x

S S

DIrector

1234 Profile Views

About Me

Love Property

my expertise in the industry

20 years

S's Recent Activity

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