x
By using this website, you agree to our
use of cookies
to enhance your experience.
SEARCH
Search
STAY
CONNECTED!
Sign in
Sign in
New here? Sign up
Feedback
My Account
Feedback
Sign out
×
Make Today's Website as home page
Menu
Estate agent today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Letting agent today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Landlord today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Property Investor today
News
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Introducer today
News
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Property Jobs Today
Home
Find a Job
Search Recruiters
Recruiters
New
James's
Personal Profile
View my company profile
James Fraser
8935
Profile Views
About Me
Send message
View company profile
Follow all comments made
my expertise in the industry
James's wall
James's
Recent Activity
Exactly this Peter. Spot on.
From:
James Fraser
23 January 2024 21:36 PM
Tom Smith - I love a good parody!
From:
James Fraser
23 January 2024 21:36 PM
Whooppee. This terminally moronic govt of sophistry and incompetence who have ruined lives with their destruction of the PRS, FINALLY sees the blindingly obvious and makes a slight concession. Given the uselessness of the courts WITH S21, the mind can only boggle at just how laughable they will become once it has gone. Hopefully - probably - it will take decades to sort them out, if at all, so S21 stays. And rightly so.
From:
James Fraser
26 October 2023 16:20 PM
Oh my god! I’m literally CRYING with LAUGHTER! These student types are supposed to be the brightest and best, yes? Our great hope for the future? Yet here we have them yelling that there must be no room allowed for private landlords to consider staying in the market, whilst simultaneously yelling that there’s a supply crisis and rocketing rents that - ahem - ‘landlords and govt need to address’!! Stop, please… I’ve just split another kidney! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
From:
James Fraser
31 August 2023 23:00 PM
Every campaigning landlord I know said in 2015 that this would be the inevitable outcome. Some of us even predicted, and wrote about, the fact that because S24 was being phased in over 4 tax years, by the time the effects had taken place most commentators would have forgotten its influence. Thus it has happened. Taxing mortgage interest was always about the stupidist idea possible, but now rates are where they are it can be nothing other than ruinous. Everybody outside the industry then expresses further surprise when huge rents and rental shortages result, choosing to ignore the obvious elephant in the room and instead desperately cling on to pseudo-excuses like ‘landlords retiring’ or high interest rates. The govt and the anti-landlords wanted this. Well now they’ve got it. Reap what you sow.
From:
James Fraser
09 July 2023 10:35 AM
There is something so blindingly obvious and predictable about abolishing S21, namely that as soon as its gone, S8 will then immediately become the next public enemy and campaigners will start attacking the mandatory grounds. ‘Oh, isn’t it shameful how we’re all losing our homes over rent arrears or landlords selling! Shouldn’t be allowed!!’ (Etc). Just you watch.
From:
James Fraser
04 May 2023 10:01 AM
What a surprise! Whadda we s’pose the chances are of it being extended again in October?
From:
James Fraser
16 January 2023 17:07 PM
Bloody right Barry! I’ve thought it a farce from Day 1 and have seen nothing to change my opinion since. On one occasion I had two ‘identical twin’ houses side by side in a terrace, fully refurbished to the highest possible standards and identical in every respect. Yet for reasons of practicality we ended up with two different assessors attending the two houses. They gave radically different assessments, two EPC ratings apart! (B & D). The difference seemed to hinge on whether heat loss most escaped through the loft or the walls, but there were also disputes about the effectiveness of new windows and TRVs. I never got the two assessors together to fight it out between them because I didn’t care, but maybe it would have been fun to witness them argue out the obvious discrepancies. Incidentally, I’ve just returned from America where no one at ground level seems to give a shiit about energy efficiency, recycling, or waste. Trying to seek out recycling facilities was a laughable, futile affair and the endless consumption and throwing away of brand new, often unused, plastics, was nothing short of a disgrace. As long as that’s going on in the big population countries, us changing our lightbulbs or spending £6000 on floor insulation to save £40 on annual bills is a nonsense.
From:
James Fraser
16 November 2022 18:58 PM
You really couldn’t make this up, could you? The public purse was always going to be worse off under Section 24 but the politicians a) didn’t spot this and b) didn’t want to know when it was pointed out as far back as 2015. Then you’ve got Polly Neate telling us how terrible homelessness is for the economy when it was Shelter eagerly supporting Section 24 and claiming taxes wouldn’t affect rents and homelessness! NOW she’s telling us that homelessness - mainly caused by a policy she supports - costs too much?! REALLY, Sherlock?? You’ve finally spotted the obvious have you?! Jesus wept…
From:
James Fraser
22 October 2022 03:57 AM
Exactly what happened in St Ives! Their special bye-law preventing second homers stopped new build in its tracks, so no new housing at all entering the supply.
From:
James Fraser
20 May 2022 15:24 PM
So, if I wanted to move to East Devon from 250 miles away, I’d be prevented from buying a new build to do it… right? Are they saying new movers to the area can only buy an existing house first, live in it a few years, THEN they’d qualify for a new build? It’s almost as if the Tories aren’t the free-market Conservatives we originally thought… (lol).
From:
James Fraser
20 May 2022 09:18 AM
Hilarious. They want to massively increase tax on rental homes - to dissuade rental properties - whilst being ‘concerned’ about the ‘affordability and availability’ for people who might want to rent long term. I see.
From:
James Fraser
11 April 2022 20:16 PM
What fresh idiot is this?! If you take away rentals, you increase the chance of homeownership??? Where do the renters live before they become homeowners in his ridiculous world??
From:
James Fraser
30 December 2021 10:59 AM
You really couldn’t make this up! A TORY - yes, TORY!! - MP has finally decided that there aren’t enough rental houses! What a surprise! It was his government who insisted on forcing through section 24 despite all the obvious complaints and arguments against it. Yeah what did these idiots do? Told us that it wouldn’t affect rental housing, that the rents would not go up and that the supply would not diminish. This MP obviously missed Osborne saying of Section 24 that he wanted ‘to tax out of existence’ the ‘things he didn’t want’, and clearly isn’t aware of the Treasury statement on S24 which said ‘If it’s hurting landlords, it’s working’. Perhaps he is ignorant of the fact that the Treasury told us that the S24 policy must be enacted ‘at all costs’. Well, these are the costs! The very costs his govt were warned about repeatedly (even during the court case!) but refused to acknowledge. How can these people be so stupid? They KNEW the obvious results at the time yet now act like it’s all a mystery to them?! Unbelievable. The utter fools.
From:
James Fraser
04 August 2021 01:35 AM
This is ridiculous. The govt don’t seem to realise that the tiny number of tenants affected by S21 at least had a chance to escape a bad tenancy unpursued and without court involvement unless the tenant wanted it. Now, they will HAVE to go to court, HAVE to have their sins publicly revealed and WILL get a CCJ in all successful cases. Plus, the additional court workload will cause more problems for the court, and thus more delays. These idiots really don’t think it through, do they?
From:
James Fraser
15 January 2021 11:48 AM
Was just about to write what Gromit was saying. There is no ‘55,000’ tenants. Generation Rent have falsely concocted this based on no representative sample at all. Just 13 - thirteen! - responses to their survey has morphed into 55,000, a figure even MHCLG have publicly criticised them for. Yet these morons in charge suck it up and quickly regurgitate the figure without ever demonstrating the slightest ACTUAL knowledge of the sector! And they make the policy decisions?! Sickening.
From:
James Fraser
22 September 2020 14:39 PM
Luke Aaron, You are absolutely right. We absolutely need legal action on this and any members of the trade associations should be publicly calling on them to do this. But it will only be a success if individual landlords and agents step up to the plate. £100 is a paltry sum, £1000 is good value when you consider the tens of thousands at stake for each landlord and the months or years of abuse yet to come.
From:
James Fraser
27 August 2020 10:16 AM
Absolutely correct Mr Crisp! As someone who has run this BUSINESS full time for 20 years, and was a leading member of the Axe the Tenant Tax campaign against the government’s idiotic Section 24, I have seen first hand, and in meetings and communications galore with them, that that is precisely what is happening. Worse, it doesn’t seem to be over yet either! Mark Wilson comes out with the usual tripe about speculation. Obviously not a sound and researched investment decision, nor a long-term commitment to providing a legally-obligated essential service as my team do proactively 24 hours a day. No, he calls it ‘speculation’ which it cannot possibly be as it is not a short-term trade, a key requirement of a speculative financial punt. Maybe he is also invading the boards of day-traders, telling them off for trying to influence share prices in minute by minute ‘investment’! It would be funny if it wasn’t so utterly inept a description. Even the govt sees property management as a business, so anyone undertaking that is most definitely not a speculator, but regardless of this, you Mr Crisp are correct. The govt thinks SDLT surcharges, 100% or even infinite tax rates, licensing and legislative changes are perfectly reasonable yet wonder why there is a large and growing homelessness crisis. Idiots the lot of them.
From:
James Fraser
26 August 2020 10:24 AM
These councils are shooting themselves in the foot. They keep begging landlords to come on board with them, yet do everything they can to ensure no landlord will ever take the risk! Absolute idiots. And they wonder why landlords won’t work with them...
From:
James Fraser
31 July 2020 11:54 AM
David was never at the Residential Landlords Association, he was at the NLA on the policy team. He is also one of the leading voices for the sector and is willing to speak up when others don’t. This is a very bad decision and I wish him every success in the future.
From:
James Fraser
24 July 2020 22:12 PM
What utter tripe from Neate - as usual! A £60m a year charity, that already gets £15m from taxpayers ‘doesn’t have enough’?! I’ll tell you what Polly, maybe we could get homeless charities taxed on their turnover and see how much you’ve got left then!!!
From:
James Fraser
24 July 2020 21:42 PM
Shelter are appalling for spending their supporters’ money on things they can’t possibly police. The decisions against DSS will still be made, just waste their time on a long application and pick a different reason for rejection. Also, this is not the precedent Shelter make out - it’s a County Court, so is dependent on the precise individual facts of this case. It can be referred to, but does not apply automatically in other similar cases. Finally, we can use the left’s own words against them as there are still commentators complaining about the HB bill enriching landlords, at precisely the moment Shelter want the payments increased! It’s almost as if the anti-landlords don’t know what they want...
From:
James Fraser
15 July 2020 10:24 AM
I notice they want rent arrears action ceased, but don’t explain what happens when the tenant uses the opportunity for a free ride? Nor do they explain the situation of tenants caught in domestic situations who want or need to be evicted - what are their plans for them??
From:
James Fraser
14 April 2020 10:31 AM
I would say that this is how it will now be on a permanent basis, but if they’re abolishing S21 altogether then presumably 3 months notice will just stay until it goes.
From:
James Fraser
26 March 2020 09:09 AM
‘Evictions are the leading cause of homelessness’ Noooooo! Pure genius at work!
From:
James Fraser
24 March 2020 09:31 AM
It’s amazing. If someone in those offices gave them a deserved smack in the mouth they’d be the first ones complaining to the police about how aggressive and unfair the agent was! I suggest getting a garden hose out of the upstairs window and spraying them with icy water.
From:
James Fraser
06 March 2020 08:52 AM
Labour are as ludicrous as the Tories on this. Will it now be compulsory to accept pets? Will non-pet owners now have to be discriminated against in favour of those that do? What will the sanctions be and how are they to be enforced - maybe Trading Standards will be sent out to interview landlords as to why they turned away Tiddles The Cat?!?! Absolutely farcical.
From:
James Fraser
08 January 2020 16:07 PM
This is more of the usual woolly farce from govt. a statement designed to sound good but absolutely meaningless. It’s not law (show mw how it could be!) and it’s not enforceable. There is no possible way to tell a good pet from a bad one. I do already accept most pets anyway, although this is now restricted by the deposit allowable, and if this was to become law I might simply ‘prefer’ the applicant without a pet. Simple. Or will we now have to PROVE to an applicant that the pet wasn’t the reason they were rejected?!
From:
James Fraser
05 January 2020 13:04 PM
What a disgusting bunch of short-sighted envious morons this think tanks is. These idiots get listened to!
From:
James Fraser
11 September 2019 10:25 AM
Corbyn is a lunatic. But actually, these ‘5 point plans’ are quite meaningless. What does it actually mean ‘know your rights’? Of course you should! What is meant or achieved by ‘mobilising the CAB’? And what’s that last point: ‘go to a meeting’?? Whooppee. I’m crapping it now! 😊
From:
James Fraser
19 August 2019 14:05 PM
Utterly bizarre that you think the presence of rented property has stopped FTBs buying. You obviously don’t realise that FTBs were denied by lenders not lending, not investors buying, after the credit crunch and has been documented time and time again since 2008. You also don’t know that (apart from 2008-2010), FTBs have usually made up the biggest single block of homebuyers every year, and are currently back to the all-time highs enjoyed prior to 2008 with this figure set to be exceeded soon. Indeed they more than doubled in number in the last 8 years (from 168k to 380k/yr) so nobody at all is holding them back - except possibly other FTBs?!
From:
James Fraser
15 August 2019 16:05 PM
Utter tripe. It has long since been proven that BTL does not inflate prices nor ‘distort’ anything. Indeed, as a tiny sector of buyers, even at its 2003 peak, BTL cannot have been the main driver in price rises - it is always the huge OO contingent that drives prices, and always has been. Anyone who thinks differently might like to explain why house prices doubled every 7.5 years (on average) (ONS), for 50 years - half a century! - before BTL even began?!
From:
James Fraser
15 August 2019 15:52 PM
At last somebody in govt seems to get it! We should all write our support to both these guys.
From:
James Fraser
12 July 2019 21:55 PM
And he’ll be taxed on whatever’s left in that £80 too.
From:
James Fraser
30 June 2019 09:01 AM
I wonder how long it’ll be before L&G and all the BTR corporates are getting protests outside their offices about their ‘disgusting corporate fat-cat rents’ and that there’s ‘no choice in the PRS anymore - just tiny square stack-em-up boxes’. Will that be the scene within a decade, do you think??
From:
James Fraser
24 June 2019 10:28 AM
Anyone calling rent-a-mob on me will find themselves on the wrong end of a 999 call to the police and a claim for harassment. None of these people are anything to do with the contractual agreement so are completely irrelevant. If they turned up unannounced and started shouting the odds I’d be sure to evict the tenant and see to it that they got the blame!
From:
James Fraser
21 June 2019 17:41 PM
Best solution Paul, been saying the same for years, although I’d say the properties don’t need the licence, the landlord does. If you pass the tests for a licence, that licence should entitle you to rent a house anywhere, much as a driving licence applies to multiple vehicles.
From:
James Fraser
21 June 2019 15:08 PM
CAB seem blind to the fact that rents will have to be added to to cover these costs. I was just about to rent a house for £1300 that is now going out at £1350, and the tenants want to stay 5 years. That’s £3000 in extra rent over a 5 year period to save just £300 on the deposit. The rest will mainly go on the govt’s inflated tax bills!
From:
James Fraser
04 June 2019 10:53 AM
Nothing has been ‘fallen for’, I wanted all the things he stands for before he even came along, so I’m fully in favour and hope he achieves great success. Why have YOU fallen for the lies and idiocy of the left?
From:
James Fraser
30 May 2019 10:31 AM
Arnie, IDS, JRM and Andrea Leadsom are also pro-landlord. AL is directly affected by S24.
From:
James Fraser
30 May 2019 10:18 AM
Oh no! Terrible news. I thought maybe Robb or Neate had seen the error of their ways, but clearly not. Can’t they emigrate, or something?
From:
James Fraser
18 April 2019 12:49 PM
This bozo is a professional letting agent is he? Christ...
From:
James Fraser
16 April 2019 16:41 PM
I do not agree with the CSJ, except that they recently stated - not reported here I see - tgat Section 24 tax attacks should be rescinded in exchange for longer tenancies. My tenancies last a long time anyway - 11 years plus in at least two cases - so I’m not scared of longer tenancies, but what’s all this ‘4 years then another 4 years’ nonsense? What if a house was only available for 5 or 6 years - are they saying the first 4 year tenancy is fine but you can’t then have 2 years afterwards? Must the house be left empty then?? And what about private negotiation - ‘I’ll give you a grand if you move out this month’ etc - will that be banned or maybe become more prevalent?? Longer tenancies MUST retain intelligent flexibility for the landlord, or you won’t get the house at all.
From:
James Fraser
22 March 2019 10:16 AM
My local authority once told a potential tenant that I was a criminal landlord and that the authority would not recommend she rent from me. All totally untrue of course, and they apologised for the ‘mistake’ later, but I bloody wish I’d sued them now!
From:
James Fraser
28 February 2019 17:08 PM
This is a great article which clearly outlines the difficulties being faced by modern, professional landlords when people from their own industry can’t get basic terminology right. Mr Ludlow of all people should have enough knowledge to be able to explain and articulate the issues clearly and without loading the gun for the people who would use that gun on both of us! Paying money out, especially when wholly and exclusively for the business, is a business cost. It costs/loses actual money to the person paying it. It is NOT in any definition a ‘relief’ which is a notional concept rather than one of actual transaction. Labour make this ridiculous assertion when they talk of maintenance fees being ‘generous reliefs’ - they’re nothing of the sort, they are genuine expenses in keeping the property in good order for the tenants. Would we say a florist - or better yet, a lettings agent?! - is getting a ‘generous relief’ for paying for their premises?? No. Its a ludicrous assertion. Stop spreading such nonsense LT and start putting out some proper comment about how and why these changes will affect us all so badly.
From:
James Fraser
02 February 2019 11:59 AM
Typical. I’d expect nothing less from these hypocritical ‘we’ll-NEVER-actually-provide-accommodation’ arses.
From:
James Fraser
07 December 2018 10:08 AM
Its 6 WEEKS rent as deposit, not 6 months as stated.
From:
James Fraser
11 October 2018 09:47 AM
Give it time, Gromit, give it time.
From:
James Fraser
24 September 2018 23:57 PM
I’ve told her many times myself but am met with a wall of silence.
From:
James Fraser
22 August 2018 15:49 PM
The PRS has beenconsistently higher than social for some years, but still the idiots in charge think we’re the ‘problem’. I had a 10-yr tenant tell me yesterday that my house was ‘beautiful’ and that she ‘didn’t know what she’d do without me’. Ha! Be buying, presumably?!?!?!
From:
James Fraser
16 July 2018 08:23 AM
It’s incredible that some people think this is good! It means 133,000 houses that tenants cannot access - worse, potentially up to 133,000 families being made homeless. Why are the charities/govt/haters so silent on where all the homeless are to go?
From:
James Fraser
12 July 2018 10:52 AM
Oh hang on... my bad. This is a year and a half old right?
From:
James Fraser
09 July 2018 15:23 PM
I genuinely don’t understand. Here were the govt insisting that 3 yr tenancies were definitely on the way in, 100%, yes sirree, no doubt, it’s happening, ‘secure tenancies for all’, etc etc... then a few days later it’s all forgotten about and ‘as you were’?? What the hell happened? Shelter and GR won’t be pleased! Presumably the lenders gave the govt a talking to??
From:
James Fraser
09 July 2018 15:21 PM
Angus! Ha! You do realise that whole poisoning issue wasn’t the Russians at all, right? It was quite clearly a disgruntled private landlord having an issue with his tenants! After all, we’re blamed for every other kind of misdemeanour, may as well be this as well.
From:
James Fraser
06 July 2018 21:21 PM
Twats.
From:
James Fraser
18 June 2018 08:33 AM
If the govt does reply, itll be the usual half-truth dross about ‘levelling the playing field’ and ‘only affecting a small number of landlords’ (or 425,000 as it actually is).
From:
James Fraser
21 May 2018 22:12 PM
Eh? CGT is 28% for individuals and corporation tax rates for companies, currently descending to 17%??
From:
James Fraser
23 November 2017 14:17 PM
What kind of 'story' is this? A Guardian story, that's what! Let's look at the facts that the Guardian seems to find so diffcult to examine. 1. Councillors cannot influence the law, and have very little influence at all over the work of the officers who carry out their respective tasks under the law regardless of which political interests are shown by the elected councillors. 2. I imagine most of these councillors were btl owners before becoming councillors - should they be banned, no matter how excellent a councillor they may be? 3. The leader of our council publicly hates and vilifies landlords but she is one herself. As a Labour councillor, how might the Guardian feel about that? 4. In suggesting that councillors COULD influence council decisions the Guardian proves it knows nothing about how these councils actually work.
From:
James Fraser
22 November 2017 13:27 PM
Shelter disgust me. They campaign hard to get landlords to leave the sector, then come over all offended when they leave and evict as a result! They want homeowners but get all moralistic when a tenant loses their home to allow this! You couldn't make it up. You want landlords gone? Fine, but so are their rental houses.
From:
James Fraser
03 August 2017 22:32 PM
Shelter make themselves look ever-more ridiculous and out of touch with each new statement issued. The Cambridge report is already proven to be deeply flawed, not to mention Shelter's unwillingness to accept absolute facts staring them in the face. Their spin to disregard the biggest iceberg in PRS history is staggering. Get them to explain in detail the link between them, L&G, BTR, S24, higher rents and homelessness, and they NEVER answer. It is corruption. They are paid by L&G who benefit from the death of the private landlord. They are an utterly discredited organisation.
From:
James Fraser
28 July 2017 11:35 AM
Brilliant work. We ALL need to be registering our displeasure as much as possible. With all of them.
From:
James Fraser
22 May 2017 15:52 PM
Oh dear, 1664. Been at the 1664 again, have we? Have you learned anything about Schedule B and imputed rent, and why homeowners don't get tax relief? You do realise landlords dont get tax relief on their own homes, so are already on a level playing field with owner-buyers? And at the risk of asking too many questions, why is it I have to buy a car personally with no tax allowances but rental companies can claim their finance costs... any ideas? The truth of the matter is you don't like allowing houses into the equation. In fact you're quite self-centred and discriminatory because you want to deny renters the right to have a rented property. Where do you suppose they should live if landlords aren't supplying their needs? I only exist because people keep ringing me up asking me to rent them a house - yet there are thousands of affordable ones on the market round me. Ever wondered why they're not being bought??
From:
James Fraser
05 April 2017 13:43 PM
The spat involved several people connected to the issue and Pryor is the one being disingenuous, a government apologist willing to peddle whatever nonsense they feed him. Even if you follow his/govts own belief that 'only 1 in 5' are affected, thats a staggering 425,000 landlords! How many tenants is that likely to see rent rises or evictions? You can repeatedly ask Pryor the same questions and never get an answer: why does the IFS call this 'plain wrong'? Why does the IEA call this 'a schoolboy error'? Why does he refuse to acknowledge BOTH versions of its failure in Ireland? Why the belief that tenants wont be paying higher rents when the market alters on changed circumstances? Where will all the evicted live? And if theyre not being evicted, why do councils everywhere say they are in ever greater numbers? Why does he not recognise a landlord selling usually equals a tenant eviction?? His attitude and unwillingness to recognise these facts do his 'credibility' no good at all.
From:
James Fraser
05 April 2017 08:09 AM
Oh dear 1664, you aren't really up to this, are you? Why did the LSE say only around 9% of transactions attracted bids from both types of buyer - do they not know as much as you?? And why did the English Housing Survey say that 83% of all new dwellings were provided by the PRS between 1996 and 2013 - using the wrong data were they?! And how do you explain (clue: you can't) that FTB numbers have doubled in 6 years from 168,000 in 2010 to 336,000 in 2016 - held back by landlords they certainly are not. (Another clue: this was mainly before the tax changes were announced). Do get your facts straight if you're going to argue with the grown-ups, there's a good boy.
From:
James Fraser
03 April 2017 13:44 PM
Why is it the 'so-called' campaign?! It IS called Axe the Tenant Tax and they are the only people doing anything to actively campaign on this huge problem. MPs need to wake up to the problem urgently, stop blindly repeating whatever the treasury tells them to say and start thinking for themselves. Rents and evictions are already sharply up since the 2015 announcement and will only go one way from here as supply gets further squeezed. There really arent any other possible outcomes.
From:
James Fraser
14 March 2017 08:28 AM
Shelter say they hate homelessness but support S24 which clearly causes homelessness. How can they not see that??
From:
James Fraser
16 February 2017 11:08 AM
But astonishingly doesn't even mention Section 24?!?!?! Why not - its a far bigger issue than the PRA!
From:
James Fraser
30 January 2017 12:35 PM
Let's all get into that and tell him what will happen if S24 goes ahead! I'd like SDLT reconsidered too but I know thats not going to happen.
From:
James Fraser
03 January 2017 12:03 PM
Couldnt put it better myself. Damn this idiotic government.
From:
James Fraser
07 December 2016 23:05 PM
Also, the NLA regularly run large surveys of its membership and results are similar. I've seen many long-term landlords, including myself, saying they will be forced to sell properties and evict the good, happy, long-term tenants that reside there. This policy disgusts me.
From:
James Fraser
19 November 2016 08:11 AM
Ajay Agota ought to speak to councils who are already feeling the effects of this. Peterborough are spending an additional £1.2m since April alone on rooms at Travelodge, which they say is almost entirely as a result of landlords selling up due to this policy. Expect to see many more stories like this in future.
From:
James Fraser
19 November 2016 07:51 AM
Excellent news! Now we can see the rocketing rents and rent strikes that BTR is already bringing to the student sector. Instead of a local, personal landlord we can line the pockets of a multinational! So much better... not.
From:
James Fraser
31 October 2016 07:46 AM
Whilst I agree with all the above comments, I've never found a possession to take a total of 45 weeks. 25-30 from start to finish seems more realistic.
From:
James Fraser
25 October 2016 13:10 PM
Couldn't have put it better. So many Tories are actually against this, including elected Tories at all levels. Let's hope Hammond is listening, as the Treasury don't seem to be.
From:
James Fraser
17 October 2016 09:21 AM
Not to mention the team at Property118 who started the campaign and have co-ordinated and run all the behind-the-scenes effort. Good luck Steve and Chris, let's beat this nonsense once and for all!
From:
James Fraser
03 October 2016 08:31 AM
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Breaking News
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Video Archieve
Today 14:58
Portal Discussions
Joined Group From: Your Community
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Industry View
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Industry View
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Conversation Comment in: Interior Design
Today 14:58
×
Send a message
Message
×
Write on Wall
Message
×
Send a message
Reply to:
Message
Breaking News
Labour must come clean on Business Rates, says agency
Property management firm hit with £500,000 health and safety fine
Good News - buy to let yields at their highest for six years
Demand slows as agents warn about unsustainable rent rises
Lords won’t wreck Renters Reform Bill - trade body
Agency urges second home owners to be Airbnb hosts for tax reasons
Masterclass aims to help agents dominate local markets
Rent rises moderating as market stabilises ahead of summer
PropTech partnership promises lead generation for lettings agents
Specialist accommodation listings service recruits extra staff
James's Recent Activity
From: James Fraser
23 January 2024 21:36 PM
From: James Fraser
23 January 2024 21:36 PM
From: James Fraser
26 October 2023 16:20 PM
From: James Fraser
31 August 2023 23:00 PM
From: James Fraser
09 July 2023 10:35 AM
From: James Fraser
04 May 2023 10:01 AM
From: James Fraser
16 January 2023 17:07 PM
From: James Fraser
16 November 2022 18:58 PM
From: James Fraser
22 October 2022 03:57 AM
From: James Fraser
20 May 2022 15:24 PM
From: James Fraser
20 May 2022 09:18 AM
From: James Fraser
11 April 2022 20:16 PM
From: James Fraser
30 December 2021 10:59 AM
From: James Fraser
04 August 2021 01:35 AM
From: James Fraser
15 January 2021 11:48 AM
From: James Fraser
22 September 2020 14:39 PM
From: James Fraser
27 August 2020 10:16 AM
From: James Fraser
26 August 2020 10:24 AM
From: James Fraser
31 July 2020 11:54 AM
From: James Fraser
24 July 2020 22:12 PM
From: James Fraser
24 July 2020 21:42 PM
From: James Fraser
15 July 2020 10:24 AM
From: James Fraser
14 April 2020 10:31 AM
From: James Fraser
26 March 2020 09:09 AM
From: James Fraser
24 March 2020 09:31 AM
From: James Fraser
06 March 2020 08:52 AM
From: James Fraser
08 January 2020 16:07 PM
From: James Fraser
05 January 2020 13:04 PM
From: James Fraser
11 September 2019 10:25 AM
From: James Fraser
19 August 2019 14:05 PM
From: James Fraser
15 August 2019 16:05 PM
From: James Fraser
15 August 2019 15:52 PM
From: James Fraser
12 July 2019 21:55 PM
From: James Fraser
30 June 2019 09:01 AM
From: James Fraser
24 June 2019 10:28 AM
From: James Fraser
21 June 2019 17:41 PM
From: James Fraser
21 June 2019 15:08 PM
From: James Fraser
04 June 2019 10:53 AM
From: James Fraser
30 May 2019 10:31 AM
From: James Fraser
30 May 2019 10:18 AM
From: James Fraser
18 April 2019 12:49 PM
From: James Fraser
16 April 2019 16:41 PM
From: James Fraser
22 March 2019 10:16 AM
From: James Fraser
28 February 2019 17:08 PM
From: James Fraser
02 February 2019 11:59 AM
From: James Fraser
07 December 2018 10:08 AM
From: James Fraser
11 October 2018 09:47 AM
From: James Fraser
24 September 2018 23:57 PM
From: James Fraser
22 August 2018 15:49 PM
From: James Fraser
16 July 2018 08:23 AM
From: James Fraser
12 July 2018 10:52 AM
From: James Fraser
09 July 2018 15:23 PM
From: James Fraser
09 July 2018 15:21 PM
From: James Fraser
06 July 2018 21:21 PM
From: James Fraser
18 June 2018 08:33 AM
From: James Fraser
21 May 2018 22:12 PM
From: James Fraser
23 November 2017 14:17 PM
From: James Fraser
22 November 2017 13:27 PM
From: James Fraser
03 August 2017 22:32 PM
From: James Fraser
28 July 2017 11:35 AM
From: James Fraser
22 May 2017 15:52 PM
From: James Fraser
05 April 2017 13:43 PM
From: James Fraser
05 April 2017 08:09 AM
From: James Fraser
03 April 2017 13:44 PM
From: James Fraser
14 March 2017 08:28 AM
From: James Fraser
16 February 2017 11:08 AM
From: James Fraser
30 January 2017 12:35 PM
From: James Fraser
03 January 2017 12:03 PM
From: James Fraser
07 December 2016 23:05 PM
From: James Fraser
19 November 2016 08:11 AM
From: James Fraser
19 November 2016 07:51 AM
From: James Fraser
31 October 2016 07:46 AM
From: James Fraser
25 October 2016 13:10 PM
From: James Fraser
17 October 2016 09:21 AM
From: James Fraser
03 October 2016 08:31 AM