x

msec S

Director

3559 Profile Views

About Me

Electrician, plumber and property investor

my expertise in the industry

In construction for 21 years and property investment for 3 years

msec's Recent Activity

The inconsistency you've seen is indicative of an issue in the electrical industry that is causing standards to slip, that being that electrical testing and inspecting is specialist. Not just any electrician can do it and traditionally it has always been senior and supervisory electricians who carry it out. Now we have lads with 4 or 5 years experience leaving their firms as soon as their apprenticeships are finished and going it alone, or worse, career changers who've done a 6 week course. They are not experienced or knowledgeable enough to carry out testing and interpret the results. No amount of training will get around the issue, it's a matter of experience and you can't short cut your way to it. For the record, the length between tests has always been a recommendation at the discretion of the electrician carrying out the work. It is based on the current condition of the installation and how long he feels would be appropriate. However, in tenanted domestic properties the IEE have always recommended a test on the change of tenancy. It's their recommendation, none of it has ever been mandatory until now. Anyone telling you every year is someone to be avoided. They are lying or incompetent (or both).

From: msec S 20 January 2020 10:54 AM

'Something needs to be done'... Ridiulous. AirBNB are 'taking' nothing from no-one. Property owners are and should be allowed to do what they want with their properties and there is CLEARLY a market for short term letting. Handicapping businesses and investors for responding to market conditions and giving people what they want is the height of stupidity. Hotels will have to respond accordingly... that's what you do when innovative businesses come along and industries change, you change with the times or go under. That's how the consumer benefits. As for councils.. they are nothing more than pigs trying to get their noses into the trough in any way they can.

From: msec S 17 January 2020 15:41 PM

Should Rightmove start checking that landlords are meeting their obligations then? No, of course not, because it's none of their business, just as it's none of AirBNB's business if oweners aren't meeting theirs. It's a MARKETING platform, nothing to do with compliance, and neither should it be. Oh, and I hate to break it to you, but a local economy is more than just a supermarket! There are all sorts of people using AirBNB for all sorts of reasons. In turn these people use all sorts of local businesses, in fact if anything, short term letters will spend MORE relatively speaking than traditional tenants. Only an idiot would argue otherwise.

From: msec S 17 January 2020 15:34 PM

Paying tax doesn't help the economy. There is no use of money more wasteful and inefficient than the revenue that government's collect in tax.

From: msec S 17 January 2020 15:29 PM

As an electrician of 20 years, though I agree that mandatory checks were required, I don't hold out any hope of this raising any standards. The standard of EICR's (Electrical installation Condition Reports) has been appallingly low for years. The nature of testing work is extremely technical, and traditionally it was only carried out by senior, experienced electricians. Since Part P that has been diluted, and along with the fact that landlords / agents won't be willing to pay the going rate for the necessary skill and expertise, the gap will be filled (in fact, is already filled) with incompetents and shysters. A tenanted 3 bed house would take a full day to test if done properly (yes that's a full day, despite what a previous 'electrician' or agent has told you) and I personally wouldn't do one for less than £200 (and that would have to be untenanted and empty). Unfortunately, we'll be seeing them done for 50 or 60 quid as decent electricians are priced out, and the rest race to the bottom like idiots to get the work. Landlords won't care because they'll have a piece of paper that's more fabricated than Alice In Wonderland, agents won't care becuase they'll have their commision, and tenants will get the same low standards they've always had when it comes to electrics in the PRS.

From: msec S 15 January 2020 09:39 AM

Don't be quick to assume they're out of touch. They know it pushes rents up, they just don't care, it's a vote winner. You can't trust a thing any of them say, no matter what your political persuasion. Still, you're right, Corbyn would have been a disaster. My Grandad, who left communist Yugoslavia to come here, always used to say 'at least a Tory looks you in the eye while he's screwing you'!

From: msec S 08 January 2020 13:17 PM

If you seriously believe that load of drivel that you've written then you're a fruitcake. Show me a tenant that takes the landlords perspective, risk, investment and wellbeing into account, and I'll show you a landlord who believes it's his 'job' to make sure his tenant is happy. A landlord's responsibilities stop and start with themselves and their familes, just like everyone else. Their responsibilities to the tenant are in law, and nowhere else. You can preach about 'wider responsibility' all you want, it doesn't exist. Individuals (including YOU, however much you try to virtue signal) put themselves and their own interests first, always have, always will. It's normal, human nature. Why not ask tenants why they don't have a wider repsonsibility to be more productive? then they could benefit the economy, take some of the strain off higher tax bracket payers and maybe afford their own property? Oh, and trying to indicate that common sense is outdated makes you look as stupid as you sound.

From: msec S 08 January 2020 11:50 AM

No-one owes you cheap rent you idiot. Your 'beautiful council property' is being subsidised by the tax payer, another name on the ever growing list of burdens to the people who actually produce the prosperity in this country. Funnily enough, I'm an electrician too, however, I don't need anyone to pay my way. Keep taking your appalling attitude through life with you and see how happy you end up. That same attitude keeps you beholden to the state who have full control of your life. Housing is a political pawn, and you have no control over your own, or your family's destiny. Wait until the council decide to sell the housing stock to a non profit and your rent doubles. Or they move a family of scrotes or druggies onto your street. See how accomodating socialism then to the average man. Keep thinking nothing bad will ever happen and daddy council will continue to wipe your arse. Then think of those of us who live in nice areas that we CHOSE to live in, rather than were told to after waiting on a list for years. The only difference between you and us is that appalling attitude I mentioned earlier.

From: msec S 31 December 2019 08:13 AM

Why are you talking about plumbing fittings and ring mains? These are things that tenants and 99.9% of landlords shouldn't be touching, and nothing to do with this article at all.

From: msec S 31 December 2019 08:00 AM

Exactly, they probably have their eye on reducing their own costs of carrying out surveys if Labour will get the landlord to pay for it for them

From: msec S 03 December 2019 08:02 AM

The right to an affordable rented home?? Errr... affordable is subjective. Surely no-one can disagree with that?? So if you can't afford it, but have a 'right' to it, then what? I have the 'right' to afford a swimming pool right now, doesn't mean I CAN afford one. What else will they decide we have a 'right to afford'? 'Excuse me, I have no money but have the right to an affordable home'. 'Yes sir, wait right there while I contact our list of free house providers'. What the hell is housing benefit if it's not 'the right' to an affordable home for the poorest? How much further do we have to go than subsidising someone's rent? Subsidising someone's higher rent in a more expensive house? Obviously this is a viable economic proposition. Absolutely ludicrous. The right to a secure rented home? What the hell is a tenancy agreement then? The right to a decent rented home? They have that now. Minimum standards and local authority powers are already at more than appropriate levels. The problem is the local authorities do not enforce the current legislation already in place. So Labour have the answer. MORE legislation to not be enforced.

From: msec S 29 November 2019 15:49 PM

Absolutely disgraceful. What have the landlord's tax affairs got to do with the tenant? And talk about driving a wedge between tenant and landlord. What kind of mindset thinks up a strategy like this? A bully who thinks they can do what they want, that's who. Parasites.

From: msec S 20 November 2019 23:11 PM

As a tradesman of 20 years who has to deal with electrical and gas registration as part of my business, all I can say is, this is par for the course. Licensing and registration schemes do absolutely nothing to deter the criminal and non compliant aspects of the industries they are supposed to regulate. All they do is tie the good guys up in red tape and raid their pockets. Typical inefficient and pointless rubbish that we now come to expect from anything handled by the Government or local councils. What they can do to us and get away with would be laughable if it wasn't so frustrating.

From: msec S 19 November 2019 11:07 AM

The man claims that there are 14 million people living in poverty for Christ's sake. He is impossible to take seriously. No right minded, objective person could possibly vote for him.

From: msec S 05 November 2019 19:06 PM

They've asked over 4000 'adults'? How about asking people who are specifically qualified to give an opinon? Surely there needs to be some sort of consideration of the economic and societal impact before reaching these conclusions based on the general public's 'opinion'?

From: msec S 10 October 2019 09:18 AM

Who's going to pay their Forces wage? Where is the childcare coming from while they're off serving? Clearly you've thoroughly thought this one through.

From: msec S 10 October 2019 09:16 AM

If more than one contractor AND the Environmental Health have come back and said there is no cause for concern, and she's STILL gone in the paper spouting about it, then the agency should be taking legal action to protect their reputation. I see far, far too many good service providers bending over and taking crap like this just because certain types of people think we're easy pickings.

From: msec S 09 October 2019 11:33 AM

Stick to developing tech Mr Cobbold, because you clearly know nothing about politics or economics.

From: msec S 02 October 2019 17:15 PM

Why are these idiots so obsessed with inequality? Inequality in natural and inevitable. The problem is poverty and lack at the lower end of society, THAT is the issue that needs to be addressed. Inequality is irrelevant, and dealing with it in this way is tantamount to dealing with a flat tyre by letting the air out of the other 3 so they're equal.

From: msec S 11 September 2019 10:24 AM

Logical doesn't come into it. Does it win votes? Is it beneficial for the people in power, or who want to be in power NOW? These are the only questions to ask.

From: msec S 11 September 2019 10:18 AM

Exactly right. Yes, of course there are landlords that don't maintain their properties as they should, but to respond with THIS proposal as the supposed answer is like cracking open a walnut with a sledgehammer. Problem - landlord shirking his duties regarding maintenance. Labour solution - force landlord to sell the property to the tenant at a discount. Utterly ridiculous.

From: msec S 03 September 2019 08:38 AM

Yes, let's stop the free market from working and try and force it to do what we want under some idealistic idea that it will mean some 60s style, local fmaily communtiy springs up. And where exactly re the students going to go? Or the vulnerable, low income people who need HMO's (because we sure as hell know the council can't handle them)? Hull council have already imposed Article 4 restrictions in a similar way, and it has had the effect of driving down the local economy and resulted in students protesting AGAINST restrictions. The union said in it's own words that the effect has been that students now have to live in less desireable areas, further out from the university. Lunacy. There's also the fact that squeezing the customer base these developers can sell to, results in higher house prices, which again, has a knock on effect to the economy. But I wouldn't expect a politician to understand that.

From: msec S 05 August 2019 11:24 AM

They will do what they always do and blame the landlords. They will claim (ridiculously) that landlords should just take on the added cost and not put rents up, as if that's a viable option and the world actually works that way.

From: msec S 02 August 2019 01:25 AM

Dear God, stop the presses!

From: msec S 24 July 2019 08:38 AM

@Algarve Investor I'd be interested to know why you think cuts in police numbers leads to higher crime? I keep hearing it and there is no evidence to support it whatsoever, so I'd honestly be interested to hear your viewpoint.

From: msec S 22 July 2019 19:56 PM

You can't seriously think that these local authorities didn't have one, single agent to prosecute??

From: msec S 19 July 2019 11:12 AM

@Paul Barrett. You are talking solely from your own perspective. There are many LL's out there who will happily hand their properties over to agents as they want passive income. They aren't interested in squeezing every last drop of profit as their time is more valuable. Average commissions are around 10%, this could easily double, and LL's and LA's would still be profitable. Yes, many LL's would leave, but nowhere near as many as you think. Rents WILL continue to go up, despite what the papers say, there is plenty of money out there. Tenants aren't destitute.

From: msec S 18 July 2019 08:51 AM

Bog standard reaction Simon, people hate change and will come up with a million reasons why something can't be done differently, including screaming 'scam' at every turn. Ignore them.

From: msec S 16 July 2019 14:51 PM

You've read the entirety of this article, and THAT is your comment? I would say the obvious answer is that the money is going where council tax goes, seeing as it's compensation for lost council tax, and the costs go to.. well, the costs. I thought that was obvious. I take it you've tried to get this information and come up against a brick wall? Or are you just sounding off for the sake of it? The most amazing thing I find about this story is how this guy avoided jail. Ignoring planning enforcement in such a way is a disgrace. It's idiots like this that cause the streets to become an eyesore at best, and build structures that kill people at worst.

From: msec S 13 June 2019 12:07 PM

If she wants to make more profit out of the property, that is her prerogative to do so. She can also put up the rent without serving notice to quit. You have the choice of moving or paying the higher rent, that is your choice. If the landlady has misjudged the issue , then she won't get a tenant at the increased rent and will lose money.. that's the risk she takes. If she DOES get a tenant, then that is clearly the market rent of the property. I see your point, really I do as I was a long term tenant myself, but unfortunately it's her property and her investment. She should be allowed to legally maximise profit however she see's fit. If she hasn't provided you with the proper notice however, you need to make a fuss. That is YOUR prerogative. Her responsibility is to know the correct procedure and comply with it, if she hasn't, then you need to exercise your legal rights.

From: msec S 06 June 2019 09:34 AM

@Fred Jones wrong, wrong and wrong. There are no such things as trips. There are protective devices that come in all manner of guises and BS numbers and they do different things. A residual current earth fault is not the same as an overload fault. When these devices operate they are a symptom not a cure, they are not an 'override' and certainly not the ultimate anything. The average circuit in a house has at least 3 protective devices between the incoming power and the item in use. Then there are more external to the property. These have to be installed in 'discrimination' to work properly. You think your extremely basic knowlesdge gives you some kind of authority when in relality you are extremely ignorant on the subject and don't know what you're talking about.

From: msec S 09 May 2019 14:31 PM

airbnb is another thing entirely unrelated to the private rental sector and again doesn't negate your duty of care as a landlord. Why do people seem so intent on finding loopholes and comparing apples with oranges? A temporary let used for tourism, work or a short stay is quite obviously a very different scenario than renting a property to someone as their home. If airbnb is so good, why aren't all landlords getting rid of their tenants and putting their properties on airbnb? To make a comparison is ridiculous. At last count there are over 5 million rental properties in England and less than 100,000 airbnb's and they are completely different markets for completely different people in completely different scenarios.

From: msec S 08 May 2019 15:20 PM

There are so, so few B2L operators who run their properties the way you describe. You might (and I commend you for it), but I have experience of dealing with literally hundreds of landlords, and the vast majority go to absurd lengths to spend as little as possible whatever the consequences. In contrast, the things you've posted about councils just aren't true (at least not the ones I've ever dealt with). They are far, far from perfect, but to say the only way you can deal with anything is to 'walk into a council building and get a ticket' is just utter nonsense. And as I've mentioned to others in this thread, private owned properties have absolutely ZERO to do with rental properties. People can live as unsafely as they want in their own home, it doesn't negate your duty of care to your tenants.

From: msec S 08 May 2019 14:21 PM

Why? owner occupied properties have nothing to do with BTL in the context of this subject. Council properties can be compared, however, as an electrician of 21 years, a tenant of at least 15 rental properties and 3 council properties, I can say without any hesitation whatsoever, that councils maintain their properties far, far better than the PRS. As a current property owner, landlord and staunch freemarket supporter, I support landlords 99% of the time, but this article, although having an agenda, touches on a genuine issue. Most PRS properties don't come up the the minimum standards I would accept, plumbing and electrics being a particular common theme.

From: msec S 08 May 2019 14:12 PM

What a ridiculous argument. That's like saying, if you run a restaurant you can serve old and out of date food, 'because people do it in their own homes'. The difference is that people living in their own houses can choose to live as dangerously as they like in their own properties. Tenants aren't in their own properties, they're in yours. If someone walked into your house and had an accident as a result of a safety issue, you would just as liable as a landlord would to a tenant. Any reasonable person can see the difference.

From: msec S 08 May 2019 13:58 PM

It's great when they get impartial opinons isn't it?! I remember thinking that when they had about 3 of the biggest developers into number 10 to consult on the housing crisis!

From: msec S 08 November 2018 10:01 AM

Ha ha... Government and big industry... 'those in the know!'... haha, he made a joke!

From: msec S 08 November 2018 09:59 AM

Well said Sue Kelly. The people moaning here due to an 'additional cost' ALWAYS had the responsibility, as you stated. The only difference is that now it's mandatory. These costs should have been factored in to their business models all along.

From: msec S 01 August 2018 20:30 PM

Do I need to point out the obvious and state that owner occupiers are living in their own properties and therefore taking the brunt of whatever risks they choose to take? That is of course their choice and prerogative if they want to live in a death trap. How is it the same scenario when you're profiting from a tenanted property, where the tenant may be at risk, through no fault of their own, and you are at none. Only an idiot would fail to see the difference. This type of electrical testing (EICR's) has always been the standard to show due dilligence towards the electrics in the property. If you haven't been carrying out the testing as recommended by the IEE then you haven't been carrying out your duty of care. The only difference now is that it's becoming mandatory.

From: msec S 01 August 2018 20:26 PM

This is nothing to do with PAT testing

From: msec S 01 August 2018 20:20 PM

An EICR (Electrical Installation Condition Report) has ALWAYS been the only way to show due diligence towards electrical safety, the only difference is that they're now becoming mandatory. So either you weren't carrying out your due dilligence all along, or there aren't any additional costs as you should always have factored them into your business model. You can't have your cake and eat it.

From: msec S 01 August 2018 18:04 PM

You're getting mixed up between PAT and fixed wire EICR testing. They are two very different things with different obligations to different people. Also, an EICR has ALWAYS been the only way to show due diligence towards electrical safety, the only difference is that they're now becoming mandatory. As a 'professional' landlord you should have been carrying them out all along.

From: msec S 01 August 2018 18:02 PM

This has ALWAYS been the only way to show due dilligence towards electrical safety. The fact that so many landlords are moaning now shows they were barely aware of their duties before

From: msec S 01 August 2018 17:53 PM

It 'keeps him awake at night'?? Haha, laughable. Nothing like a bit of political hyperbole is there?? Politicians think legislation is the answer to everything. As Leon Coy has pointed out, it's all pointless if the councils don't do their jobs and enforce it. This property was unlicensed and warnings ignored, further legislation will also be ignored by rogue landlords. Do you think scumbags like this care about 'compliance'? Bring in as much legislation as you want, it only gets complied with if it's enforced by fines, confiscation of property, or prison.

From: msec S 08 June 2018 10:31 AM

Because letting agencies are businesses and businesses have overheads. By banning fees they are being told to work on behalf of the prospective tenant for free. What the landlord pays for his services from the agent is irrelevant, you and the landlord have completely separate relationships with the agent so not sure why you've referenced it. Banning fees will only result in one outcome; poorer industry standards and higher rents. If you're in support of it then don't say you weren't warned.

From: msec S 11 January 2018 09:55 AM

Breaking News