x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button

Michael's  Personal Profile View my company profile

icon
Michael English
6677  Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Michael's Recent Activity

Michael English
On line? We never put forward an application from a person who we have not met and who has not viewed the property.

From: Michael English 23 October 2019 14:35 PM

Michael English
AirBnB the company may well pay taxes in a diligent manner, but you can bet your cotton socks that many owners who use AirBnB to market their properties do not.

From: Michael English 23 October 2019 14:27 PM

Michael English
What a load of rubbish this article is.

From: Michael English 22 October 2019 12:58 PM

Michael English
The above assumes that the landlord pays SDLT every year!

From: Michael English 16 September 2019 10:15 AM

Michael English
It should not be too hard to find out who his new employer is, I am sure that his attitude would be of great interest to them and to his future career.

From: Michael English 16 September 2019 10:07 AM

Michael English
I am a LA, fully licensed with ARLA. I can agree that its fine for the LL to cut out the LA .... but that they should at least comply with lettings legislation. Some may well do so, but as the legislation changes every few months it is VERY hard to remain compliant unless you are a professional. There are several local private landlords who are knowingly breaking all sorts of lettings legislation and doubtless many more who do so without knowing. In my opinion nobody should be allowed to operate in the PRS unless they are licensed or use a licensed LA.

From: Michael English 17 June 2019 10:57 AM

Michael English
Landlords, agents, banks and insurers don't choose to say 'no DSS' for a laugh, its done for very obvious and practical reasons. Nevertheless there will be some tenants who would be considered 'DSS' who do not deserve to be tarred with the same brush so what would be ideal would be a far better method of referencing potential tenants but I have no idea what method that would or could be in a society which is keen to appear to preserve people's privacy and 'rights'. On the other hand, at least we don't live in Hong Kong or Mali ....

From: Michael English 12 June 2019 10:13 AM

Michael English
the intent to abolish S21 is clearly political rather than logical. Much like many other government decisions over the centuries

From: Michael English 21 May 2019 09:18 AM

Michael English
In my small market town in Somerset there are loads of privately run HMO's that are well and truly non-compliant, certainly unlicensed. Private landlords who put up ads in the local supermarkets or newsagents windows. Many of them are very well aware that they are behaving wrongly but choose not to learn about the rules which they are deliberately flouting, just winging it. They will not be brought to book until either there is a major problem such as a fire or Trading Standards and local Councils suddenly get lots more taxpayer funding so they can go and look for such people.

From: Michael English 21 May 2019 09:16 AM

Michael English
I live in what has been a strong Tory area (South Somerset) but between the Brexit fiasco and great Tory reluctance to offer a second referendum (now that the lies are clearer) and the very anti landlord policies ... which also hurt the tenants ... no way can I vote Tory again either. Lib Dem are well regarded here and will offer a second referendum, no idea about their housing policies though ...

From: Michael English 20 May 2019 11:22 AM

Michael English
BMW i3 RRP: From £34,445 they must be doing very well indeed to buy a fleet of them, but at least the taxpayer can support them through free charging points!

From: Michael English 15 May 2019 11:45 AM

Michael English
Very laudable indeed, sounds the sort of scheme dreamed up in a Student Union bar after one too many spliffs. The model of championing the dodgy tenant over the grasping landlord will work very well indeed as long as the tenant becomes the paying client ... but oops how might that work with a tenant fee ban? And how will they ever get repeat business from a landlord? Oh dear this wonderful model seems a bit flawed after all. On the Sales side though, all credit to them to have a USP of giving away profit to the homeless, but I too am cynical re what proportion of the income will be deemed profit . We too support various charities and we too, like most, feel sorry for some of the homeless people so that part is less of a USP

From: Michael English 15 May 2019 11:40 AM

Michael English
The mail system : Host or domain name not found. Name service error for name=press@lettingagentoday.co.uk type=AAAA: Host not found

From: Michael English 01 May 2019 15:33 PM

Michael English
The government reaction to the new build leasehold house scandal is understandable however it has had an unintentional and significant knock-on effect to existing leasehold flats. Mortgage companies are apparently raising objections re ground rent and so buyers solicitors are asking for Deeds of Variation to be applied to existing, often ancient leases. The Deed is to require the freeholder to give 28 days notice to the mortgage provider should the owner of the leasehold flat be defaulting on the ground rent. This is because such default is usually a breach of a covenant in the lease which could permit the freeholder to foreclose. By giving the mortgage provider notice they will pay the outstanding debt and add it back to the mortgage, protecting their investment. It is utterly impractical to try to apply such Deeds of Variation to millions of leases across the country, very expensive and time consuming too. Right now there is no Indemnity Insurance to cover this issue. It has caused several leasehold sales we are handling to abort and others to stall, even where the buyer is cash (due to them being advised by their solicitor to hold off until a solution is found). This unexpected problem needs a resolution quickly please.

From: Michael English 01 May 2019 12:21 PM

Michael English
Indeed, S21 was often chosen for ease of use. It can be difficult to prove anti-social or un-neighbourly behaviour for example. We will have to make far more effort to be able to prove causes for eviction under S8. Something that Shelter seems to lose sight of is that no landlord or agent wants to evict a tenant who could realistically be kept on, due to the cost of bridging the gap between old tenant and new ... re-marketing, repairs, new contracts, court costs, void period etc. The implication that we enjoy messing with people's lives is slanderous in my view. I have never experienced 'revenge eviction' either but perhaps because where I work is rural, there are voids between tenants, it would be illogical to behave that way .... perhaps in cities the voids are very short and it might happen but I have never seen it.

From: Michael English 16 April 2019 09:28 AM

Michael English
We have once had a prospective tenant call in to pick up keys from our office. Someone had claimed to be a lettings broker and pretended to them that if these people (who were not in any position to pass referencing) sent him a month's rent in advance then we'd love to have them as tenants, they should just call in to us for the keys !!!!! Its a shame that sharks prey on weak targets like them. We suggested they report their experience to the police.

From: Michael English 04 April 2019 15:29 PM

Michael English
I agree, an HMO is when 3 or more unrelated people live in one home so LL & 2 others. From comments in other threads I see that Paul has switched from being a conventional LL to the 'Rising Damp' model. I look forward to seeing him, in many years time, on the set of Death in Paradise whenever the current police commissioner decides to retire.

From: Michael English 03 April 2019 10:29 AM

Michael English
I agree, an HMO is when 3 or more unrelated people live in one home so LL & 2 others. From comments in other threads I see that Paul has switched from being a conventional LL to the 'Rising Damp' model. I look forward to seeing him, in many years time, on the set of Death in Paradise whenever the current police commissioner decides to retire.

From: Michael English 03 April 2019 10:27 AM

Michael English
From what I can see the worst landlords are those who shove an ad in the local newsagent's window, these are the guys to stamp out. In my newsagent a woman describing herself as a christian landlord (discriminatory implications) seeks a 'No DSS' tenant who will pay 2 months in advance with a 2 month deposit. Being a handwritten ad there is no indication of an EPC and I think I can guess as to whether or not it has gas/electrical safety certificates & whether or not the deposit will be correctly protected. Why aren't Trading Standards jumping on these ads which would soon get the word out amongst such landlords? Another local private landlord stopped me in the street to ask about using my services instead. I quickly determined that she runs a few HMO's but they are unlicensed and not compliant .... she decided to continue acting as an illegal private landlord complying with very little in the way of laws. I did think of reporting her but its a small community here.

From: Michael English 03 April 2019 10:13 AM

Michael English
From what I can see the worst landlords are those who shove an ad in the local newsagent's window, these are the guys to stamp out. In my newsagent a woman describing herself as a christian landlord (discriminatory implications) seeks a 'No DSS' tenant who will pay 2 months in advance with a 2 month deposit. Being a handwritten ad there is no indication of an EPC and I think I can guess as to whether or not it has gas/electrical safety certificates & whether or not the deposit will be correctly protected. Why aren't Trading Standards jumping on these ads which would soon get the word out amongst such landlords? Another local private landlord stopped me in the street to ask about using my services instead. I quickly determined that she runs a few HMO's but they are unlicensed and not compliant .... she decided to continue acting as an illegal private landlord complying with very little in the way of laws. I did think of reporting her but its a small community here.

From: Michael English 03 April 2019 10:11 AM

Michael English
As DSS does not exist any more why should we be prevented from saying 'No DSS' ? OK a bit disingenuous perhaps. Others have suggested: 'Must be in secure employment with affordability. Must be credit worthy. Must offer a payment with no risk of clawbacks. Must not present any breach to landlords mortgage or insurance terms. ' So perhaps we use a bit more ink and say that instead?

From: Michael English 15 March 2019 09:25 AM

Michael English
Gavin Barlow, when Housing Minister, stated firmly to me at an industry meeting in Taunton that yes he wanted to close down the PRS and replace it with council or big business run built to rent homes on housing estates! that was policy and seems to still be policy.

From: Michael English 13 March 2019 12:00 PM

Michael English
Very frustrating for the small landlord with 1-2 homes who saw this system as more reliable than investing in a pension

From: Michael English 12 March 2019 10:25 AM

Michael English
Having rented privately in Germany 35+ years ago there was good and bad in their system. Amongst the restrictions imposed on tenants, apart from always having to fit out your own kitchen and sometimes having to fit out the bathrooms common demands on tenants included the requirement to redecorate the property every few years (and have it inspected). Sometimes the tenant was responsible for repairs to major equipment such as the central heating system. The leases were strange, I needed a place for a year, the agent offered me the option of taking over an 8 year lease from the current tenant who had been there for 3 years and needed to go. Even with my poor German I could see that I was being asked to sign up for 5 years but I did explain I wanted 12 months. Agent said don't worry we will advertise after 10 months and someone else will take over the last 4 years ..... well it didn't work out like that! Their system, good as it is, is far from perfect and my experience of breaking an 8 year lease into smaller chunks like this makes a nonsense of long leases too.

From: Michael English 12 March 2019 10:19 AM

Michael English
This is so true. A previous housing minister, Gavin Barlow, told me that he was squeezing out the PRS in order to get rid of rogues, and he favoured large developments of purpose built rental homes in new estates where the landlord was ideally the Council but failing that, Big Business. For such developments it would be ideal for the Council, as landlord, to take in loads of DSS tenants. Perfect. But leave the PRS alone please

From: Michael English 04 March 2019 10:13 AM

Michael English
I do agree with you in principle (as a landlord and a lettings agent) but it can be seen as discrimination ie it is illegal already to refuse people on the basis of skin colour or religion. But this proposal is very naiive, apart from many lenders and insurers also not wanting DSS at all (or possibly for an increase in premium or interest rate) is the issue of rent money. If it is paid direct to landlord or agent but the tenant obtained that benefit by fraud (eg unemployment but they have a cash job) then the money will be reclaimed up to 6 years later but not from the fraudster, from the landlord or agent !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That needs to change first.

From: Michael English 04 March 2019 10:06 AM

Michael English
Indeed, that would seem daft seeing the landlord is using an agent. Re the New Homes Ombudsman .... before getting one I'd love to see action taken to ensure that roads in new housing estates are either adopted by the District Council (poorer ones can no longer afford to do so) or are covered at an early stage by a management company with the residents protected against that company either taking their contributions and going bust or being sold on as yet another Management Co cash cow. Too many estates have these problems already, it was debated in Parliament in 2010 .... but the problem is getting worse.

From: Michael English 06 February 2019 12:29 PM

Michael English
Get on with it I say. From day one we have told our landlord clients that in order to show due diligence to their tenants with regard to electrical safety, they need to get a safety certificate. Over 95% do so. The few who do not we ask to sign a disclaimer to confirm that they chose to ignore our advice. I welcome this certificate being compulsory ASAP

From: Michael English 31 January 2019 14:54 PM

Michael English
Will have to do some googling to find out does this apply only to HMO's or to all homes? We have a flat where bed 2 is 4.788m2. Looks like it only applies to HMO's . Luxurious yawn as we don't have any of those on our books .....

From: Michael English 27 December 2018 10:05 AM

Michael English
I was sitting in a train once and overheard a couple of blue collar workers who reckoned that the answer to the problem of how to get paid more money is very simple indeed. All that 'they' have to do is to pay them more money. I was intrigued so asked where this money would come from? They looked at me quite astonished and said its easy 'they' just have to print it as 'they' own the Bank of England don't they? Its therefore quite right, 'they' should simply print a bit more money and give it to tenants for the deposit. In reality I suppose the taxpayer would suffer. We could give it a nice name though like 'Homebuyer scheme' and only apply it to new homes so directors of Persimmon etc could win the game of monopoly. Brilliant.

From: Michael English 14 December 2018 14:17 PM

Michael English
I'm no lawyer but as far as I understood anybody could sue anybody else for anything at all anyway. But, if your claim was spurious it would either get rejected before getting to court or quickly rejected in the court .... so I'm a bit puzzled at all this. Don't care anyway, all our properties are well habitable until a tenant does something silly like fill it with thousands of fleas from uncared for pets.

From: Michael English 14 December 2018 12:49 PM

Michael English
In my opinion if a tenant can't come up with a security deposit they are probably a high risk tenant so are best weeded out at this stage. Also I don't understand why someone would want to keep paying a non refundable insurance premium equal to 17% of a refundable deposit,it seems a real waste of money. Nor is my head around what the tenant is getting for their money if "the tenants remain liable for damage or unpaid rent" ... rather makes me wonder what the tenant can claim for with this insurance.

From: Michael English 12 September 2018 13:25 PM

Michael English
Supply & demand

From: Michael English 30 August 2018 10:15 AM

Michael English
What is written above sounds good for the landlord and good for the tenant .... the devil is in the contractual detail. However for it to be 'good' for these 2 parties I suspect that it will be bad for the poor old taxpayer who will foot the bill for the inevitable costs incurred.

From: Michael English 30 August 2018 10:13 AM

Michael English
I'm sure that Leaders won't have been too chuffed. Even though private landlords are being battered I still feel that running a lettings business beside sales is a good move even though it is far more labour intensive and probably more litigious.

From: Michael English 30 August 2018 10:08 AM

Michael English
Our company woke up to this issue a few years ago, the rule is that if a fraud was committed then whoever received the benefit money must repay it, up to 6 years later. As a result we tell landlords that we and they must NEVER accept rent direct from the benefits office, it must be filtered via the tenant. We also decline to accept a Council Bond as a deposit, we have heard too many stories of district councils not paying up. These 2 issues alone are enough to make us think twice about Benefits, but our 'discrimination' is more 'due diligence'. Some types of Benefits seem much less risky than others.

From: Michael English 23 August 2018 09:42 AM

Michael English
Rubbish. You are being asked to give your opinion to the government. If we all took your attitude the government could quite rightly say that we were invited to communicate but none of us bothered so we must agree with the proposal.

From: Michael English 23 August 2018 09:34 AM

Michael English
The motives definitely were political about a year ago ... not sure how many Housing Ministers ago that was. The aim is to delete PRS landlords and insert purpose built lettings homes into new build estates, owned nit by individual landlords but by district councils or large companies. Stated logic was to get rid of rogue landlords .... not very joined up thinking in my opinion. This was stated to me by Gavin Barwell when in the HM role

From: Michael English 09 August 2018 12:03 PM

Michael English
We have been advising our landlords for years that the only way to show due diligence is to have an electrical safety check done, so no change for our landlords ..... but I also reckon there should be safety checks for oil central heating as tanks in particular can be dodgy leading to the potential for big fines if they leak

From: Michael English 01 August 2018 09:25 AM

Michael English
In which case they need to be struck off immediately and the Council given a rocket. I only wish we had rock solid clarity re Listed buildings, even legal experts argue about it so its very hard to advise clients.

From: Michael English 11 July 2018 12:15 PM

Michael English
Encouraging a private landlord to sell to a tenant after a set period sounds a bonkers act of socialist idealism. Maggie Thatcher's right to buy scheme was a broad strokes social reform policy to encourage pride in ownership of council houses. That scheme had some merit though councils may well now disagree because the 'right' included being allowed to buy at so very far below market prices that the councils cannot replace the stock. Under this new suggestion, why would a tenant feel it attractive to buy from the landlord unless they can buy at below market prices? If they do buy at a low price then the landlord will be financially unable to 'repeat the exercise'. In reality they will need the tenant to buy at well above market prices in order for the landlord to meet the costs of purchase that are over and above the price, ie legal costs, stamp duty, survey, hours taken to find a replacement property etc. the idea is weak.

From: Michael English 06 March 2018 10:03 AM

Michael English
Agreed. Trouble is when all this was started off Gavin Barwell told me that his aim was to get rid of small private landlords as he felt that was the source of most rogue landlords. Probably true as far as that statement goes, but an excellent example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Hugely reducing 'rogue' landlord (and agent) behaviour should surely have been his aim instead? I only hope that the new housing minister decides on a change of tack .....

From: Michael English 01 March 2018 11:52 AM

Michael English
Blindingly obvious that this would happen. So a government wanting to win over the usual labour voter can then stride forward with a solution ..... purpose built estates/tower blocks of homes designed for tenants and run by the district council or large investors .... a little bit like council houses really! That was the previous housing minister's aim all along when the anti landlord policies were started off..

From: Michael English 01 March 2018 09:19 AM

Michael English
That's a rather poorly Q re do we need surveys or not .... I almost needed my first cup of coffee to get my head around the double negative aspect of it!

From: Michael English 28 February 2018 09:52 AM

Michael English
Insurance cover too is often higher for 'DSS' tenants. As we vet tenants and inspect (where the landlord has agreed to fully managed) we don't get a lot of problems .... but our worst cases have always been 'DSS' tenants and have cost us time & money that we could not reclaim from anyone. In one case, the landlord (who had never been an investor before) immediately sold up once the tenant was gone and vowed never again to be a landlord. In that particular case the tenant also turned out to have previously undiagnosed mental difficulties, and was advised by the district council to remain in residence until evicted by bailiffs. I pointed out to social services that this standard anti-landlord approach did nobody any good in a mental health case like this, so they back tracked. The system of risky tenants having their rent benefits paid direct to the landlord or agent is totally flawed because, should the tenant commit benefits fraud, all payments can be recouped from the beneficiary (in this case the landlord or agent) for up to 7 years after the fraud! The system of deposits being promised by a council bond is fatally flawed for endless reasons. No wonder most decent landlords with nice rental homes only take on DSS with great reluctance.

From: Michael English 27 February 2018 09:33 AM

Michael English
Airbnb & Uber taxis are both highly effective market disrupters, very profitable if you are involved in the right way, but at whose expense? The tried & tested way of doing things may well not always be the best way, but very often is. Both these disrupters will be seen in hindsight as very bad news for society in general even if great for the (ab)users of these services.

From: Michael English 22 February 2018 10:26 AM

Michael English
We had this a month ago sort of, ie someone skimmed a rental property of ours from one of our internet sites and posted it on Gumtree. Potential tenant paid a hefty up front deposit having not even viewed the property, the scammer told them it was theirs & they could collect the key from us. They were vulnerable and would not have secured an open market rental such as that one. Sad.

From: Michael English 15 February 2018 10:34 AM

Michael English
Presumably had he been a licensed lettings agent then, like us, he would have had to submit his accounts for proper audit and approval by NAEA which would have made this all much less likely to have happened. and he would have had compulsory client money protection insurance. The sooner all Lettings agents are licensed the better.

From: Michael English 13 February 2018 10:51 AM

Michael English
Not to mention wayward apostrophes ! I wonder if Drake Homes was a NARLA Licensed lettings agent? We are and our accounts have to be inspected annually by a chartered accountant with a signed off report sent to NARLA. Under such a regime false accounting would be rather more difficult.

From: Michael English 31 January 2018 11:10 AM

Michael English
I agree that this would seem a legitimate fee to pass on to someone who chooses to use a credit card so why not follow the response of many retailers ie 'sorry we don't accept credit cards due to the high fees we'd have to pay. Debit card or BACS is fine. We can take a deposit and rent up to £nnn for the first time but after that it needs to be standing order or BACS'.

From: Michael English 17 January 2018 09:28 AM

Michael English
There have been a few documentaries on how Uber has 'disrupted' the taxi industry (eg causing suicides in India) and airbnb has 'disrupted' the hotel/B&B/lettings industries (eg forcing out locals in Amsterdam. Venice and may other cities). There is an argument for disrupting the way business has been done for decades .... but there are counter arguments that the established way works in a more wholistic manner. What is the point in having such cheap taxis that the business becomes unsustainable (unless corners are cut)? Ditto airBNB? Only those clever enough to set up these new disruption schemes in the first place benefit from them long term.

From: Michael English 05 January 2018 10:15 AM

Michael English
Golly chaps, I wish my district council would set up the same scheme, it would quickly make local landlords realise how very good we are by comparison! What a bonkers business model, so doomed to fail that it is a disgraceful waste of local taxpayer money.

From: Michael English 05 January 2018 10:07 AM

Michael English
Sorry guys this is not about logic but about policy and vote winning. A policy is to minimise small PRS landlords and to replace this sector with something similar to the old council house system, with purpose built rental property being built in new housing developments, purchased ideally by the district council but otherwise by bigger businesses and large scale portfolio holders. That at least is what the previous housing minister Gavin Barwell told me. Voters in general would prefer to see (the perception of) fat cat landlords bashed rather than supported . We all know that a well run PRS provides an excellent, much needed service ..... but our knowledge seems to cut little ice. My impression though is Sajid Javid is a more appropriate housing minister than his predecessor, more in touch.

From: Michael English 05 January 2018 09:57 AM

Michael English
"one in five landlords are less likely to use a letting agent as a result of the fee ban." in which case it is time to license all landlords as well as all lettings agents.

From: Michael English 29 December 2017 12:07 PM

Michael English
Many HMO's are run privately, not licensed by the district councils and probably are a large proportion of the rogue landlords, avoiding taxes too let alone H&S rules, migrant rules et al. A shame more effort can't be made to identify and investigate HMO's and dodgy flats but there we are.

From: Michael English 14 December 2017 09:10 AM

Michael English
Obvious, but months ago Gavin Barlow stated in an industry roadshow I attended that he wished to largely get rid of the PRS (due to rogue landlords) & replace it with purpose built rental properties on housing estates, owned preferably by local councils but otherwise by larger investment companies.

From: Michael English 13 December 2017 09:00 AM

Michael English
Perhaps they couldn't prove that it was clad in non-combustible materials?

From: Michael English 04 December 2017 15:18 PM

Michael English
I totally agree with making this compulsory as any non independent inventory will usually be disallowed should a case go to Court. Sadly it flies in the face of the new draft tenant fee ban document as that document expressly forbids compulsory charges being levied against tenants for a 3rd party provider. Not too bad in our model where landlord pays for inventory & check out, tenant pays for check in. Unless this work is independent I'd say an agent is not following best practice.

From: Michael English 03 November 2017 15:48 PM

Michael English
Seems obvious

From: Michael English 03 November 2017 15:42 PM

Michael English
I don't blame solicitors for charging extra to handle leasehold transactions, its a minefield. Luckily in my small town 50% of the leaseholds own and manage a proportional share of the freehold, which is wonderful. Not certain its the same as commonhold but could be. The other 50% have 'defective' leases, in part as there is no management company! I am glad not to have to handle sales of leaseholds where there is a greedy management company and feel it is very regrettable that such companies are often sold on as investments, often enough to overseas owners who inevitably only see them and the leaseholders as cash cows. Time for a legal rethink?

From: Michael English 27 October 2017 10:28 AM

Michael English
The 4 page ARLA summary is very interesting. Curious stuff such as: "NB: Where funding is not available to fully cover the cost of making a recommended improvement then the landlord will not be required to make that improvement to the property. A landlord of an F or G rated property will be expected to install all energy efficiency improvements required to reach an EPC E, where funding is available to cover the cost. Funding (or a combination of funding) can come from a Green Deal Plan, Energy Company Obligation or similar scheme, funding from Central Government, local authority, or third party at no cost to the landlord. " I did reverse the sequence of these 2 paras.

From: Michael English 18 October 2017 12:00 PM

Michael English
The current system may be flawed but its flaws are also merits. I have rented 6 homes in the past but am now also a landlord and a lettings agent. A good tenant will move heaven & earth to present the home well on exit, I always got 100% of my deposit back, no exceptions. A good tenant will have either planned ahead (to bridge the time waiting for deposit return) or will be able to borrow the money. If a tenant is unable to borrow from family, friends or a bank then what does it say about their reputation and suitability as a tenant of a decent property?

From: Michael English 17 October 2017 12:53 PM

Michael English
Er, shouldn't all deposits be lodged with an approved scheme which has an approved dispute resolution component built in? In which case, at no charge, an independent body will examine the disputed amount of the deposit? This is why all lets should, as best practice, have an independent inventory check (AIIC), check-in & check-out. We rarely have any difficulty other than where the landlord doesn't accept this best practice. Our most recent 'bad' tenant has caused damage some 3 times the deposit to a portfolio landlord who declines to have a fully managed, inspected service from us and declines AIIC involvement, much to our dismay ... so she keeps being taken advantage of.

From: Michael English 17 October 2017 10:38 AM

Michael English
Perhaps ID forgery is a potential income stream for lettings agents once we are no longer allowed to charge for checking ID and other such soon to be free 'admin' activities?

From: Michael English 17 October 2017 10:26 AM

Michael English
The Lady in The Van (Alan Bennett 2015 film/play) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/maggie-smith-real-lady-van-nobody-will-ever-understand-ended/ provides a means to move people on ie parking restrictions. But it will then require a quantity of Alan Bennetts to let them park up on their drives.

From: Michael English 11 October 2017 11:46 AM

Michael English
The list must be made available to lettings agents else we may well fail to comply with a government banning order that we won't know about. A list of rogue tenants would also be rather nice though of course not likely to win as many votes from the general public ....

From: Michael English 11 October 2017 11:39 AM

Michael English
The devil need not be in the detail, it can be very simple indeed .... "all residential lettings to be handled via a regulated agent or landlord". That's it. Its easy enough for a lettings agent to become a fully licensed agent, regulated via ARLA. If a private landlord has a large enough portfolio to treat it as a business and train to become licensed (and get insured against non-compliance as we must) then fair enough but most would do the sensible thing ie remain a private landlord but admit its a professional business and so deal via a proper, compliant lettings agent. Nothing complex to this and the additional business that agents would get could mitigate the lost income from any ban on fees to tenants for costs properly incurred.

From: Michael English 03 October 2017 13:34 PM

Michael English
An excellent, refreshing and obvious approach. Licensing for both lettings agents and private landlords is the way to go if it can be policed like this. Result.

From: Michael English 14 September 2017 12:35 PM

Michael English
Is this part of an attempt to force conventional private landlords with conventional private homes to remove such property from the rental market, pushing tenants towards new builds and indeed local authority managed 'build to let' segments of new housing estates? Cynically I think so and it will of course make no difference to our nation's energy emissions as the untenanted houses will then be owner occupied instead. EPC being used as a political tool, nothing to do with the environment.

From: Michael English 10 August 2017 10:24 AM

Michael English
I couldn't agree with a politician more than in this case, he is spot on.

From: Michael English 19 July 2017 10:09 AM

Michael English
If all residential rentals went through licensed landlords or agents the problem would be greatly reduced almost immediately

From: Michael English 19 July 2017 10:08 AM

Michael English
About 6 months ago I was allowed to ask Gavin Barwell one question only, which was didn't he see that putting the squeeze on the PRS would reduce supply so increase rents? He said his aim was to get rid of rogue PRS landlords and make available plenty of high grade rental property on new estates, run by good landlords such as local councils. To my mind rogue landlords would be hugely reduced by requiring ALL PRS lettings to be via licensed and regulated landlords (most easily done by requiring all landlords to use a suitable agent but otherwise they could, in theory, train up and become licensed themselves. Is my solution too simple? The PRS needs to be regulated.

From: Michael English 14 July 2017 09:14 AM

Michael English
In our own experience the main cause of damp, mould & condensation is the tenants. Agreed a sub standard property, which we would not take on our books anyway, might indeed have a structural issue that causes damp but we have never handled one though I did once value a flat for sale with a bad problem caused by an overflowing gutter. Almost always the cause is tenants who feel that as they are paying for the heating they will not open windows in order to let out warm damp air which will naturally condense on colder windows or walls and create the problem. Tenants very often hang their washing or the radiators even where landlords have provided a washing line, taking the same attitude. Not very many home owners will abuse their homes in the same way and guess what, as a result not many privately owned homes suffer this type of damp yet are otherwise identical to the 'damp problem' tenanted home. Education helps and we do issue a 'damp control' document to all tenants and inspect every 3 months, but there are some tenants who know that they are causing the problem and why but do not care at all.

From: Michael English 11 July 2017 10:50 AM

Michael English
On the one hand rents are becoming unaffordable to tenants. On the other hand rental income is becoming less and less worth bothering with to landlords .... many of whom are individuals who have little if any alternative pension sorted out. The problem is clearly tax changes in the middle of the two sides. Ridiculously easy to sort out by returning to the recent status quo.

From: Michael English 04 July 2017 09:39 AM

Michael English
This article makes great sense to all who understand lettings .... other than key politicians it would appear.

From: Michael English 04 July 2017 09:34 AM

Michael English
Indeed. But being the only licensed estate agent within 10 miles (there are 2 large corporates, 1 small and 2 independents) is certainly winning me instructions now that I have started telling potential clients.

From: Michael English 28 March 2017 15:12 PM

Michael English
A good start might be the landlords of undeclared, unlicensed HMO's closely followed by private landlords who deal direct with tenants "£500 standing order and £100 cash in hand mate wink wink"

From: Michael English 14 March 2017 09:22 AM

Michael English
@JB indeed, and how often do you walk into a rented home to find mould around uPVC D/G windows that are left permanently closed ... especially bedrooms? No wonder there is mould. Or rooms which have damp clothes hung off every radiator even in homes that have a washing line? Its remarkable how many tenants behave like this in a rented home whereas usually an identical home occupied by a responsible owner there is no such problem

From: Michael English 08 March 2017 09:47 AM

Michael English
Good on them. Every trade body related to lettings needs to be applying considerable pressure here, I doubt that anyone in this industry would feel other than agreement with the above. The 3% stamp duty surcharge has already well & truly burst the BTL bubble ... if it really needed bursting as Gavin Barwell has said it did ... so its time to stop else rents will go up. I suspect that if this new tax does come in then agents will lose landlords unless they can prove themselves able to push rents up by around 10% per annum, to offset the landlords cost increase/income reduction.

From: Michael English 07 March 2017 09:09 AM

Michael English
GB did say that he felt it wrong that landlords can negotiate T&C with (and then select) their agent but that having done so, the tenant cannot. He feels that tenants are in a weak position here which is why he wants 'up front fees' to be negotiated with and paid by someone other than the tenant. I got the impression that he feels if a landlord, insurers and the agent want to carry out reference checks and professional independent inventories then that is their choice so they can pay for it. Clearly it is best practice to do these things but he seems to see no reason why the tenant should pay for optional best practice. In theory he has a point but there will be one hell of a mess if these best practice actions are dropped.

From: Michael English 03 March 2017 15:36 PM

Michael English
I attended Gavin Barwell's housing white paper roadshow yesterday. When I asked him about this he said that George Osborne and he both agree that the BTL housing bubble needed to be burst and that is why he had introduced the 3% SDLT surcharge and would bring in (and monitor) the other penalties over the next 4 years. By then my microphone had moved on ... he seems not to appreciate that the 3% extra SDLT has already burst the bubble (CML says BTL mortgages down 40% but I don't remember my last BTL sale) and that the new policies will force rents up. It is up to us to lobby our MPs to quiz him about this. To retain our landlords we expect to increase rents by 10% pa to offset the penalties.

From: Michael English 03 March 2017 12:10 PM

Michael English
Perhaps, but a bit like supporting 'On the market', if you don't try you definitely won't succeed.

From: Michael English 20 February 2017 13:27 PM

Michael English
Good, perhaps all the other daft changes will now also not apply to small BTL investors?

From: Michael English 10 February 2017 09:16 AM

Michael English
Our lettings manager uses it quite a bit. A tenant in a pet free new build had posted photos of her new puppy, and was on holiday in Spain at the time she was late paying the rent not having enough money. It can be very useful.

From: Michael English 30 January 2017 16:19 PM

Michael English
It would be very helpful if lettings agents in Scotland, where 'fees' are already banned, could advise us as to how they have dealt with the joint problem of tenants not paying for reference checks and not putting down a holding deposit (as an advance on the full deposit should they take the property). In my own case we treat the ref check fee as a sign of good faith so take no further holding deposit .... but I am keen to hear how the ref check gets paid for in Scotland.

From: Michael English 10 January 2017 09:23 AM

Michael English
So her punishment was only a conditional discharge and simply to pay the local council their costs? Pathetic. What is the point in going to the trouble of bringing a prosecution, with the theoretical risk it will be unsuccessful, with a neutral outcome like this? What incentive is there for landlords and tenants to seek out licensed lettings agents when cowboys/girls commit an offence like this and get off with no punishment at all?

From: Michael English 20 December 2016 09:33 AM

Michael English
In my view the tip is indeed a taxpayer funded service. Most of us, whether deemed private or trade for tip purposes, are taxpayers. But that isn't the entire point ... to avoid fly tipping (both an eyesore and an expensive tax payer funded activity to later clean up) surely the tax payer is reasonably happy for even tax dodgers to be allowed to take their rubbish there. The mess left behind by those who have 'travelled' to a temporary location is an example but far more common is the cash in hand handyman, who will flytip if not allowed to go to the council dump free.

From: Michael English 06 December 2016 11:54 AM

Michael English
At last, a sensible article even if it cannot give us answers. I wonder how lettings agents in Scotland were impacted by a similar sounding ban and what they have done to manage it. That would make interesting reading ......

From: Michael English 29 November 2016 11:23 AM

Michael English
Who pays for referencing human (rather than corporate) applicants, especially those who would not previously have wanted to spend their own money getting reference checked, as they knew that they would fail due to CCJ's etc? Take a 'deposit' instead of a 'fee' only refunded if they pass the ref check? Messy.

From: Michael English 29 November 2016 11:18 AM

Michael English
What is the background to this offence, was it deemed to be an HMO ?

From: Michael English 23 November 2016 09:53 AM

Michael English
.... our current practice is not to take a holding or reservation deposit, but to deem that paying to be referenced is a sign of good faith from the potential tenant.

From: Michael English 23 November 2016 09:50 AM

Michael English
Er, so how does a tenant get referenced? Can we wrap that up in a holding deposit to be paid by the tenant to show that they want to reserve a property? The referencing fee will have to be paid by the tenant somehow else those who know that they have little or no hope in passing referencing will apply for it anyway ... at whose expense?

From: Michael English 23 November 2016 09:48 AM

Michael English
The deposit will be interesting ... I hope it doesn't come from Grandma.

From: Michael English 03 October 2016 11:21 AM

Michael English
Its seems a tad obvious, but tenants need landlords.

From: Michael English 03 October 2016 11:18 AM

Michael English
I'd hope that these were all unlicensed lettings agents

From: Michael English 30 September 2016 15:32 PM

Michael English
Its all very well government giving the impression that they are playing Robin Hood, moving money from fat cat landlords to impoverished FTB's .... but it is hardly a balanced approach. Many landlords are not fat cats, they are people seeking an alternative to untrustworthy, unreliable pension choices. Many impoverished FTB's are youths who are heavily part of the generation that want the latest iphones, ipads, fashion clothes & cars all on tick, so have little experience in saving up in order to buy and certainly won't consider buying second hand items ... all about the image. Rant, grumble.

From: Michael English 28 September 2016 09:16 AM

Michael English
South Somerset our office is finding rental demand exceeds supply, with rents easing up slightly.

From: Michael English 15 August 2016 09:34 AM

Michael English
'for those who want them' is the key phrase here. Forcing long tenancies on tenants or landlords would not be clever. But the present system would anyway permit longer tenancies 'for those who want them' so what's the point?

From: Michael English 09 August 2016 09:56 AM

Michael English
Yeah, this will really help to stop rents from rising ! Brilliant scheme.

From: Michael English 06 July 2016 09:29 AM

Michael English
Indeed. The wealthy & organised can always find a sound way around knee jerk tax policies, which this would appear to be.

From: Michael English 07 December 2015 09:11 AM

Michael English
That's good Paul ... but the quality of the agent and indeed the tenant won't be known until problems occur. We have had a couple of terrible tenants (in 4 years) who had good references & passed professional checks .... I fear because some who want to ease out a rogue tenant with minimal negative impact will assure everyone they are great

From: Michael English 24 November 2015 10:09 AM

Michael English
In principle as it becomes less financially attractive to be a landlord, they will leave the sector allowing the possibility of house price falls but rent rises due both to undersupply and the reduced tax breaks. On the ground certainly here in rural Somerset I am seeing some landlords leave but one, with a portfolio in UK of some 180 - 300 homes is right now buying 3 close to me. I am buying one now too and my partner is thinking of buying another .... we have strong buyer demand in the BTL sector.

From: Michael English 05 August 2015 10:27 AM

Michael English
I didn't think I'd say it, but perhaps it really is time for ID cards in UK. They would be no harder nor any easier to forge than driving licences, but may take pressure off us

From: Michael English 28 July 2015 12:16 PM

Breaking News
MovePal MovePal MovePal