts. We need a fast effective way to evict tenants who breach their tenancy agreements. Anti social behaviour or persistent non payment of rent should entitle landlords to a rapid recovery of their property. As a long term landlord I have never needed to evict a tenant and hope I never will but the recent ban on evictions has been extremely concerning and has prevented me from buying any more rental properties. I would be perfectly happy to compensate a tenant who has fully adhered to their side of the tenancy agreement if I ever had to evict one purely because I decided I wanted to sell the property. The EPC situation needs sorting. The lack of consistency in the assessments is a major concern. Just because a property currently has a C rating doesn't mean it still will next time it is assessed. Two of my properties dropped 10 points from one assessment to the next. How is that even possible? Work is being recommended in EPCs that we have no legal right to carry out especially in leasehold, listed or conservation area properties. In recent years mortgage rates for portfolio landlords have become much higher than for inexperienced landlords. How is that in any way beneficial for tenants or lenders? A portfolio landlord is more likely to be aware of and comply with housing law and far less likely to suddenly decide being a landlord wasn't quite as easy as they thought and sell up thereby making their tenants homeless. If a landlord has one property and the tenant doesn't pay the lender has a problem. If a portfolio landlord has a tenant who doesn't pay they can usually cover the mortgage on that property from elsewhere in their portfolio. It makes no sense that we are being treated as high risk. Or is it just blatant profiteering by the lenders? The fact it is done on the number of mortgages not the overall level of borrowing or portfolio LTV makes no sense. We need a retirement exit route. A great many of us bought 20 years ago when taper relief existed with the intention of selling up when we wanted to retire. BTL was an alternative to a conventional pension without the benefit of tax relief. The abolition of taper relief has left us with a problem. If we sell we pay astronomical amounts of CGT, the remaining money goes into our estate and if we die too soon (before we have spent it or given it away) gets hit with IHT as well. If we don't sell we never get to retire. We have already paid huge amounts of SDLT when we buy, VAT on just about everything and income tax on our profit. As that profit is classed as unearned income we have been prevented from paying it into a pension and enjoying the tax relief people working in just about every other industry receive. A return of taper relief on the rate of CGT would probably be the best stimulus the industry could have while also providing long term stability for tenants. It would encourage younger landlords to buy and hold long term and allow older landlords to sell before infirmity or dementia kicks in thus creating huge amounts of SDLT and VAT on all the sales and transaction costs. Obviously we could have bought as a limited company and minimised the CGT issue but how many of us knew 20 years ago how the BTL thing was going to pan out? Most of us struggled to buy our first property, then managed to get a second one and then it snowballed. Every time we come up with a strategy the goal posts get moved.

From: Jo Westlake 29 November 2021 10:25 AM

No one actually knows how many properties are really in any EPC band. The EPC register only shows a report done on a specific day at some point in the last 10 years by an assessor who may or may not have been in any way competent. It is entirely possible that a different assessor would have come up with a score at least 10 points different. Three of my properties have had this situation. With no work being carried out between assessments one changed from F25 to G14. Another from D57 to E47 and another from E48 to D63. These discrepancies can only be because one or both assessor didn't do their job properly. Until there is consistency in the standard of assessment EPCs have very little credibility. While some landlords may be unwilling to make improvements other are more than happy to. Without consistency in the EPC scores or a full menu of improvements to choose from we're working completely blind. Also we are highly unlikely to pay for a new EPC until we absolutely have to so a great many properties showing as D or E will have already had sufficient improvements to put them at least one band higher.

From: Jo Westlake 25 November 2021 17:15 PM

All I can say is Bulb customers should consider themselves very, very fortunate. The rest of us have large credit balances still being held by other failed suppliers, have been dumped onto companies we wouldn't have chosen, had our tariff nearly doubled, have the new suppliers starting to demand payments and now find that as tax payers we are paying out to support Bulb customers enjoy a seamless transition to whatever the future energy market looks like. I include utilities for 8 HMOs and had supplies with PFP, Green, Avro, Symbio and Neon Reef. Not only have I got substantial credit balances on the accounts that were still live when the companies failed I also have credit balances and late payment fines on 4 accounts I shut several months ago. Plus an up front 3 month deposit that PFP were supposed to refund 6 months ago and for some reason never showed on my account, plus about £150 worth of referral bonus that Neon Reef never paid. So again I say lucky, lucky Bulb customers.

From: Jo Westlake 23 November 2021 07:21 AM

Until the EPC assessments are consistent landlords have no way of knowing what's best to do to improve their properties. Now most properties are on their second EPC the inconsistencies are very apparent. The first EPCs over 10 years ago made a list of recommendations to improve the EPC score. In a great many cases even if all those improvements have been carried out the EPC will still be several points lower than promised. Too many assumptions have been made. The original EPCs tended to assume insulation existed if the heating bills and general condition of the property indicated it probably did. The more recent assessments tend to assume it doesn't exist unless there is documentary or photographic evidence of it's existence. As much of it was installed several years before EPCs were invented by companies that no longer exist how are we supposed to provide the required evidence? Cutting inspection holes may be an option in some buildings but in others would be problematic especially if there is a suspicion asbestos may be present. It could also damage the performance of the insulation or the roof. The list of recommendations is often incomplete and totally bizarre. Several of mine recommend solid floor installation at a cost of £4000 to £6000 to increase the EPC by 1 point. They eventually get to solar photovoltaics at a cost of about £5000 which would increase the EPC by about 10 points. None of them suggest more loft insulation (even if they've said it only has 75mm) or installing a warm roof (when they've assumed the existing flat roof is uninsulated). We need a full menu of all options with exactly how many points each option is worth. Some of the recommended improvements can only be done if we evict our tenants, others cause minimal inconvenience such as a new roof or solar panels. We also need it to be illegal for assessors to change previously made assumptions without absolute proof that those assumptions were wrong. It shouldn't be down to us to spend thousands of pounds and potentially damage our properties to prove exactly how many millimetres of roof insulation exists just because the assessors have changed their minds.

From: Jo Westlake 22 November 2021 08:30 AM

Will money we have already spent on improving our EPCs be counted as part of the £10000 or will we have to spend another £10000 on top? For example I bought a flat last year with EPC G14 and have had double glazing, under floor insulation in part of it, low energy lighting and a Quantum night storage heater installed which has brought it up to a low D.

From: Jo Westlake 11 November 2021 13:58 PM

The goalposts keep moving. There is no consistency with EPC scores or the ability of assessors. The assessment algorithm has been changed hugely over the years. Even if you carry out all the recommendations on your original EPC it may not improve the score. One of mine was C73 in March 2011 when I bought it with potential to be C78 if it had low energy light bulbs, better heating controls and a new boiler. It now has all those things and the new EPC is still C73. Another one was D57 in December 2008 with potential to be C70 if I had cavity wall insulation, upgraded heating controls and a new boiler. In 2015 it was reassessed when I applied for subsidised cavity wall insulation and found to be E47. To get to C71 it's saying I need cavity wall insulation (done), floor insulation, new boiler (done), solar water heating and solar photovoltaic panels. Never mind the fact the roof is too small, overshadowed and oriented the wrong way for solar to be viable. It isn't suggesting far more practical measures such as upgraded heating controls or better dormer roof insulation even though it has assumed no roof or loft insulation whatsoever. It may be coincidence in my case but it seems to depend on who the assessor is linked to as to what improvements are recommended. Those who come via solar panel or subsidised insulation companies seem to recommend floor insulation and solar panels as the route to an improved EPC while more independent assessors seem to recommend replacing the boiler (unless it's only a couple of years old) or installing one if it's all electric. If gas boilers are going to be phased out the EPC needs to change on how it rates different types of electric heating. Why was Lot 20 brought in if the EPCs don't recognise it? There is a huge difference in a two bar electric fire with an on/ off switch and a modern electric heater with a timer, thermostat, 7 day programmer and app controls. Now this has become so important we need a full list of improvements to pick from and their impact on our EPC score. We need to be able to easily and freely contest the discrepancies between EPCs. We need a full explanation of why an EPC score has been downgraded including how many points each issue has dropped. Why in my first example after carrying out 5 points worth of improvements had my EPC not risen? What had caused it to lose 5 points elsewhere? Instead of assumptions regarding insulation we need alternatives such as how much the heating bills are. In an HMO where the landlord pays the bills and the tenants control the heating programmer it would be pretty safe to assume the roof is insulated if the bills aren't sky high.

From: Jo Westlake 10 November 2021 09:35 AM

The requirement of absolute proof needs to be changed. On the original EPCs around 13 years ago assessors tended to go with likely assumptions especially for roof insulation. Now because they are terrified of being audited they insist on unreasonable levels of proof. For example two of my houses have flat roofs. The original EPCs assumed they had some insulation. The most recent EPCs assume no insulation. One of them was replaced by the Council sometime in the 1980s so we have no idea how much insulation was put in then. We had the felt replaced in 2004 with EPDM and 25mm of Celotex was added on top of the old roof then. No idea why it was only 25mm but it was what the roofer recommended. I have vague memories of him taking up a small piece of the roof deck and checking what was under it but nothing was put in writing. The other one has 120mm of Celotex on it. I have photos of it being installed and a Building Control certificate saying it conforms to the required standards in 2014. Because BC didn't mention the thickness of Celotex, the invoice doesn't mention the thickness and the roofer wasn't holding a tape measure when he took the photos the EPC assumes the roof is uninsulated. Same problem with underfloor insulation and internal wall insulation. It often exists but we don't have written or photographic evidence of exactly how much or which products were used. Now EPC scores are so crucial should we be looking at suing assessors when they make incorrect assumptions? Previously it was just annoying, now their errors could cost us a fortune.

From: Jo Westlake 05 November 2021 08:11 AM

Until there is consistency in the EPC assessments it's all meaningless. I bought a renovation project a couple of years ago with an EPC of F25. I got my regular assessor to come round to advise on how best to improve the EPC and he started by carrying out his own assessment which came out to be G14. How is it even possible for the result to be so different? One of my HMOs was assessed in 2008 and deemed to be D57. The recommendations said if I installed cavity wall insulation, better heating controls and a new boiler it would be C70. I applied for subsidised cavity wall insulation in 2015. To get the subsidy they started by doing a new EPC which came out at E47. Again how is it possible for two assessors to disagree so much?The recommendations said to get to C71 I would need cavity wall insulation, insulation for the solid ground floor, a new boiler, solar water heating and solar photovoltaic panels. I have no idea how that property scores right now as it seems to be a complete waste of money paying for such inconsistent flawed assessments. To do the floor insulation would probably mean evicting or temporarily rehousing 6 tenants. I had it assessed for solar and was told the roof was too small, over shadowed and oriented the wrong way. It is still on the register as E47. However, since 2008 it has had cavity wall insulation, a new roof with up to date levels of insulation, a new boiler and new heating controls. Around the country there must be tens of thousands of properties that have had loads of improvements since the last EPC assessment was carried out but haven't had a new assessment done yet. Who is going to shell out another £50+ for a bit of paper saying they have done enough of the recommendations on their EPC when there is a risk a new assessment will knock a few more points off the score and recommend even more outlandish work is carried out?

From: Jo Westlake 04 November 2021 09:05 AM

If the EPC assessments were in any way accurate rather than being full of assumptions I would agree with the above comments. However, the reality is that assumptions are made and change from one EPC to the next. An ex Council House we own has a flat roof which the Council replaced at some point before my husband bought it. The EPC 10 years ago assumed it was insulated. The one this year assumes it's uninsulated. We don't know which assumption is correct and the Council don't seem to know either. If the roof is uninsulated the house is D. If it's insulated it's C. A thermal imaging drone should resolve that specific situation.

From: Jo Westlake 23 October 2021 12:46 PM

If EPCs were consistent and credible it would help. Ten years ago it was assumed the flat roof on one of my houses was insulated. This year it's assumed it isn't. I don't know for sure how much insulation is in it and it would be very invasion to find out. Another EPC said the cavity walls were uninsulated even though the drill holes were clearly visible. Another one was a renovation project with an EPC of F25. My regular assessor came round to advise on how best to improve it and started by carrying out his own assessment. He made it G14. How is such a big difference even possible?

From: Jo Westlake 22 October 2021 20:21 PM

The danger of this idea is that low income families with low paid dead end jobs (commonly known as essential workers) and UC top ups would work as little as possible or stop working to ensure that they were deemed to be poor enough to qualify for social housing. Once in their social housing they would do sufficiently little to ensure they stayed poor enough to retain the house. A better idea would be for social rents to be at least LHA level. The security of tenure alone means it's probably worth more than that and on new builds should be midway between LHA and market rent as the utility bills will be lower. Then social housing providers could afford to buy or build more housing. It wouldn't matter what someone's earnings were. There wouldn't be a disincentive to take promotions or apply for better jobs. People earning decent money shouldn't get subsidised rent but equally they shouldn't face eviction just because they work hard. The retirement market is a different ballgame and there is a desperate need for subsidised retirement social housing. That alone would free up significant amounts of family size social housing.

From: Jo Westlake 19 October 2021 11:51 AM

For new build properties I can see that heat pumps or district heating schemes at least theoretically make sense. For older properties the cost of retro fitting and upgrading floor and wall insulation sufficiently is huge. In leasehold properties it will often be impossible as the freeholder won't give consent. If the insulation has to be upgraded anyway wouldn't a combination of modern night storage heaters and highly controllable Lot 20 electric heaters plus a well insulated hot water cylinder make more sense as a retro fit for small to medium size properties? The installation costs would be a fraction of the cost of a heat pump installation. Used properly the running costs wouldn't be much higher than a gas system if all costs of a gas system are factored in (standing charge, gas boiler servicing and repairs, boiler replacement every 12 years). The historic problems with night storage heaters have largely been resolved. Originally people installed too many in the wrong rooms in uninsulated houses with massive single glazed windows. A Quantum night storage heater in the lounge and possibly one in the hallway plus timed thermostatically controlled heaters in other rooms and large low wattage towel radiators in the bathroom and kitchen would be a reasonable set up. I have similar set ups in 3 of my properties and as long as the night storage heaters are used properly the other heaters only come on for a few minutes now and then.

From: Jo Westlake 19 October 2021 11:20 AM

Using a credit card gives Section 75 protection against faulty goods or workmanship. It may also give loyalty points or cashback.

From: Jo Westlake 13 October 2021 11:19 AM

How are landlords supposed to know how much their tenants earn? We might know how much they earned before they moved in if we referenced them but that's likely to be distant history.

From: Jo Westlake 28 September 2021 10:46 AM

Arrears should have massively reduced. The LHA level was increased so it actually came close to fully covering some rents. Low paid essential workers worked as many hours as they wanted throughout the pandemic and in some cases had pay rises or bonuses to reflect their efforts. Anyone furloughed could both receive their furlough pay and go and get another job in a supermarket, warehouse, etc so be on double pay. Everything was shut so there were limited opportunities to waste money.

From: Jo Westlake 14 September 2021 09:59 AM

There is very little correlation between EPC ratings and energy bills. It's far more down to the willingness of the tenants to engage with understanding the heating controls and the importance of ventilation. A property I have with an EPC of E with a night storage heater in the hallway, an old gas fire in the lounge and electric (timed and thermostatic) heaters in bedrooms and bathrooms has far lower bills than some of my EPC B rated properties. That's purely because the tenants understand how best to use the various different heat sources to best effect.

From: Jo Westlake 03 September 2021 18:14 PM

The main things tenants are interested in are location and how much the rent is. Living in a house that is close to work, family and chosen leisure activities will do far more for their carbon footprint than a few extra points on an EPC. Learning how to use their heating programmer and the importance of ventilation would save them a noticeable amount of money.

From: Jo Westlake 02 September 2021 10:48 AM

It's hard enough to find properties where the rent can be sufficient to satisfy the lenders mortgage stress testing requirements. We often have to put in 40% or 50% deposits to make the numbers work for the lender.

From: Jo Westlake 02 September 2021 08:39 AM

Homeowners who install EPC friendly stuff in their own homes have a financial cost and suffer some inconvenience while the work is being done. How can it be done in tenanted properties with no installation inconvenience?

From: Jo Westlake 17 August 2021 13:34 PM

The EPC assessors are a huge problem. I bought a renovation property last year that had had an EPC so it could be sold. That assessor scored it as F24. My regular assessor came round to advise on how best to get it to an acceptable standard and started by doing an assessment. He made it G14. How is it even possible for that great a difference?

From: Jo Westlake 16 August 2021 21:14 PM

I'm always surprised by the tariffs tenants choose. Very few seem to change supplier or switch to a new deal when the original one runs out. Some refuse to use direct debits and often end up paying about £300 more than they could. The few who do change supplier often go with one they have used previously regardless of how much they charge.

From: Jo Westlake 28 June 2021 20:18 PM

Breaking News