Robert Brown ... Landlord Today

Not a cut, just an ending of a temporary increase in benefits which shouldn't come as a surprise.

From: Robert Brown 27 October 2020 11:19 AM

From: Robert Brown 27 October 2020 11:12 AM

Personally, I have never been better off - and with cruises cancelled, payments returned in full, my biggest problem or frustration is finding a good low risk yield for the money piling up in my bank accounts. The highest rate I have found is 3.05% with Natwest but such accounts severely limit the amount of deposits. I am seriously thinking of buying more properties but I need to weigh up the frustration of low yields versus the hassle of further property investments. I guess I'll just have to do more fancier cruises next year as I don't know what else to do with the money that is accumulating faster than I can spend it on things I want or need.

From: Robert Brown 27 October 2020 11:12 AM

Most landlords want to engage with problem tenants. The problem is usually that those tenants don't want to engage with landlords. If I had an ongoing commitment for something I couldn't afford I would want that commitment to end ASAP. I wouldn't just stop paying and think that was a reasonable course of action. Most landlords would be quite happy to waive any remaining term of the tenancy and accept the deposit as full and final settlement in exchange for the tenant leaving the property promptly and in good condition. No trashing of the tenant's credit rating or harming the tenant's chance of securing a more affordable home as early as possible in return for no trashing of the landlord's property or harming the chance of securing a more suitable tenant as early as possible. That sounds like a win win to me. Why are so many lefties so keen on a lose-lose outcome?

From: Robert Brown 27 October 2020 10:59 AM

I have had the same flats back , either almost pristine with no damp or mould, or with a lot of damp and mould. Same flats - different tenants - no remedial action needed in the property other than cleaning up the mess after tenants left. Damp and mould are issues are usually due to lack of proper ventilation caused by not opening the window and drying clothes inside. It's very rarely a problem with the property or the fault of the landlord.

From: Robert Brown 27 October 2020 10:48 AM

John That's why I actually like HMO properties with several tenants who, probably unknown to most of them, are actually locked into the joint tenancy until they unanimously agree to end the tenancy. I use this to get rid of any unwanted tenants who want to stay on with new flatmates and to retain good tenants with new flatmates. This, along with solvent guarantors who value their credit ratings, has meant I have only had one eviction out of around 300 tenancies over the years.

From: Robert Brown 27 October 2020 08:52 AM

Totally agree. I have some large 4 bed flats let to 4 students but with expensive alterations and HMO licences. The market rents for these went up about 20% overnight in 2004/5 when Glasgow City Council brought in its HMO licence for all properties with more than 2 unrelated adults, irrespective of its size. When I was a student around 50 years ago, the same flats had 8 to 10 students sharing. The main risks were food or alcohol poisoning or skin problems associated with unwashed sheets, bodies etc. Fires were pretty unheard of, even with a high number of smokers. Councils and young people unwilling to share rooms are the main reason for rents being so high.

From: Robert Brown 26 October 2020 13:54 PM

As I've said before, I can't think of any safer home for my money than PRS, with yields of 8 to 10% easily achieved on 100% equity properties and approaching 20% on 50% ltv mortgaged properties and nearly 30% yields on 75% ltv, although the risk at that level is greater but still less than any other investment currently. These figures are purely on revenue returns and are significantly better when historic capital growth is factored in.

From: Robert Brown 26 October 2020 13:43 PM

If rent controls are as effective as energy price caps then most landlords have nothing to worry about. It seems many tenants are happier to pay around £300 higher capped energy prices than shop around for better fixed deals.

From: Robert Brown 26 October 2020 13:37 PM

They need to have an option where GR can sign it from the sofa. Obviously too much effort for most of them currently - or trying to solve a non-problem like most GR and Shelter campaigns?

From: Robert Brown 23 October 2020 09:27 AM

Desperate tenants wouldn't grass and become homeless. Solutions are to build more and incentivise property owners to let long term. Currently the incentives are to give up letting long term.

From: Robert Brown 22 October 2020 13:00 PM

Used to be called lodging or flat sharing! It's nothing new but previous generations accepted their financial limitations and didn't expect everything on a plate now!

From: Robert Brown 22 October 2020 09:35 AM

Same observations as the next post. Make PRS more attractive and landlords will make properties available for long-term lets instead of Airbnb etc.

From: Robert Brown 22 October 2020 09:28 AM

His properties should be confiscated by the council, brought up to standard and let out by the council. However the other side of the coin is his tenants are still better off than if they were homeless and the homeless "charities" need to stop making the PRS less attractive to landlords thus causing even more homelessness and forcing desperate tenants into such circumstances.

From: Robert Brown 22 October 2020 09:26 AM

London is suffering due to a drop in demand. The property shortage continues elsewhere as will the booming rental market, especially with the rent dodgers preventing properties from being let to decent tenants willing and able to pay market rents.

From: Robert Brown 21 October 2020 17:50 PM

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so perhaps you may be right again some time but I don't think it will be the same day.

From: Robert Brown 21 October 2020 17:47 PM

The places people are moving to will enjoy a boom in market rents, especially with lots of rent dodgers sitting it out until eventual eviction. Perhaps not such an ill wind.....

From: Robert Brown 21 October 2020 13:21 PM

Look on the bright side Mark. Lower rental demand in London means higher demand elsewhere with limited availability, so rents elsewhere will soar. Happy days!

From: Robert Brown 21 October 2020 13:16 PM

Politics of Envy! Locals could take lower offers from other locals if they wanted to do so.

From: Robert Brown 21 October 2020 08:51 AM

Yes...... Hundreds more dying of Covid. No Deal Brexit looming. Possible vaccine for Covid around Christmas. US Election in 2 weeks. Nothing else happening? Wrong again Seb!

From: Robert Brown 21 October 2020 08:50 AM

Susanna Can you please clarify what you mean? Do you mean the size of the penalty, the fact it's paid to the tenant and not the public purse or something else?

From: Robert Brown 20 October 2020 22:36 PM

What qualification in statistical analysis do you have which would justify your question and encourage us to pay any attention to your post on this occasion?

From: Robert Brown 20 October 2020 22:31 PM

Seb You really must hate tenants otherwise you wouldn't mock those who genuinely want to keep them in homes and want to limit the risks of having to evict those who want to meet their legal obligations but find circumstances preventing them from so doing. I pity you for your pathetic attempts to belittle decent landlords and tenants.

From: Robert Brown 20 October 2020 22:25 PM

Surely the disproportionate fine is the costs incurred by decent landlords and tenants to pay for the Council departments, regulations, building alterations etc. now imposed in response to problems caused by the rogue minority? Scotland brought in mandatory HMO licences for all properties with more than2 unrelated adults around 20 years ago. The HMO licences cost over £1900 initially plus £953 every three years, plus mandatory mains operated smoke alarms, fire doors etc. costing £3000 plus per property along with annual PAT tests. This was in response to a double fatality in a fire in a basement flat, which is still not required to comply with the new regulations as it houses only two adults. Incidentally this landlord was jailed, but for perjury, not manslaughter and has been in trouble again recently - so much for close ongoing monitoring of known rogue landlords! These additional costs led to many large flats being occupied by only two adults, shortage of larger properties for rent and consequently higher rents. This is what I call disproportionate, not the fine imposed on rogue landlords.

From: Robert Brown 20 October 2020 13:50 PM

Totally agree! The rogues who have made the setting up of Council departments to monitor the PRS should have to foot their entire costs. Why should decent tenants and landlords have to foot the bill to police these rogues?

From: Robert Brown 20 October 2020 10:05 AM

Mediation has almost certainly been tried in the vast majority of cases which end in eviction. It's nothing personal. Landlords just want paid what is due to them and tenants can then usually stay as long as they like. If a tenant's circumstances change, then they may need to change where they live, just like owner occupiers who can no longer afford mortgage payments if their circumstances change. Public sector needs to take responsibility for the more "vulnerable", or get the so called charities to provide proper help instead of just counter productive agitation. Landlords can't be expected to subsidise tenants no longer able or willing to pay their way.

From: Robert Brown 20 October 2020 10:00 AM

Why doesn't this fine go into the public purse? While it seems deserved it contrasts with community service order recently given to a thug who beat up his landlord.

From: Robert Brown 20 October 2020 09:50 AM

This kind of landlord gives us all a bad name. If he's given a record fine, why are we not allowed to know his (or her) name? At least this fine goes into the public purse, unlike the next door story.

From: Robert Brown 20 October 2020 09:48 AM

I thought that- because without government help where required, no one wins. I'm on the side of both decent landlords and decent tenants. A government loan could provide a solution to both. Decent tenants don't deserve eviction but landlords can't and shouldn't be expected to put up with any non paying tenants, whether normally decent people who want to meet their obligations or feckless rent dodgers.

From: Robert Brown 19 October 2020 10:35 AM

Totally agree. Most landlords and tenants are on the same side, with coinciding, not conflicting, interests. Same goes for most bosses and workers, suppliers and customers etc. Socialists don't understand that there are win win options in most things where there are reasonable people involved. Perhaps they don't understand reasonable behaviour - only conflict?

From: Robert Brown 19 October 2020 10:26 AM

If people don't have the money to pay their rents then they should either borrow the money or vacate the property. A government loan scheme doesn't cause extra debt. The tenants have already incurred the debt in rent arrears. A government loan actually prevents the debt escalating with statutory interest, court fees etc. avoided. Why would anyone who claims to be on the side of tenants be against them getting loans to avoid eviction and greater debt?

From: Robert Brown 19 October 2020 09:29 AM

This information should be aimed at tenants. It's their responsibility to keep the property clean. Why should landlords incur the costs of dealing with a cockroach infection caused by slovenly living?

From: Robert Brown 19 October 2020 09:21 AM

Even when they are given information they ignore it.

From: Robert Brown 19 October 2020 09:18 AM

David I'm sure you could have said it ruder- and with some justification! Keep the faith!

From: Robert Brown 18 October 2020 19:36 PM

It's the rent dodgers holding on to tax payers' cash given to them to pay their landlords that are despicable people. Sensible landlords want nothing to do with them. There are plenty of decent tenants to choose from. Why should we choose scum?

From: Robert Brown 18 October 2020 17:43 PM

Lou may be right about higher IQ in some recent or future tenants but Javad is right about low IQ in the vast majority of past tenants. Getting free money to pay your rent but not paying it and thus eventually getting evicted sounds pretty low IQ to me!

From: Robert Brown 18 October 2020 17:00 PM

David You should buy in Scotland. The SNP are even more helpful - rents up 33% virtually overnight when their crazy PRS legislation came into force in December 2017!

From: Robert Brown 16 October 2020 16:35 PM

The more landlords who give up, the greater the demand for my properties and market forces will push up the market rents. I can't think of any other investment vehicle giving a better risk/return ratio, albeit with a bit more hassle than lower yielding but lower risk and higher yielding but riskier investments.

From: Robert Brown 16 October 2020 10:49 AM

Tenants should get their priorities right. If you want a pet, buy a property. Don't expect a property owner to risk damage from your pet. Another example of how limiting tenant deposits has come back to bite them. They probably still think that the do gooders are on their side!

From: Robert Brown 16 October 2020 10:41 AM

I would say that a tenant living in a property he couldn't or wouldn't buy is living off the landlord - not the other way round!

From: Robert Brown 16 October 2020 10:00 AM

I bet a third of many tenants' earnings normally goes on fancy clothes, costalot coffees, booze, holidays and pcp cars - none of which is essential. Food and rents are essential and affordable on two thirds of normal pay with appropriate budgeting and prioritising.

From: Robert Brown 16 October 2020 09:57 AM

Market forces will always prevail. As soon as people can get back to their normal profligate lifestyles and throw their money at the non productive hospitality sectors then all the currently unnecessary former employees will be re-employed and demand for rental properties ( which has not diminished in most places) will drive up rents and property values yet again. With a huge number of high rise flats currently unsaleable, demand for traditional properties will increase pushing up property prices and market rents. I'm in this for the long haul and don't believe there is any safer home for the money I have worked hard to accumulate along with the alleged windfall gains from rising property values over the last 40 years and rising rents over the last 15 years.

From: Robert Brown 16 October 2020 09:52 AM

Our properties. Our choice. No discrimination, it applies to all pets and all tenants.

From: Robert Brown 16 October 2020 09:39 AM

As ye sow........ Perhaps they might be better asking landlords, usually successful businessmen who have continually had to adapt to changing circumstances, to run an experienced eye over THEIR business practices and suggest where economies can be made. It's my understanding that no public sector employees (I won't use the term workers) were furloughed and continued to get paid 100% irrespective of whether any useful work was being done by them. In addition the number of council executives earning six figure salaries is outrageous.

From: Robert Brown 16 October 2020 09:35 AM

Damian This was a breach of regulations, not a crime! Even if it had been a crime, it was victimless. Contrast the recent story of a thug getting a few hours community service for attacking a landlord.

From: Robert Brown 15 October 2020 17:15 PM

Unfortunately much of what you quite rightly want would be unenforceable or easily changed by the tenant once they had secured the tenancy. Pricing out benefit claiming tenants and ensuring solvent middle class guarantors is the safest way forward, although even the seemingly most suitable tenants can now be subject to enforced diminished circumstances. In such cases, hopefully their guarantors will ensure early vacant possession to minimise their liabilities. We live in unique times where affording something isn't regarded as a prerequisite to obtaining or retaining it, especially if it belongs to someone whose diligence, foresight and effort now has them perceived as richer and thus less deserving.

From: Robert Brown 15 October 2020 14:45 PM

Paul I had noticed that no one had responded to Seb's recent posts and from the tone of his post above, he is desperate for us to engage with him. Hopefully we won't return to the stage where we rise to his taunts and will in the main continue to ignore him.

From: Robert Brown 15 October 2020 12:53 PM

A 2.5 times penalty might be legal but is NOT reasonable! What loss did the tenant incur? It would appear that there was either damage or rent arrears which should be paid to the landlord. Compensation should be proportional to loss. This penalty, if levied at all, should at least have gone into the public purse. It also looks like one less property is now available for rent in an area of high demand.

From: Robert Brown 15 October 2020 08:55 AM

Surprise surprise! Make it more difficult to get rid of rogue tenants and landlords will be much more careful in tenant selection. No more benefit of the doubt. As ye sow...........

From: Robert Brown 15 October 2020 08:51 AM

The local sellers could always accept a lower offer from another local buyer. The sellers determine the price and who buys. Don't blame landlords and second home owners who already pay an extra stamp duty penalty. Local sellers have a choice and can stop this happening if that was their higher priority. Perhaps those who complain could set an example on their next house move?

From: Robert Brown 15 October 2020 08:49 AM

SNP making the PRS less attractive to Landlords, more Landlords sell up, fewer good properties available for growing demand from tenants, market forces cause market rents to rise for those landlords sticking it out. Well done SNP!

From: Robert Brown 15 October 2020 08:44 AM

Simple. Don't look for asbestos and you won't find it.

From: Robert Brown 13 October 2020 16:23 PM

Totally agree. A 2.9% increase in students means 2.9% more after a diminishing amount of student flats. Guess how sympathetic that will make me?

From: Robert Brown 13 October 2020 16:16 PM

Tax Airbnb and other tax dodgers to pay something towards furlough costs.

From: Robert Brown 13 October 2020 10:08 AM

In that case, HMRC will (eventually) turn their attention to spare room. I know that they do occasionally focus on small local holiday letting agents where there are lots of holiday lets and flex their muscles. I enjoyed witnessing this happen in a popular Open Golf venue a few years ago, with a healthy six or probably seven figure sum extracted from many home owners cashing in on five figure rentals from golfers and spectators.

From: Robert Brown 10 October 2020 11:38 AM

Paul These idiots don't seem to realise that for every eviction of a feckless rent dodger, a home is made available for a more deserving tenant from the 97% who will honour their obligations. I've never understood why Shelter etc protect the rent dodgers - kindred spirits perhaps - taking not producing?

From: Robert Brown 10 October 2020 09:30 AM

Janet Any intelligent plant from Shelter etc. would make wild anti tenant posts to paint landlords in a bad light. Only a stupid plant would so obviously have a go at landlords - so I think you are right. There are a couple of stupid plants posting on this site!

From: Robert Brown 09 October 2020 22:12 PM

Totally agree. Airbnb users letting rooms short term and tax free are a scourge in many residential areas. It has destroyed the enjoyment of hard earned properties for many Edinburgh residents and probably in other cities as well.

From: Robert Brown 09 October 2020 18:34 PM

Yes - but lots of them use Airbnb.

From: Robert Brown 09 October 2020 18:30 PM

Good! I've never understood why they get £7500 per annum tax free while landlords providing homes get taxed on turnover.

From: Robert Brown 09 October 2020 13:05 PM

Great post! No way should rent dodgers get off the hook. Pay up or move out should be the message.

From: Robert Brown 09 October 2020 13:03 PM

I have generally found students to be easier to deal with than young professionals, less fussy and picky, if a bit less tidy!

From: Robert Brown 09 October 2020 12:59 PM

Like in many cases with the younger generation, it comes down to how the parents are. Middle class solvent parents tend to take their responsibilities seriously, even if their offspring don't.

From: Robert Brown 09 October 2020 12:57 PM

I have found wealthier students with wealthier parents as guarantors and joint and several liability tenancies to be relatively reliable - apart from a couple who left in March on 4 weeks notice and were then outraged when I refused to take them back for the new term as the flats had already been taken by new tenants who committed to stay until next June at the earliest. Some parents can be snobby but all damage is paid for as soon as I see it and I have never had any bad debt as they value their credit ratings. I have also had good tenants who are not students with solvent guarantors.

From: Robert Brown 09 October 2020 10:03 AM

No David The rogue tenants win - at the expense of decent landlords and tenants! I'll never understand why the do gooders keep supporting the scum and harming the decent valuable productive members of society. Maybe their driving force for equality makes them happy with a race to the bottom?

From: Robert Brown 08 October 2020 22:40 PM

Seb You make a valid point but then destroy it with vitriolic unfounded comment. Given rent arrears only affects around 3% of tenants then surely that small minority should be helped out short term until they can assess their longer term strategy? A tax payer funded loan for rent arrears and ongoing rent payments would have an immediate partial repayment of 20 to 60%, depending on the individual landlord's marginal rate of income tax, plus a significant chance of full repayment ( plus interest?) from the tenant debtors. Where is the downside of such a scheme, other than the loss of pleasure to some in not seeing landlords bear the brunt yet again? However landlords' attempts to support methods that would allow tenants to remain in situ are dismissed by you as only after their pint of blood! No other business is compelled to continue to provide a service no longer being paid for, so landlords can hardly be criticised for supporting measures that help their tenants and them!

From: Robert Brown 08 October 2020 14:40 PM

In that case the SNP has sentenced its renting supporters from never feeling at home! It's very rare for a decent tenant not to stay on after the initial period of the rental agreement. "No fault" evictions are largely a myth but actually work in the tenants' favour in hiding the real reason why the tenant is looking for a new home. In Scotland, where they can no longer hide behind the myth of a no fault eviction, landlords are now alert to checking tenants out more thoroughly before giving them potentially unlimited possession of a six figure asset that will be extremely difficult to repossess if things go sour. This higher risk caused massive departures from the PRS, accompanied by massive market-driven rent increases for the best properties. Yet again, loony lefties have ended up harming the vast majority of decent tenants to protect the minority of rogue tenants.

From: Robert Brown 08 October 2020 14:26 PM

No reason to trash their credit ratings if they honour their debts. It's time that unpaid rents could trash rent dodgers' credit ratings without the hassle and expense of a ccj. But if a ccj is needed to teach them a lesson then that's what will happen. It's time that everyone took responsibility for themselves and their families and didn't expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab, other than for a short period of unexpected problems. Longer term problems need longer term solutions - like moving somewhere cheaper or to find jobs, moving in with family etc. There were lots of fruit picking jobs available recently with free accommodation but we had to rely on immigrant itinerant labourers whilst young fit UK residents languished on furlough or Universal Credit.

From: Robert Brown 08 October 2020 14:14 PM

From: Robert Brown 08 October 2020 13:13 PM

Surely any bad debt from defaulting tenant loans is more fairly shared among all tax payers than borne solely by innocent landlords? Given the treasury will get 20 to 60% of this loan returned as income tax by landlords and could get 100% back from tenants through paye or benefit reductions, this must be a win win all round? Thirdly the tenants avoid eviction and the tax payer avoids the higher cost of temporary accommodation. Only someone who hates landlords and private tenants would dislike the idea of tenants' crisis loans to allow them to stay in a home they can no longer afford, hopefully temporarily.

From: Robert Brown 08 October 2020 13:05 PM

On reflection I think the real easy money has yet to come - when those without the deepest pockets or thickest hides are eventually sickened enough by feckless rent dodgers and misguided do-gooders to give up. Their properties, probably in poor repair when their tenants eventually vacate, will be picked up cheaply at auctions. However the resulting shortage will push rents through the roof!

From: Robert Brown 08 October 2020 10:40 AM

It has NOT been easy money for the vast majority of landlords! Long hours spent redecorating frequently, cleaning up after tenants, passing up on luxuries - even some necessities trying to plan for the future. The easy money is what the rent dodgers get, especially when they don't pay rents with tax payers money already handed to them.

From: Robert Brown 08 October 2020 09:06 AM

Every flat bought for renting potentially provides a long term home to those who can't afford to buy and many of them will never be able to afford to buy. The Council and LHA's can't house them all. Would Mark rather they lived in cardboard boxes?

From: Robert Brown 07 October 2020 17:17 PM

I've just noticed this was in Guernsey. Don't they still have the birch? That would have been an appropriate (additional) sentence!

From: Robert Brown 07 October 2020 11:06 AM

David You disappoint me. Surely Shelter wants to do what is right to ensure as many good quality properties as possible are available to rent - even if that means punishing those who trash them? PS. I think I'll go and lie down until I'm thinking straight again!

From: Robert Brown 07 October 2020 11:01 AM

Agreed. Most home owners are working when he's on the box. Wonder if there's any connection between working hard and home ownership?

From: Robert Brown 07 October 2020 10:58 AM

The average length of a tenancy is well over 3 years in most parts of the country, so plenty of time to make it their "home". "No fault" evictions are a leftie myth. Landlords don't evict good tenants, especially now when they can't easily evict and so much prefer the "devil they know".

From: Robert Brown 07 October 2020 10:54 AM

But if you had voted labour last time you would have got communism!

From: Robert Brown 07 October 2020 10:49 AM

Totally agree Fred. Years ago there was an indexation allowance which took inflation into account and thus mitigated the amount of Capital Gains Tax payable on long-held property investments. If this were brought back, plus allowing landlords to "roll up" unused annual CGT allowances and make Stamp Duty less onerous then I am sure many landlords would be happy to sell to those first time buyers with the gumption to sacrifice some luxuries and save the necessary deposits.

From: Robert Brown 07 October 2020 10:49 AM

Life has always been difficult for first time buyers - with mortgages rationed during the credit squeeze of the 70's, 15% interest rates in the 80's or 90's (can't remember when exactly - only remember the pain). The difference with previous generations is we worked to overcome the difficulties - with deposits saved over years from earnings and not funded bank of mum'n'dad, no granny's equity release or legacies etc. So why not encourage landlords to "right" what you see as a "wrong" by providing tax incentives if landlords sell to first time buyers - assuming the ftb's can sacrifice their fancy cars, holidays, costalot coffees etc. to save the deposit? To help all home buyers, landlords already have a 3% (4% in Scotland) Stamp Duty penalty imposed on property purchases. We also, uniquely, pay tax on turnover, not profit, pay 28% CGT - with only a single year's CGT allowance - no matter how long we have held the property we then sell. By contrast those who could more correctly be called speculators can bed'n'breakfast shares to get an annual CGT allowance, enjoy an annual dividend tax allowance and those who buy over businesses can get £1 million of capital gains taxed at 10% instead of the 28% paid by landlords. However I suspect you're not too interested in finding "solutions" to the "plight" of first time buyers and more interested in continuing to hammer landlords!

From: Robert Brown 07 October 2020 10:41 AM

Does Boris not like the colour of No. 10's front door? He could always move out! Perhaps in his younger days his experiences of living in other peoples' houses were largely limited to an overnight stay after a party? NB. Note the use of PERHAPS - a question, not an allegation!

From: Robert Brown 07 October 2020 09:33 AM

Almost all properties are handed over to tenants in good condition but many are returned trashed. Will Shelter support landlords seeking compensation to restore them to the condition they want them to be in?

From: Robert Brown 07 October 2020 09:23 AM

Mark I wonder why you continue to read them then and certainly don't know why you continue to post on this platform!

From: Robert Brown 06 October 2020 21:52 PM

Paul I don't know the answer. I remember being pretty frustrated in the early 2000's about rents not being able to rise and cash flow being impacted by the expense of new fire doors, smoke alarms etc. to comply with the new HMO licence requirements along with its cost of around £2000 for the first three year period. It was pretty borderline as to whether to sell up and pocket the capital gains or stick with it. I suspect many landlords sold up and the shortage of rental properties helped break the rent freeze log jam. I also remember mortgage rates rising during that time until the banking crisis which also helped to keep rents on the rise. However the biggest contributor to higher rents was the December 2017 legislation which helped rents to jump by a further 30% virtually overnight, again probably due to landlords pulling out or moving to Airbnb to retain control of who stayed in their properties and when they could be told to leave. It also looks like the high density cardboard clad student residences are losing popularity due to their success in incubating and spreading Covid-19, so demand for domestic flats is soaring and rents continue to rise, just a pity I don't have any vacant properties and can't get rid of any currently underpaying tenants, although rent reviews will be on the cards very soon!

From: Robert Brown 06 October 2020 18:06 PM

In Scotland around 2005 a combination of compulsory landlord registration plus HMO licences for all properties housing more than 2 unrelated adults ( irrespective of size of property) broke the market driven freeze on rents that had been there for 10 to 15 years previously, with increasing capital values driving property investment during that fallow period. Since then, with those changes plus the December 2017 legislation forbidding landlords and tenants from agreeing mutually acceptable tenancy durations, rents have more than trebled and property values have continued to climb, albeit more gradually, but probably doubling again over those last 15 years. Decent landlords have nothing to fear from registration or licensing but decent tenants will foot the bill for placating the leftie envy of a more enterprising section of society.

From: Robert Brown 06 October 2020 15:06 PM

It would have been totally different if a landlord at the end of his tether had acted like that and put a tenant in fear of his life! It doesn't say if the thug is still a tenant? Hope he's enjoying a homeless hostel or cardboard box somewhere!

From: Robert Brown 06 October 2020 14:51 PM

Andrew I've found that the harder I work the luckier I get! I suspect the same is true for you. Perhaps lack of luck and lack of application/determination/perspiration/inspiration and aspiration go together? I was once told "Don't waste energy on envying someone. Spend energy on emulating them instead." The politics of envy portrayed by landlord bashers will only backfire on the tenants they claim to support.

From: Robert Brown 06 October 2020 14:44 PM

Paul I don't ring fence £10k per tenant - just a single float of £10k plus. I also take comfort from the fact that I have at least one solvent guarantor per property who wants to keep a good credit rating and so far, a simple email has been enough to resolve the few late or missed rent payments over the years. I suppose I have been lucky (helped with a little common sense) that my properties are all pretty nice and with multiple people wanting them, so I tend to get the pick of tenants and have only been let down badly once by someone who went seriously off the rails, ending up jobless and on Housing Benefit. I know I may not be typical but I suspect that there will be many landlords of 20 plus years who are in the same position.

From: Robert Brown 05 October 2020 22:14 PM

Paul I meant it was necessary to keep one float of £10k plus available to cover shortfalls and unexpected costs, not £10k per tenant. With a portfolio of 16 properties, solvent middle class guarantors and £250k gross rents to cover around £20k interest then I am quite comfortable with the level of risk currently. However it was different when I started out, with the rent barely covering the interest payments and capital growth being the principal driving force for investing in properties then! PS. Gosh! Have I become one of the fat cats the Tories are supporting?

From: Robert Brown 05 October 2020 18:01 PM

Just enjoy being wealthier than most lefties - apart from Labour front benchers, past and present! PS. Don't even think you could ever be wealthier than any Tory front bencher!

From: Robert Brown 05 October 2020 17:53 PM

Totally agree. When I was a student around 50 years ago, it was quite common for at least 8 to share a 4 bed flat - sometimes more in older flats with huge rooms. Now Glasgow City Council limits occupancy to 4 unrelated adults in a flat built to accommodate at least twice that number and charges nearly £2000 initially for a 3 year HMO licence with over £900 payable every 3 years on renewal. That's on top of around £3000 for new fire doors, mains operated interlinked smoke alarms, emergency lighting etc. No wonder rents are still on the increase and the housing shortage isn't getting any better. If students were willing to share bedrooms with flatmates (and not just casual strangers) then individual rents could be halved and lots of student flats available for housing families.

From: Robert Brown 05 October 2020 16:13 PM

Are owner occupied properties less dangerous than rented properties - or are tenants more dangerous occupiers than home owners? If the answers are both NO, why force landlords to incur this expense? If the answers are YES, then surely it would be fairer to charge all new tenants a one off fee to cover the cost of such alarms instead of landlords having to recoup this expense from increased rents which unfairly affect the more responsible and longer term tenants?

From: Robert Brown 05 October 2020 16:01 PM

Paul I'm not sure that I would venture into the PRs now with a high ltv mortgage, but it was certainly my best ever business decision in the mid 90's. I won't get rid of any properties but also won't be buying more and am keeping a healthy five figure sum in easy access accounts just in case, even although NS&I have just slashed their interest rates from 1.16% down to 0.01%. That is the nub of the problem. Cash earns nothing now and I think the stock market, which I am not that familiar with, is riskier than property, even with all the disadvantages thrown our way by recent legislation and tax raids. If I were still in my thirties ir forties I think I would still go for properly investment after optimising all available tax relief through pensions invested in a variety of stocks across various countries and business sectors. The multiplying effect of gearing, transforming a rental 6% yield into almost 24% with a 75% ltv mortgage is still too good to pass up for investors with time and liquidity to smooth out any bumps in the road ahead.

From: Robert Brown 05 October 2020 15:47 PM

Paul I still think a potential 24% yield plus capital growth is worth the risk longer term provided landlords can bear a loss of rental income for the time taken to regain possession from rent dodgers. If the official legal remedies remain ineffective in the longer term I can see a potential business opportunity for intelligent but muscular "consultants" setting up to advise rent dodgers of the considerable advantages in leaving promptly and quietly rather than staying put and accruing further rent arrears. It's a great pity that Shelter, Crisis, Generation Rent etc. don't take the longer term view and give better advice to those struggling or failing to meet their financial obligations.

From: Robert Brown 03 October 2020 12:04 PM

Even replacement of single glazing with double glazing is tax deductible, although it could be regarded as an improvement. A rare example of common sense from HMRC.

From: Robert Brown 03 October 2020 11:55 AM

Almost every article comparing alternative investments ignores the multiplying effect of gearing or leverage available on residential btl properties. 20 to 30 years ago I was quite comfortable with a 90% ltv mortgage but now I wouldn't go for more than 75% ltv ( if I were still investing personally which I am not as currently 40% of any gain would eventually go to HMRC and I give them enough already in income tax). Getting back to gearing, with a 25% deposit then a nominal 6% yield on a btl property grows to 24% gross, less about 1.5% interest on the 75% mortgage. That £240 per annum income per £1000 equity is solely on rental income and capital growth should augment that further. A 25% increase in property values represents 100% increase in equity on a 75% ltv property - not an unreasonable assumption over a few years based on past performance. The risks are that the 25% equity is wiped out by a 25% reduction in property values and the rent doesn't get paid. I don't think the former will happen and would guard against the latter with solvent guarantors being required. I therefore believe property investment, using money lent by the more cautious (or timid) building society investors is a much better and safer investment than any other investment opportunity. Government bonds might be safer but NS&I has just reduced its interest rate from 1.16% to 0.01%, so earning 10p per annum on every £1000 "invested". I prefer the £240 per £1000 of equity from a 24% return on equity plus probable capital growth which is why I won't be selling up and would advise anyone with a net worth under the iht threshold to invest in property but do so carefully and cautiously.

From: Robert Brown 02 October 2020 22:23 PM

Paul If he doesn't agree then you must be doing something right! I think you have found an excellent way of protecting yourself against the currently totally dysfunctional PRs legislation. However if I were to spend at least one night per month in each property I would hardly ever be at home, would have one room less to rent out in each property and in any case most of the properties are now in the names of my grown up children and their spouses would probably have something to say about them spending regular nights away in properties occupied by young singletons - on second thoughts........!

From: Robert Brown 02 October 2020 21:26 PM

Seb I don't really care what you believe, or think or say. However I do care what many other posters on this platform believe, think or say - because I respect their opinions and suggestions. I would only care about what you say on here if I thought those whom I do respect would be influenced by your comments but since I really don't think that will happen your comments are no more than a source of amusement to me and I suspect to many others. Any feelings of anger, outrage or astonishment I may have experienced with your earlier posts have been significantly diluted by the sheer volume of them, illustrating the old proverb of the emptiest vessel making the most noise.

From: Robert Brown 01 October 2020 22:20 PM

Please don't claim to read my mind. I care deeply about my tenants but I expect them to care enough about me to meet their obligations to ne, as I meet mine to them. Si far, I have only been let down badly once - by a DSS claimant!

From: Robert Brown 01 October 2020 13:38 PM

Replacing single with double glazing counts as an expense as does renewing a boiler. Using self assessment it's very likely that income tax relief as your highest rate would be available, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this stuff is a good investment for any landlord or tenant. I have never had any tenant ask to see or discuss the epc rating of any property. Many even linger on the highest standard tariffs instead of shopping around so saving energy costs is not a priority for the average tenant. The only energy they want to save is that expended on getting up off the couch! This is probably much more relevant to owner occupiers but as said earlier the government doesn't want to upset them by forcing unnecessary and unjustifiable costs on them - so yet again go after the landlords!

From: Robert Brown 01 October 2020 10:16 AM

Seb As well as not understanding how business in general works, you clearly don't understand how insurance claims and premiums work. I agree with Paul (usually do) about the £15k potential cost of a rogue tenant, but this cost would be recovered over a long period and not from a single tenant in one payment. I also do agree with you that it is unfair on the good tenants, but given market forces and tenant demands for my properties, I believe it is a fairer method all round than my bearing the cost, selling up and making around 50 joint tenants homeless. Of course the fairest thing would be for the rent dodgers to pay up and the next fairest thing would be for them to leave quickly and quietly but these rogues are not in the business of acting fairly and many of their supporters are too stupid to recognise how unfairly they are behaving.

From: Robert Brown 01 October 2020 09:58 AM

Prices won't fall long term unless the population falls, especially with the short life span of new build cardboard clad flats.

From: Robert Brown 01 October 2020 09:01 AM

Watch them go bust when market conditions change again.

From: Robert Brown 01 October 2020 08:59 AM

Totally agree. Even the accredited tradesmen admitted the last green deal scheme was a scam as they paid the scheme £300 for leads and hiked the price to cover this. End user always pays.

From: Robert Brown 01 October 2020 08:57 AM

Landlords tend to meet much more of the Generation Rent than any other sector does and in my extensive experience in dealing with them I think Andrew is 100% correct. I even had one young couple ask to be released from the remainder of their lease to move in with Mum and Dad to save a deposit. I readily agreed only to discover they put their returned deposit down on a new car on a lease contract costing most of the monthly rent saved.

From: Robert Brown 30 September 2020 19:12 PM

After a totally unjustified delay! Australia can get rent dodgers out in two weeks. We need the same so properties can be let to more deserving tenants willing and able to pay their way.

From: Robert Brown 30 September 2020 13:30 PM

With the debacle in high density student accommodation, demand for normal properties is going through the roof for landlords who can tolerate snobby parents and frequent redecorating. I wish I had some void flats as I could increase the current rents quite significantly.

From: Robert Brown 30 September 2020 09:03 AM

Seb If you had been paying attention, or understood what other posters were saying (I know that can be difficult sometimes with some posters) you would have learned that many legal remedies are currently not available - which is why many landlords are so infuriated. In the long term, hopefully, most obligations will be met and the defaulters will regret not taking advantage of any offers to move out early and limit such obligations. In case you have forgotten already, I fortunately am not experiencing any issues with rent defaulters but that doesn't disqualify me from expressing my concern for fellow landlords and showing my disgust for those tenants unwilling to minimise any potential loss to their landlords by leaving promptly as soon as they can no longer afford to pay their rents or other obligations.

From: Robert Brown 29 September 2020 22:52 PM

Totally agree with cutting cloth - which is why tenants unable to afford their rent - a legal obligation - should immediately vacate properties no longer being paid for. In my experience every landlord would be sympathetic enough not to pursue them for any unpaid unexpired period of lease or even notice period. Companies cutting dividends usually suffer drops in share price as investors exercise their right to pursue other potentially more profitable investments. By accepting landlords' generous offers to leave without having to settle future obligations, tenants can reciprocate this generosity by allowing landlords to pursue more profitable tenants. Pretty similar outcome to that available to stock market investors - can't see why anyone with any common sense would object to landlords being able to do this, or support tenants being able to deprive landlords of such a basic right!

From: Robert Brown 29 September 2020 22:18 PM

Ssb I haven't a clue what you're on about but during my long and successful period of education I was taught to investigate anything important that I didn't understand until I could make sense of it. However I was also taught not to waste time on trivialities not meriting further investigation so please don't take the trouble of enlightening me on what your post is supposed to mean.

From: Robert Brown 29 September 2020 22:07 PM

Mark I haven't a clue what point you're making - but then, that isn't that unusual and I suspect I am not alone. You're not related to Jeremy Corbyn by any chance?

From: Robert Brown 29 September 2020 22:00 PM

Andrew You probably could afford to buy a Rolls Royce but the reason you can is because you won't. If the price of everything was reduced to the level that everyone could afford it, what would be the point of anyone putting in any effort? That is why Communism failed.

From: Robert Brown 29 September 2020 19:23 PM

Seb The guy who first said. "bah humbug" ended up repenting his actions and words! We can but hope!

From: Robert Brown 29 September 2020 15:20 PM

Seb Yet again my response has ended up in the wrong reply (above). Looks like you might be getting to me - but don't count on it!

From: Robert Brown 29 September 2020 15:18 PM

Seb As I have said before, one doesn't need to have suffered personally to complain about or highlight iniquities. I am disgusted by the support given to the feckless, reckless and hopeless at the expense of the decent, prudent and responsible. I am amazed anyone would think otherwise - assuming they have the appropriate apparatus (to think at all).

From: Robert Brown 29 September 2020 15:16 PM

Andrew At least you get to see them being evicted within an hour of being made aware of the problems. If only real life were like that! I'm also not allowed to watch such programmes and since my wife cut back on going out to the shops, gum etc. I'm finding opportunities to catch up on such programmes pretty limited - but probably better for my blood pressure!

From: Robert Brown 29 September 2020 14:59 PM

It seems some posts are disappearing from this platform. Anyone else noticed that too?

From: Robert Brown 29 September 2020 14:46 PM

An even easier solution is "don't stay in a property you can't afford". Such rent dodgers are being totally selfish as they are not only defrauding their landlord, they are preventing more deserving tenants from renting this home and since market rents include a premium to cover the risk of such defaults, they are also defrauding other decent rent paying tenants due to their selfishness, fecklessness, indolence and/or intransigence in not moving out promptly to make the property available for others.

From: Robert Brown 29 September 2020 14:37 PM

Jon I think he's right. You were totally right to get the ccj against the first tenant to show you weren't bluffing but it might have been better to warn them to play ball and point out the benefits of avoiding a ccj for the second tenant by co-operating with you. The problem with many tenants in such a position is that they close their eyes to reality and wouldn't act rationally so making the second ccj inevitable. There are no easy answers, which is exactly how the anti-landlord groups ( including government) wants it, so no change is likely soon and not until the housing shortage gets much worse but even then it would mean them understanding cause and effect.

From: Robert Brown 29 September 2020 10:57 AM

Jacob There is a real business opportunity for a group who would combine brain and brawn to (quite legally) "engage with" rent dodgers and spell out their various options so that they see that voluntarily vacating your property without delay is "best all round" - no violence or even threats of violence (although the tenants may misinterpret things as a threat of violence! I would be happy to provide the brain and perhaps someone like Seb could provide the brawn ( he certainly couldn't provide the brain!). Seriously I do believe there is an opportunity for such a service as no one wins in the long run with the current methods. My concern with using current unofficial and unregulated providers of such services is that they verge on or cross over into criminality and using them would leave me vulnerable to both the service providers and those receiving their "advice".

From: Robert Brown 29 September 2020 10:47 AM

Market forces prevail. There only need to be enough or more people able to afford higher prices or rent for the best properties to be snapped up. The doomsayers will be proven wrong yet again.

From: Robert Brown 29 September 2020 09:24 AM

In your case, two punches are better than one. BTW I am definitely not poor - haven't been for many years and don't expect to ever be poor again, despite the efforts of various Governments and defenders of rent dodgers and others.

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 21:44 PM

Seb I had replied earlier but it ended up in the wrong place (like some of the more recently joined posters). Anyway you'll find my reply in a reply to the post above. Hope you can find it more easily than you can find any common sense in most of your posts!

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 19:42 PM

Andrew Having an equally enjoyable and cozy afternoon/evening in Scotland. I've now got over any annoyance or outrage to some posts from various ill-informed posters and moved on to enjoying our various exchanges. I'll continue to enjoy them as long as it remains harmless, coupled with a nagging thought that there are some real undeserving victims on both sides. My main nightmare is if my IQ and bank balance ever got confused with that of some of our fellow posters! Thanks for all your likes - much appreciated!

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 19:37 PM

Seb. We don't just provide bricks and mortar for the tenants to build the properties. We provide fully functioning homes, often fully furnished. Your analogy is down to your usual standard!

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 16:42 PM

Pointing out unfairness and inequities is not the sole right of those who suffer them. Others should support them whenever such things are identified. That applies equally to landlords being taxed on revenue instead of profit, being forced to continue to provide services to non-payers etc. ( unlike any other business) and to deserving Universal Credit claimants who do not have enough to live on due to the system being overwhelmed by the feckless and work-shy.

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 16:38 PM

Fair point (for once!). My posts should all be assumed to begin with "in my experience" but then everyone should only speak from experience - although that would severely limit the number of posters and posts on this platform!

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 16:31 PM

Seb The world has far too many people who are consuming our resources much too quickly. The green protesters have a valid point but they aren't doing enough to solve the problem. They need to gather closely together in their millions, not just a few thousand at a time when demonstrating or holding up the traffic, if they are going to have any effect on saving the planet! The students seem to be showing them how it should be done. I forgot to add them to my list of non-contributors but they seem to have realised their status as such and agreed to self-inoculation of the Chinese virus ( title courtesy of Donald Trump - talking of non-contributors reminded me of him!).

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 16:26 PM

There are also reports of around 1/3 of food bought being thrown away, which would explain a lot of the 80 million versus 60 million figures. Interesting to see what clothing sales tell us about the ethnic styles and quantities of clothing sold? That might be more reliable evidence of a hidden immigrant population - unless they stay hidden and naked!

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 16:10 PM

Seb This was meant to be a response to. Seb's post of 14.45 today but seems to have ended up in the wrong place ( a bit like some of our anti-landlord posters!). It's totally justified to complain about unfairness, even if it doesn't affect one personally. The pressure on the small % of landlords who are suffering from the government-sponsored rent dodgers (egged on by Shelter etc.) must be intolerable. Had I been 29 years later in starting to build my portfolio I would be worried sick. I've worked long and hard to be "successful" and planned carefully but I do admit to having benefitted hugely from the rise in property prices over the last 40 odd years since I first became a home owner and from the SNP sponsored increases in rents over the last few years. That doesn't disqualify me from campaigning against iniquities when I see them. Incidentally I am amused by the outcries from those initially forced not to work after 23 March about potentially being forced to live on Universal Credit - which led to the over generous furlough scheme ( although full time landlords were and still are excluded). I do hope one consequence of this pandemic is an overhaul of the benefits system so that those who deserve and need help get enough of it, but those who don't deserve it or fraudulently spend benefits meant for rent get their comeuppance - but I don't think that will happen unfortunately and the furloughed fortunate will revert to complaining about paying to support those in need.

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 15:54 PM

Seb I have set my portfolio up so that I actually own a very small portion of it ( around £1 million equity) with the majority of it already in the names of my grown up children - to minimise inheritance and capital gains tax whilst continuing to benefit from the entire rental stream. I'll never get out of the PRS and the current debacle with high density student accommodation has led to unprecedented demand from students desperate to get into normal domestic accommodation, so I personally continue to feel optimistic about the future of my portfolio but that doesn't mean I don't support or sympathise with fellow landlords trapped with rent dodging scum, apparently supported and lauded by some of the contributors to this platform.

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 14:11 PM

Even by your figures 97% of us aren't lying in claiming full rents are still being received. That doesn't make the current unfairness acceptable.

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 11:09 AM

There are still plenty of solvent potential tenants looking for better properties so only the lower quality properties will be difficult to re-let other than to undesirable tenants.

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 11:07 AM

I'm certainly not in support of society or companies having to support anyone who hasn't contributed or isn't contributing! The world has far too many people as it is. Perhaps the Chinese could make a virus that targets the non producers - the old, infirm, those living in overcrowded and insanitary conditions, those too stupid to obey social distancing etc. Wonder if such a virus could be made and how successful it would achieve these objectives?

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 11:00 AM

Rate caps on energy has been a great success (sarcasm or irony for those who can't recognise it!). Energy is capped at around £300 more for the feckless than sensible customers can get by shopping around. Rent caps would be the same. History shows rent controls don't work and only market forces prevail in the medium to longer term.

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 10:55 AM

There are lots the two above can't see or understand!

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 09:14 AM

Yet again, lack of business acumen, Seb. Lost income and costs affect the same side of the balance sheet!

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 09:12 AM

Surely every tax payer has such a duty of care - not only to HMRC but also to our fellow tax payers - and even to non tax payers? However your grasp of business is so poor that you don't understand the principle of needing to maximise income to ensure expenditure can be afforded. You also don't grasp irony!

From: Robert Brown 27 September 2020 09:01 AM

I have used Gumtree quite successfully in the past, along with newsagents' windows. However I did find out that my rents were lower than market rents a couple of years ago when I contacted an LA. £900 tenant find fee gave me an extra £6000 annual rental, so I will test them out every couple of years just to make sure that I am not inadvertently causing problems for fellow landlords by not charging the full market rents. I also owe HMRC the same duty of care to maximise my rental revenue, profit and consequently my tax liability.

From: Robert Brown 24 September 2020 22:16 PM

Seb Would you complain if someone could hijack any increase in their value but you still had to bear any risk of loss, insurance costs etc.? Despite being told countless times, you haven't grasped the inequality of landlords being forced to continue to provide a service that is no longer being paid for, with no right to limit their losses to those already accrued and to offer that same service to an alternative paying customer.

From: Robert Brown 24 September 2020 22:09 PM

Seb Your comments are getting even more crass - but then you have been practising pretty hard recently to reach your current level!

From: Robert Brown 24 September 2020 22:04 PM

Seb Who' getting personal now? You were complaining about personal attacks only yesterday and now you're indulging in them.

From: Robert Brown 24 September 2020 22:00 PM

Let me answer for Paul Why should we be concerned about anything that is in your 2nd paragraph? Come to think about it, why should we be bothered about any of your posts? They show a distinct lack of grasp of reality and experience of being a landlord.

From: Robert Brown 24 September 2020 21:47 PM

Seb I think the Government is quite good at debt collecting but if not, the debt is shared among all tax payers instead of one innocent landlord having to suffer the entire loss.

From: Robert Brown 24 September 2020 21:44 PM

Mediation is a good idea. How about using "Getusboysin.com". They are great at discussing the alternative outcomes to an early orderly departure to rent dodgers.

From: Robert Brown 23 September 2020 09:50 AM

Another useless article. The average sold properties are not the same properties as the average rental properties, which tend to be at the lower end of the market and give far higher yields than is suggested here.

From: Robert Brown 23 September 2020 09:02 AM

Seb The clue is in the title of this article! By using a loan to pay rent arrears, tenants can avoid eviction, illegal or eventual - the main difference is in the length of time taken to achieve it.

From: Robert Brown 22 September 2020 22:42 PM

Margaret Thatcher brought in the much fairer Community Charge but the lefties called it the Poll Tax and hoodwinked the majority into thinking it was unfair. Another non existent but much vilified "Bedroom Tax" was the perfectly justified removal of the Spare Room Subsidy which wrongly subsidised social tenants to stay in houses larger than needed and preventing families from moving out of more cramped accommodation. Two examples where fairer systems were successfully vilified by the loony lefties and harmed the more deserving sections of the population.

From: Robert Brown 22 September 2020 22:36 PM

Seb As is often the case, I have no idea what points you are trying to make! I was stating facts, not expressing any opinion or "moaning" as you have accused me of in the past.

From: Robert Brown 22 September 2020 22:22 PM

Not accessing any available loans should be grounds for immediate eviction and classed as making themselves deliberately homeless - so no help from the Council.

From: Robert Brown 22 September 2020 22:19 PM

No - but I think you have the wrong platform. I do believe landlords may need agents to assist them in regaining possession of their properties by persuading rent dodgers to leave promptly without any need to use the legal means now more difficult to access.

From: Robert Brown 22 September 2020 22:15 PM

Landlords do need more help now to ensure successful evictions - but I suspect that such help might persuade defaulters into deciding to leave voluntarily!

From: Robert Brown 22 September 2020 14:22 PM

Get up to date! Council tax is already doubled for properties left empty long term - even when they have been bought by new owners who are bringing them back up to habitable standards - which acts as a disincentive to people buying them to improve them and is also reflected in higher rents for new occupiers. Only the local council wins with this crazy rule that you support but didn't know already existed. PS. Why on earth give special treatment to prisoners? Surely their properties could be used by the homeless whilst they are getting free board and lodging at tax payers expense?

From: Robert Brown 22 September 2020 14:17 PM

I do hope this article is true and the rent dodgers get to hear about these probably totally justified if illegal evictions. Why isn't Shelter publicising this? They're usually so good at doing things that end up helping landlords!

From: Robert Brown 22 September 2020 14:09 PM

Every other business can rightly discriminate against people who can't pay - so can landlords if they do so properly. No business says "no poor people" but that is usually their totally justified business model.

From: Robert Brown 21 September 2020 08:54 AM

Michael Totally agree with everything you say! Just take comfort that you know that you are paying your way and making a positive contribution to society, even if not all those enjoying its benefits are fully deserving of them. I find that remembering that makes me feel better, especially when the internet is down or slow and I can't monitor in real time the several hundred pounds per day that my net worth is growing through rental income and increasing property values. Whilst I have no first hand experience, I suspect those non contributors are usually unhappy and dissatisfied with their lot as evidenced by the abuse of alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs in a vain attempt to find self respect and the pride which comes with success - or even just with putting in the effort required in the pursuit of success.

From: Robert Brown 20 September 2020 22:31 PM

Mark Your mask has totally slipped - showing pure bare faced jealousy! No one in a free country will ever be able to dictate to an owner of any property who should have the use of it. That principle will endure whether the property is a car, bed, house or anything else. Generations before us fought and died for this principle which you clearly despise because you're jealous of those more enterprising and successful than you - a common leftie trait!

From: Robert Brown 20 September 2020 19:49 PM

Mark What it does do is give him the right to decide who he'll allow to live in his property - and no loony lefties can take that away from him, no matter what self-defeating schemes they may dream up. Market forces should always dictate who has the right to a property - the highest bidder or the most suitable candidate, if the owner decides to use other criteria - but that is very unlikely to include the receipt of benefits and cannot be made to do so in a free democratic state. Incidentally very few rental properties are grotty when the tenants move in and the condition on tenants vacating does unfortunately often match the socio economic standing of the tenants. The payment of rent only four weeks in arrears is not the main reason why most landlords will always operate a no DSS policy. The main reason is the poor condition that properties are returned in by the more indolent and feckless members of our society.

From: Robert Brown 20 September 2020 16:58 PM

Totally agree with both above. Rents must be paid monthly in advance with guarantors checked out and maximum deposits taken. Nothing will change with this ruling - just a waste of time for both parties which could easily have been avoided by using common sense.

From: Robert Brown 18 September 2020 09:08 AM

Homes need paid for - whether buying or renting. Paying for a home should be top priority and both purchased and rented homes should be within the means of the occupiers. If means change, then inevitably homes must change to match such changes in affordability. No one else, - banks, building societies, housing associations or private landlords - should be asked to subsidise anyone defaulting on a mortgage or rental agreement. However loans should be made available to cover arrears already built up but can't cover shortfalls indefinitely and if the longer term prospects are still bleak then occupiers must accept they'll need to move out and should do so promptly before their unpaid debts escalate totally out of control.

From: Robert Brown 18 September 2020 09:01 AM

That is exactly why it's every landlord's duty to use the law to maximum extent and get ccj where tenants blatantly withhold rent and refuse to vacate as soon as they realise that they can't afford to meet their contractual obligations which they freely entered into. Only then will such tenants understand the hidden costs of reneging on legally binding agreements.

From: Robert Brown 17 September 2020 19:45 PM

Price controls just don't work. Look at the energy price cap - around £300 per annum higher than that available to those with the common sense to shop around. The big energy companies capped tariffs are all right on the cap limit and no sensible consumer would countenance paying so much. The same has happened in the student accommodation market where the extortionate rents of the cardboard clad high rise purpose built ghettos have led to owners of student flats being able to charge similar rents. Any interference with market forces will just lead to higher rents in normal rental properties unless they are at the slum end of the market.

From: Robert Brown 17 September 2020 15:55 PM

Seb Thanks for your support. I shall do so but I am a bit short of time. Counting £250k pa rental income is so time consuming! You clearly have much more free time than I have - wonder why?

From: Robert Brown 16 September 2020 09:18 AM

Rents went up by about 33% as soon as the new loony SNP legislation came into force in December 2017. Many fewer long-term homes are available as many became Airbnb. Landlords can usually pick and choose as many tenants chase each property. The new legislation has not helped the typical decent tenants but has allowed landlords to avoid the dross - hence fewer problems - but nothing to do with landlords using velvet gloves. Incidentally rent arrears is still a valid reason for eviction in Scotland and with no "no fault" evictions, landlords are alert to finding out why tenants are looking for accommodation with landlord references and solvent guarantors typically required.

From: Robert Brown 16 September 2020 09:11 AM

Paul You may well be right,but that is because most landlords don't bother to pursue rent dodgers as they should. Andrew said a few days ago that doing so actually protects other landlords and I agree. It's our duty to send a strong message out to those who deliberately defraud us whilst being sympathetic to those genuine cases who seek to minimise their debts and our potential loss by agreeing to move out of our properties as soon as they know they will be unable to continue to meet their contractual obligations.

From: Robert Brown 15 September 2020 18:21 PM

This article shouldn't have the word "renters" in it as renters pay rent and don't need to fear eviction. Rent dodgers however should remain fearful of eviction as it will eventually happen along with ccj debts accruing 8% statutory interest and trashed credit ratings. Far better to lobby Government for loans to honour their legal and moral obligations than simply seek to delay justice and comeuppance which will eventually happen.

From: Robert Brown 15 September 2020 12:46 PM

Hugh Did the tenant move out?

From: Robert Brown 14 September 2020 19:34 PM

Great idea! Tenants need told they will pay 8% interest on a ccj, plus trashed credit ratings - so should go for any such loans available.

From: Robert Brown 14 September 2020 09:11 AM

Everyone needs to go for ccj's every time tenants take the p**s. Genuine hardship cases should be treated sympathetically if they move out promptly. Deliberate squatters and rent dodgers should be pursued mercilessly to protect decent deserving tenants.

From: Robert Brown 11 September 2020 18:53 PM

David If the defaulting tenant was upfront right away and left the property in good condition then I would give them the benefit of the doubt and write off a month's rent maximum. If they think, like Mark W, that they have a God given right to defraud me then they would need all of God's help because I would throw everything at them! Why do these loonies think the latter is the best course of action, when the tenants are going to have their credit ratings trashed and still eventually end up being evicted?

From: Robert Brown 11 September 2020 18:47 PM

Excellent answer Paul!

From: Robert Brown 11 September 2020 18:42 PM

Peter That's like saying members of a criminal gang are exploiting each other! It might true in some county lines drug couriers but criminals usually know exactly what they're getting into, tenant or landlord alike. The article also specifically mentioned that the abuse of the accomplices was evidently due to their being illegal immigrants - who clearly couldn't be accommodated by any law abiding landlord. The guy is not a typical landlord any more than a getaway driver is a typical motorist!

From: Robert Brown 11 September 2020 11:28 AM

Great question! Does anyone have the answer during this time when landlords' normal rights are curtailed so unfairly?

From: Robert Brown 11 September 2020 11:23 AM

No lower rents have been necessary or given in my properties and there are still several groups after every available quality property.

From: Robert Brown 11 September 2020 10:04 AM

It's so simple. Government should genuine cases enough to pay their rents and assist landlords in removing the shirkers so making properties available for more deserving decent tenants. Why do "charities" prioritise rent dodgers and rogue tenants over decent tenants who are desperate for decent homes?

From: Robert Brown 11 September 2020 10:02 AM

Sue Don't trust the LA to try hard unless they have a huge incentive to do so. Whilst customers can and do take umbrage and may make irrational decisions to cease a business relationship, I have never had a supplier do so. Give the LA an ultimatum - fix it by a deadline of your choosing or you WILL get legal - and make sure you have all your ducks in a row to move as soon as your deadline passes - and ensure your LA knows that is what you're doing, so he knows you're not bluffing. It should be relatively easy for the LA to source YOU a better property for the six months or so that the tenant can stay put - and the LA should foot the bill to avoid being sued.

From: Robert Brown 10 September 2020 20:17 PM

I'm not good enough at maths or accountancy to work out my yield but I risked (or invested) £6000 deposit in buying a £60,000 flat which I rented out trouble free for the same £600 per month ( and only one change of tenant) for about 15 years. The last 10 years has seen the rent grow to over £1300 per month and it's now worth about four times what I paid for it. I utilised the early healthy capital growth to remortgage and put the released funds as a 10% deposit on other flats. I now have a £4 million portfolio with over £3 million equity and around £250,000 gross annual rent. You could argue that yield is all from the initial £6000 investment - so that's a yield of over 4000 %. Like I said my maths and accountancy knowledge isn't good enough to work it out. All I know is I have always been wealthier than any accountant I have used for the last 20 years. My message is: Invest for the long term and the yields will always grow as so many people want it all now - fancy cars, holidays, costa lot coffees etc. They will never be wealthy but the more astute and patient investors will continue to prosper by surfing on their indolence and ignorance.

From: Robert Brown 10 September 2020 20:04 PM

As I said to you in a similar reply a few weeks ago, the landlord is not a charity. You seemed to think that rent arrears didn't count as a debt but the solution is for the government to lend defaulters the rent arrears so that they can stay and meet their contractual obligations.

From: Robert Brown 10 September 2020 09:41 AM

Mark Speaking from 3 years experience of the loony SNP legislation, one unexpected consequence is that rents very quickly rose by a third for the best properties due to both sides losing the certainty of minimum length tenancies. A second was the rise of Airbnb and reduced availability of long-term homes to rent. A third was the fact that all joint tenants were trapped in a tenancy unless there was unanimous agreement by all joint tenants to end the tenancy. I could go on - but the bottom line is all of the above harmed tenants but usually benefited landlords. Other measures mooted by the loony lefties such as rent controls will also have harmful effects for tenants as rents will always be put up as much as possible as often as possible whereas currently landlords tend to keep rents stable for good tenants for several years and often for the entire tenancy.

From: Robert Brown 09 September 2020 19:34 PM

Mark The vast majority of tenants are satisfied with their landlords and the properties they rent - hence the nearly 4 year length of tenancy in what might be regarded as a pretty transient population. Given the vast majority of landlords own only one or two properties, it follows that the vast majority of "good" landlords are those you insultingly call "mom and pop" landlords. However I suspect I am wasting my time in trying to put a logical argument or plain facts to you. You mentioned some time ago you would prefer a Tesco landlord. Such landlords build cardboard clad high rise properties such as many students now have to endure and their rents are at the highest level and go up as much as possible year after year. By contrast, most small (average) landlords only put up rents at the change of tenancies or when tenants are causing problems or unexpected expense.

From: Robert Brown 09 September 2020 19:25 PM

Jo Jo ( or Mark/Seb) Where has any landlord on this site asked for a bailout? We are asking for our tenants who need help to get it so they can meet their obligations and stay in the home we provide for them in exchange for rent paid promptly and in full. As Emma points out, the problem is that currently, unlike every other supplier, we can't simply limit our losses by refusing to continue to supply a service no longer being paid for. If you have been paying attention you would already have identified this key difference and understood why the current situation is so unfair, both to landlords and to decent tenants who can't get the homes being occupied by rent defaulters.

From: Robert Brown 09 September 2020 12:40 PM

Totally agree! The honest tenants and landlords are subsidising the rogues in both camps and the loony lefties are too dim to see that - or don't care as the "cause" is more important than the effect. What really bugs me is the Tories apparently falling into line with this leftie claptrap. I think Paul B could be right about the end objective being the elimination of landlords and the emergence of huge corporate landlords owned by their major donors. Good luck to tenants if they end up being housed in cardboard clad high rise ghettos such as many students are now.

From: Robert Brown 09 September 2020 09:59 AM

Of course they are! 80% of gross pay is probably nearer 90% of net pay and no travel costs or several costa lot coffees, lunch, after work drinks etc. Furlough was a good idea but much too generous for those claiming it and too many people not qualifying - especially the more entrepreneurial who had recently set up businesses. I am NOT saying landlords should have been helped directly but tenants should have been helped to avoid rent arrears and problem tenants should have been evicted with maximum ease and speed.

From: Robert Brown 09 September 2020 09:06 AM

The Tories are proving to be better friends to rogue tenants than Corbyn! The solution is so simple. Government should lend the rent money to those tenants who need it and allow fast eviction of all problem tenants who make the lives of neighbours and landlords a misery.

From: Robert Brown 09 September 2020 09:00 AM

Are they serious? The deposit is the only thing that tenants are potentially putting at risk. I will not ever consider tenants not willing or able to save two months deposit and put it up as evidence that they can save and will take care of my property. Two months deposit is still allowed in Scotland - but for how long?

From: Robert Brown 08 September 2020 09:05 AM

No chance of tenants with any history of rent problems ever being able to rent decent accommodation again. Is that really what the loony lefties want - or don't they care?

From: Robert Brown 08 September 2020 09:02 AM

Housing is a lifetime requirement and therefore a long-term investment. Those with the financial acumen, resources and resilience will continue to prosper despite what others may predict and hope for. Thank goodness for those too scared and too poor to invest. It makes it easier for those who will brave a potentially short term rough ride for a pretty safe long term gain.

From: Robert Brown 07 September 2020 10:52 AM

Despite what you're hoping for, most tenants are continuing to meet their contractual obligations and the seller's market of the PRS continues for all but the worst properties with the worst tenants - which most astute landlords avoid as much as possible.

From: Robert Brown 07 September 2020 10:44 AM

In any business the money is the objective. We look after customers because they make us money. When they cost us money we no longer want to deal with them. For tenants, that means eviction!

From: Robert Brown 05 September 2020 09:51 AM

Seb You're an idiot! Tell me where I am complaining or whining? My gross rental income has increased by around £50k in the last 3 years due to the loony SNP legislation. Of course increased rents are a pitfall - for the tenants! Everything that the loonies try to do to harm landlords ends up harming tenants. I am pointing out the pitfalls of attacking landlords with ill thought out policies but I am certainly not complaining about the consequences for landlords which have meant a big increase in my gross and a more modest but welcome increase in my net income. As for not understanding why the length of the rental term normally affects the rental rate, it shows a total lack of business understanding and you should not be wasting our time with your ignorant posts. I'm quite happy to be a wealthy landlord and have never said otherwise. I would never invest in depreciating items like cars, solar panels etc. I leave those for the less financially astute. How are they doing for you incidentally? PS. If the local traffic is a bit too slow, try playing on the motorway!

From: Robert Brown 05 September 2020 09:27 AM

Seb I am NOT complaining. I have benefited hugely from the increased rents that market forces have pushed my way since the December 2017 legislation came into force. I was merely pointing out the pitfalls of forcing landlords, who have to commit to long term investments, to accept all future tenants on a short term basis - which will inevitably reflect short term rental rates. Don't think you could lease a car on the same daily rate for 28 days as for 28 .months. The same market forces apply to property rents, as proven in Scotland over the last 33 months. As ever, loony lefties end up hurting those they claim to support - but as long as their loony ideas get adopted they don't care.

From: Robert Brown 04 September 2020 22:28 PM

In Scotland all tenants can give 28 days notice at any time, putting extra letting agent costs and hassle on landlords. Result is that rents for the best and highest demand properties have risen by 33% to compensate for the lack of security which landlords now face. Buying a property is a long term commitment for grown ups only. If immature tenants don't want any commitment then it comes at a cost. No benefit is without cost - simple market forces economics.

From: Robert Brown 04 September 2020 14:05 PM

Seb Stop wasting everyone's time on semantics. We're trying to run businesses with no support from anyone else. We're grown ups and not looking for favours or hand-outs - just a level playing field where the rules don't change in mid match. If you haven't anything better to do with your time try playing with the traffic!

From: Robert Brown 04 September 2020 13:54 PM

Many of these "vulnerable" tenants are obese - so they could divert some of their expensive junk food spending to pay their rent. Healthy food is far cheaper but many of them can't even cook. The solution is so simple - lend deserving tenants rent money - evict the con artists fast and house more deserving tenants who are blocked from decent homes by these rent dodgers.

From: Robert Brown 04 September 2020 09:49 AM

Sorry Seb. My moan about having to take the time and trouble to chase up people who won't keep to our agreement is still valid - as well as moans about losing money due to some people genuinely unable to pay due to unexpected change in circumstances - whom I won't pursue with ccj's.

From: Robert Brown 03 September 2020 22:32 PM

I agree with Andrew. With a name and occupation like that it shouldn't be too difficult to trace him.

From: Robert Brown 03 September 2020 22:28 PM

Then all HMG needs to do is to pay the rent directly to the landlords and recover it from tenants over time. Landlords and courts could then focus on evictions for anti social reasons etc. - helping everyone except the problem tenants who usually also make problem neighbours.

From: Robert Brown 02 September 2020 17:48 PM

Seb. It will be a richly deserved ccj if they are too feckless and lazy to take the help on offer. I would hesitate to punish cases of genuine undeserved hardship but would enjoy punishing the feckless who didn't apply for such loans and thus sentence them to at least six years of poor credit ratings and corresponding inability to rent decent accommodation from clued up landlords. If they didn't clear their debts to me, including 8% interest then I would happily renew the ccj and their six year poor credit ratings would start all over again. Revenge served cold tastes all the sweeter!

From: Robert Brown 02 September 2020 17:41 PM

Never thought I would say so - but take a lesson from the SNP's tenant loan scheme! Landlords don't need help if it's given where it's needed - to tenants in financial difficulties. However such a move needs to go hand in hand with helping chuck out anti social tenants, deliberate rent dodgers etc. There are too many decent tenants stuck in sub standard accommodation to protect the feckless and anti social at the expense of the decent!

From: Robert Brown 02 September 2020 10:11 AM

Some common sense from the SNP? Some could be forgiven for thinking a Holyrood election was due next May! I just wish they would stop talking about the non existent Bedroom tax! This was a perfectly justified removal of the spare room subsidy which subsidised social housing tenants to remain in larger homes which they should have vacated to allow families in cramped accommodation to have more suitable accommodation. However credit to the SNP where it's due, although 1 right decision out of about 999 is hardly a pass mark - even if they do get to correct their own homework currently!

From: Robert Brown 02 September 2020 10:05 AM

David E. Landlords don't evict model tenants. People like you are model tenants' worst enemies as your ill-informed propaganda just helps rent dodgers defraud decent landlords and prevent decent properties from being let to decent tenants. Rogue landlords have their own highly effective ways of ensuring rents are up to date as the feckless rent dodgers you protect will eventually learn when they are eventually evicted and no sensible landlord will touch them - but the rogue landlords will be happy to do so, confident that they will learn the error of their ways - and the ccj will live with them for the next six years - probably longer if they continue to renege on their financial obligations.

From: Robert Brown 27 August 2020 22:19 PM

Paul Surely the real solution is to abandon the loony moves to ban E and F rated properties from being rented? I have NEVER had any tenant ask for or query an EPC rating. This is yet another waste of public money and a sop to the greens who think jerry built "energy efficient" shacks are greener than solid Victorian properties which will significantly outlast them. How much energy is expended in building new builds and disposing of their rubble within the next 50 years?

From: Robert Brown 26 August 2020 22:15 PM

Cut off in mid flow? Hopefully permanently?

From: Robert Brown 26 August 2020 18:25 PM

David E. Landlords don't kick out model tenants. They want them to stay long term. Idiots like you support the dross who prevent other decent tenants from getting into better properties.

From: Robert Brown 26 August 2020 16:55 PM

Thanks Adrian. I wouldn't have wanted to see you among his idiot supporters!

From: Robert Brown 26 August 2020 16:51 PM

Adrian It looks as if you liked the idiot's initial post objecting to the idea of help for tenants by helping landlords. Did you mean to do so?

From: Robert Brown 26 August 2020 13:24 PM

Totally agree, Andrew. Quick answer to question: It doesn't!

From: Robert Brown 26 August 2020 10:07 AM

If the government helped the tenants by paying their rents then landlords wouldn't need help. Don't you think big business has been helped too when their staff are furloughed? Why should landlord businesses be denied help when multi national companies have had help?

From: Robert Brown 26 August 2020 10:05 AM

You're an idiot. Any help would let tenants have better security. Any businessman knows that the best way for the business to prosper is to look after the customers. Leftie idiots don't realise how customer and supplier interests usu

Make Today's Website as home page

Robert's Personal Profile View my company profile

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Robert 's wall

Robert 's Recent Activity

From: Robert Brown 22 September 2021 07:50 AM

From: Robert Brown 21 September 2021 15:28 PM

From: Robert Brown 20 September 2021 16:47 PM

From: Robert Brown 20 September 2021 09:24 AM

From: Robert Brown 20 September 2021 09:06 AM

From: Robert Brown 18 September 2021 21:00 PM

From: Robert Brown 17 September 2021 16:33 PM

From: Robert Brown 17 September 2021 10:15 AM

From: Robert Brown 17 September 2021 08:52 AM

From: Robert Brown 17 September 2021 08:45 AM

From: Robert Brown 16 September 2021 16:29 PM

From: Robert Brown 16 September 2021 16:27 PM

From: Robert Brown 11 September 2021 10:36 AM

From: Robert Brown 11 September 2021 10:28 AM

From: Robert Brown 11 September 2021 10:19 AM

From: Robert Brown 10 September 2021 13:42 PM

From: Robert Brown 10 September 2021 13:39 PM

From: Robert Brown 10 September 2021 13:30 PM

From: Robert Brown 10 September 2021 13:15 PM

From: Robert Brown 10 September 2021 12:56 PM

From: Robert Brown 10 September 2021 09:34 AM

From: Robert Brown 10 September 2021 09:23 AM

From: Robert Brown 08 September 2021 08:06 AM

From: Robert Brown 08 September 2021 07:57 AM

From: Robert Brown 07 September 2021 14:51 PM

From: Robert Brown 07 September 2021 14:39 PM

From: Robert Brown 07 September 2021 14:31 PM

From: Robert Brown 07 September 2021 08:35 AM

From: Robert Brown 06 September 2021 22:25 PM

From: Robert Brown 06 September 2021 08:59 AM

From: Robert Brown 06 September 2021 08:54 AM

From: Robert Brown 03 September 2021 13:41 PM

From: Robert Brown 03 September 2021 08:34 AM

From: Robert Brown 02 September 2021 13:00 PM

From: Robert Brown 02 September 2021 12:56 PM

From: Robert Brown 02 September 2021 09:18 AM

From: Robert Brown 02 September 2021 09:12 AM

From: Robert Brown 01 September 2021 22:40 PM

From: Robert Brown 01 September 2021 13:40 PM

From: Robert Brown 01 September 2021 10:49 AM

From: Robert Brown 01 September 2021 08:35 AM

From: Robert Brown 31 August 2021 08:31 AM

From: Robert Brown 27 August 2021 18:34 PM

From: Robert Brown 27 August 2021 13:28 PM

From: Robert Brown 27 August 2021 11:00 AM

From: Robert Brown 27 August 2021 08:56 AM

From: Robert Brown 27 August 2021 08:49 AM

From: Robert Brown 26 August 2021 09:16 AM

From: Robert Brown 26 August 2021 09:09 AM

From: Robert Brown 25 August 2021 08:57 AM

From: Robert Brown 25 August 2021 08:46 AM

From: Robert Brown 25 August 2021 08:46 AM

From: Robert Brown 25 August 2021 08:37 AM

From: Robert Brown 23 August 2021 18:41 PM

From: Robert Brown 23 August 2021 13:39 PM

From: Robert Brown 23 August 2021 08:52 AM

From: Robert Brown 20 August 2021 20:14 PM

From: Robert Brown 18 August 2021 09:32 AM

From: Robert Brown 18 August 2021 09:27 AM

From: Robert Brown 17 August 2021 16:27 PM

From: Robert Brown 17 August 2021 16:08 PM

From: Robert Brown 16 August 2021 11:56 AM

From: Robert Brown 16 August 2021 08:50 AM

From: Robert Brown 14 August 2021 08:35 AM

From: Robert Brown 13 August 2021 09:22 AM

From: Robert Brown 13 August 2021 08:54 AM

From: Robert Brown 12 August 2021 11:06 AM

From: Robert Brown 12 August 2021 10:58 AM

From: Robert Brown 12 August 2021 09:14 AM

From: Robert Brown 12 August 2021 09:06 AM

From: Robert Brown 12 August 2021 08:49 AM

From: Robert Brown 11 August 2021 17:26 PM

From: Robert Brown 11 August 2021 17:11 PM

From: Robert Brown 11 August 2021 15:51 PM