x

S S

DIrector

2814 Profile Views

About Me

Love Property

my expertise in the industry

20 years

S's Recent Activity

I expect that the energy bill for the LL has gone up by more than £400! But LL may be wont/cant/don't want to increase the rents to the full extent of the energy increase

From: S S 13 June 2022 10:19 AM

Any new regulatory body must encompass everyone working in the sector to ensure consistent standards. So any private LL self managing must have the same professional standards and qualifications as a letting agent. When financial services were regularised - anyone working in the industry had to have qualifications - it needs to be the same for the housing industry - otherwise rogue LL will continue to operate under the radar.

From: S S 26 May 2022 09:03 AM

Perhaps all these landlords are selling up because with all the anti-LL noise. At the end of the day, if a LL wants to sell, they are entitled to do so. If Shelter want Landlords to remain within the PRS, then they have to stop demonising them and work with them. A good Landlord will not undertake eviction notice without reason - so whilst Section 21 is "no fault", it is usually because either the LL wants to sell (and the tenant has ignored the 2 month notice) or the tenant has broken the terms of the contract and Section 8 is expensive. LL do not want empty properties and can not afford to have full properties with tenants paying no rent!

From: S S 23 May 2022 09:25 AM

Makes me mad - there is no mention in that "advert" of how a tenant can protect themselves by choosing a professionally qualified letting agent. A good independent letting agent ensure staff are professionally trained and spend a lot of money every year complying with all the numerous legal regulations - A good professional agent would not work with LL who disregard the law. Shame on Shelter for not advising tenants how to protect themselves - if they were on the tenants side - they would be pushing that message - Use professionally qualified agent who are registered with a redress scheme.

From: S S 09 May 2022 09:44 AM

We have had a Non- designated client account for 50 years with one high street bank. We applied for a new non-designated account under a new mandate. We are RICS, (Fellow) DPB, ARLA (Fellow) , NAEA have TDS, CMP and have been registered with AML since forever ( registered with TSO before HMRC took over AML). We have comprehensive AML policy, GDPR policy and provide regular training to all staff. We use a 3rd party to provide AML so not subjective to us. We are a one office independent agent. We do not by law require AMP for Lettings as no rental that are over 10,000euros per month - we were turned down because our AML policy is not robust enough! BUT the Bank can't tell you exactly why it was not robust enough as they don't want to "influence" your policy!! Our relationship manager was embarrassed and said that there was nothing he could do! Absolutely crazy - been a client for 50 years - counted for nothing, Not sure what I am supposed to do to make my policy more robust! Just keeping my head down now as was concerned that following that they would withdraw our existing account! Have absolutely no trust for any bank now! They are simply an organisation that we have to deal with but have absolutely no respect for any of them.

From: S S 06 May 2022 12:06 PM

I'm feel sad that "low-cost" service is considered some how better than a fair price for a good service. If they had 8,000 units under management, that is up to 8,000 Landlord choosing cheap over good. Landlord need to be educated it seems - There is a reason for the saying "pay peanuts, get monkeys" - Surely if you value your property and want to have an agent look after it, you'd want Service first and best value price - not a service that sells on being "low-cost" first!. If the agent doesn't value their time and charge accordingly, then how can you be sure that they value your property. I expect many LL have got burnt over the PB deposit fiasco - perfect example of how "saving money and doing it cheap" has actually cost the LL. They would have been better paying a decent agent. Perhaps now they do? These disruptors don't disrupt the market - they are aiming to destroy it. As for "free models" - just what happens when all referral fees get banned? How do free models work then? I don't think that I'd trust an agent who will manage for free (nothing is ever really free!) - but insist on me & tenants taking up all their referrals so that they get an income. Referrals wont be based on achieving the best for the client - referrals will be based on how much the agent earns out of it! I'd rather pay for a professional to manage the property professionally because then I know that I am getting the best service.

From: S S 23 February 2022 18:56 PM

Agree with Kristjan - I always feel that the rogue landlords who flout the rules do not get penalised hard enough. The consequence of non-compliance is often so small - why would a rogue operator bother to follow the legislation. Penalties must be severe enough to ensure that rogue LL's don't financially benefit from breaking the law. Councils need to be able to investigate and enforce penalties quickly - the current often 2 or 3 year wait to get to court doesn't give justice to the decent LL and LA who invest in compliance with all the rules. And furthermore Rogue operators just give fodder to the Anti-LL lobby despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of tenants across the country are happy with their property and LL. So Yes please - I'd like to see the back of them. Many tenants may want to buy but it is NOT the fault of the decent LL that hey can't (despite what Shelter & Acrorn say) but no one should be subject to some of the shockingly bad behaviour of rogue LL

From: S S 17 February 2022 14:07 PM

Given the reduced sitting and the likelihood this will continue, hotels such as Travel lodge which is clean, secure and well located would probably cost the taxpayer a lot less (and if he choses to stay in a higher standard then he should fund that personally. The expenses claimed should be for a basic single room. The accommodation is not intended to be a "second" home. - If he rents accommodation in London, if that accommodation is used for any other reason than for attending Parliament or if anyone other than him stays in it, then surely there should be a claw-back for the taxpayer.

From: S S 12 April 2021 13:36 PM

I have 3 children, 2 are currently students and one has just started working as a doctor!!! The quality of some student accommodation is utterly appalling, yet those LL also want top dollar and look to rip off students when leaving the property - we had photographic evidence that their student house was left in a cleaner and tidier state than at the start but the agents (corporate company - part of CW) managed to find £1600 worth of "cleaning" - including the hob/oven/extractor - which i personally cleaned and it was left better than at the start. Yes - I threatened TDS and surprisingly all the charges and damages suddenly were resolved! Another agent even tried charged for cleaning 4 carpets in the house....there were only 2 and they were cheap old carpets that could not even be cleaned professionally. Due to a leak, when they moved into the property, there was a huge hole in the hallway wall - no bothered telling them, and that took another 4 months to be resolved - (without any discount in rent, and they had to pay for the electricity to try and dry the wall out) - That would not have happened if a "family" had been renting the house - and the students were paying around £400/500 more per month than the house would have achieved as a family rental (having said that the quality of the fittings were so poor, a family probably would not have even considered the property) . I know a number of LL who rent to students but provide good clean high quality accommodation - surprisingly they have no problems. Why people have to act as if all students are bad, i don't understand. If you provide cheap, nasty and poor accommodation then of course no one will respect it, but provide good quality accommodation and the majority of students will respect it. There will always be a minority that don't but that is the case in all walks of life. LL of student properties could not rent the same properties out to a family and achieve the same level of rent, so yes there will be more turnover of furnishings, maybe higher level of maintenance but as a LL you will be getting a higher return. But please stop the constant berating of students - they have to accumulate a tremendous amount of debt to go to university these days - around £18,000 per year, they have to sign up for year long tenancies 9 months in advance including until last year often paying 2 months deposit - (who else has to do that?) and yet they often only live in the properties for less than 9 months - perhaps as little as 7 months. If LL want higher returns than a traditional family let, students are the cash cow - but expect higher costs and remember that provide poor accommodation why should the tenants respect you - you obviously don't respect them.

From: S S 19 February 2021 09:43 AM

Many pet owners are responsible. My daughter (a medical student) had a clause in her agreement that a pet would not be unreasonably refused. She asked for permission for a hamster....it was refused! Beacuse the LL didn't allow it. For her own mental health, having and caring for a hamster helped her. Fortunately she moved in with a friend who owned the house and had no issues. The hamster did not cause any damage. As long as people understand and perhaps sign an undertaking that they are responsible for any damage (above wear and tear) then I would expect the majority of cases would have no issues. If LL want decent tenants who stay for long periods, then allowing pets to be the default setting may be a positive step.

From: S S 29 January 2021 12:09 PM

No problem in providing good quality housing that can be as eco-sustainable as possible - BUT many properties in the UK are not able to be upgraded easily - so the push for C rating must be done with sensible head. If a properties has all the elements that can be done at a reasonable cost relative to the value of the property - that should be incorporated into the requirements. It is not reasonable for a house that is worth £150K to be forced to spend £20K on eco-solutions that would save £100 a year in energy costs.

From: S S 30 December 2020 11:15 AM

Social housing needs to be built and kept. There will always be a demand for it and as the last 20 years has shown selling it at discounted rates doesn't benefit the taxpayer in the long run. There is nothing wrong with social housing and building and keeping it rather than selling it off cheap is the sustainable future strategy for housing in the UK. It is better for all including the PRS if everyone has pride in their housing whether they be homeowners or tenants. For the PRS, long term tenants who love their their homes are the best tenants.

From: S S 30 December 2020 11:11 AM

One of the biggest problems is that Good Landlords don't make Headlines! 15% OF ALL TENANTS ARE UNHAPPY WITH THEIR LANDLORD. That means 85% are happy - very small media reaction. No follow-up stories indicating that there are plenty of good Landlords, that good tenants usually get 100% of their deposits back, that good tenants are rarely evicted (perhaps a few due to LL wanting to sell or move family in), and that someone who has been "unfairly evicted 3 times + " may be making bad decisions - like choosing a "cheap" property or not renting through a qualified professional LA. Bad LL are the easy headline and as a group they are "nameless", it perhaps feels to that no one is actually being hurt by the constant denegration of the LL.

From: S S 26 February 2020 11:11 AM

Over 8,000 homes contain significant hazards! but only 194 civil penalties, 50 orders and 94 prosecutions = = 338. Figures don't add up here. If over 8,000 homes should be penalised for being hazardous, then the licence scheme is not working with only 338 penalties/orders/convictions. And with only £323,000 in revenue, I expect it didn't even pay for itself. But that's ok as all the law abiding, good LL are paying for it. I don't understand why Councils need licencing schemes other than for a money making scheme. They certainly dont stop rogue LL. If revenue was £323,000 the average penality was £1,665. That's hardly going to deter a rogue LL! Just wish there could be some joined thinking across the industry but unlikely with 19 Housing ministers in 20 years..

From: S S 17 February 2020 09:46 AM

Is it really that complex? No fees for anyone after 1st June. A new tenancy is subject to deposit limits. An old/ periodic tenancy isn't. Agents do not have to refund if there is a difference between 5 weeks and deposit held. Seems really complex to me!!

From: S S 12 February 2020 13:29 PM

Andy Bennett, I agree with you. The only way to stop rogue/bad landlords and letting agents is to penalise harshly. Too often the fines are a couple of thousand which given the rent the LL is receiving are hardly going to stop the LL. Tough fines might actually stop rogue LL and if given back to the Council/regulation authorities may help police to flush out other rogue LL. However, that's probably just dreamland... And Portal's should also have some level of responsibility for the properties that they advertise.

From: S S 12 February 2020 13:21 PM

In our experience, children are more likely to cause damage to property than pets!

From: S S 06 February 2020 10:05 AM

The consequences of one action always has the potential to lead to "unintended" results. Whilst regulation is important and all GOOD LA and LL desire to provide good housing with long term tenants - what LL wants constant void periods and ever changing tenants?, the stampede to drive out "bad" LL and LA is simply resulting in the good ones leaving. Are bad LL selling up? probably not they just continue to operate under the radar with ineffectual policing of existing legalisation. Result LOWER number of good decent properties available and LL selling up to move into commercial rental if they want to remain in the industry or cashing in if not. Generation Rent/Rant and Shelter need to work with Landlords for solutions because the Government certainly abdicated that responsibility.

From: S S 06 February 2020 10:03 AM

Section 21 "leading cause of homelessness" - I'm not sure that's completely true. Section 21 is rarely used by decent LL and good letting agents. It is only used in necessity. However, Section 21 may be used by the Rogue LL - check the reasons and pursue the Rogues - they wont use section 8 and so more rogue LL and bad letting agents will just go under the radar.

From: S S 28 January 2020 10:17 AM

A windfall is a large amount of money won or given money unexpectedly. The tenants are getting back THEIR money!! but less of it as they will have to pay (no refund) for the product. That's not a windfall - Media headlines..... No deposit actually costs the tenants money...A deposit is given back in full as long as no damage is done. The difficulty with insurance backed schemes is the decision over what is deemed to be recoverable. Damage done by a tenant for example - painting a room in a very personalised colour - may need to be brought back to colour at the start of the tenancy - straightforward from tenant/LL/agent - clear on the agreement. An insurance company may chose to say that redecoration is not recoverable under their scheme. The devil is in the detail and with no accountability - does the "claim" record go with the tenant? it could lead in some cases to LL problems. There may be a place for insurance backed deposits but it's not necessarily a product that will suit everyone.

From: S S 15 January 2019 08:27 AM

You never see stories "Letting Agent returns full deposit as Tenant leaves Property in good condition". Doesn't make a good headline - but wish they would for all the Fantastic Agents out there who pay and abide by compliance regulation.

From: S S 13 December 2018 21:32 PM

Being MP for Brighton, I'm not surprised that he feels that way - however WRONG he is. Unfortunately having experience of the Brighton Market - where my student daughter was charged by the letting agency for the "cleaning of 4 carpets" (the property only had 2!) at the end of the tenancy, along with the house being labeled as dusty - the inventory wasn't done until 6 weeks after they moved out. We fought it and threatened TPO - but the business model for student lets is in my opinion -"rip the students off as the parents will pay". Reputable letting agencies get tarnished with the same brush as the rogues and unfortunately despite regulation - the guys trying to do it right and paying for membership are harassed by regulators and the guys ripping people off never seem to get caught.

From: S S 11 June 2018 11:07 AM

Breaking News