x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Paul Barrett
Paul Barrett
9208  Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Paul's Recent Activity

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 18 September 2020 12:19 PM

Paul Barrett
@markwilson Every business is subsidised by the taxpayer. Every business is allowed certain offset facilities to reduce tax bills. Every business takes a punt. There are NO guarantees of success. It is calculated risk. It is principally lenders that determine the level of risk they are prepared to tolerate. NO LL has the right to funds they may desire. That is for lenders to decide. Capitalism simply wouldn't work if turnover was taxed. LL operate businesses and are the only ones currently NOT allowed to offset finance costs against income. The policy has no logic beyond that of the political objective to get rid of leveraged LL substantial numbers of whom were sole traders. It has nothing to do with levelling of anything. Govt knows that more property available won't make them anymore affordable than they currently are. It is just playing politics though I suggest poor politics and not much to their advantage at all. But attacking LL plays well to a certain electoral demographic. Essentially people with bonkers ideas like you!! I do believe it would be useful to expose the Govt crass stupidity if leveraged LL did all sell up. This would result in about 2 million homeless tenants none of whom could afford to buy. They would have done so by now but haven't. LL certainly won't reduce prices to make such properties affordable. But you should start to see a progressive decline every tax year of the PRS. I intend to get out of the game and to do so selling one per tax year is the only financially effective way to do it. Other LL will do the same thing. Once those LL have gone it will take ages for the PRS if ever to recover. This is what has happened in Ireland where because of their version of S24 there is now a housing crisis. Funnily enough all the evicted tenants didn't buy up all the sold rental properties and neither did FTB snap them up. So all the Irish have achieved is making lots of former tenants homeless. Of course the Irish Govt has finally realised the stupidity in taxing turnover and is now desperate for LL to take calculated risks and return to the PRS. Unfortunately for the Irish Govt former LL don't wish to play anymore resulting in the current Irish housing crisis So as you can see taxing turnover simply doesn't work!

From: Paul Barrett 09 September 2020 18:52 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 09 September 2020 11:26 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 07 September 2020 14:00 PM

Paul Barrett
Indeed you are so correct. Unfortunately as yet there are still too many lettings available. Until this situation changes we won't have tents etc. The supply of rental accommodation needs to be drastically reduced to ensure Govt realises the effects of its bonkers policies. This will take time as most LL selling up will sell one every tax year. It takes a long tine to exit the PRS! I believe it will take at least 5 years before rental supply is reduced to the point where Govt notices. Then of course we would be 5 years away from EPC C status requirements. But I consider properties that would cost a lot to achieve C status are dud properties and would be better to get rid of now. Unfortunately the housing stock of the UK will struggle to achieve EPC C status. Additional unsightly and expensive construction would be required which would rarely be worthwhile for LL. Perhaps these EPC requirements will naturally reduce the PRS as few LL will wish to invest in such dud properties. As such those properties would only be suitable for OO who wouldn't be subject to the EPC requirements for letting. LL should sell up now as the nearer we get to 10 years would mean LL struggle to sell at a top market price. Few LL are aware of the EPC C status requirement in 10 years time. Savvy LL can offload these dud properties to the ignorant LL and FTB who won't mind about the EPC status. I believe the EPC requirements will cause savvy LL to sell off these dud properties. So reducing the rental stock substantially.

From: Paul Barrett 02 September 2020 23:09 PM

Paul Barrett
I think you maybe getting confused with this principle home thing. This is just for tax purposes. So multiple homes are possible. However one has to elect which is a PPR. If sold only that property is tax free from CGT. Any other home would be charged CGT. But there is no doubt that other homes may be owned and lodgers taken in. A classoc case of this would ve those who own second homes usually in holiday areas. They tend to visit weekends. If they had a lodger/s there it would not make the 2nd home a standard letting property. But the 2nd home would still be subject to the RFRA even though it is not the elected PPR. The RFRA applies for any home. But it can usually only be used on one home no matter if this is rarrly occupied. A lodger cannot convert his status to a tenant in someone's 2nd home. I would imagine very few LL will have more than 2 homes. There is no legal requirement for any LL to occupy a home a certain number of days per month. Lodgers remain just that no matter how many days a LL chooses to reside in the home. But for most LL attempting the lodger strategy is uneconomic and hassle. Invariably they would be better off just selling up. Maybe then investing in their PPR to add more rooms. But then many don't wish to have strangers in their homes. But I reckon many LL will need to consider doing this to pay for feckless rent defaulting tenants that they are currently unable to evict. When furloughing ends many more LL will find that tenants will be on HB. Hopefully that will be sufficient to cover LL costs. I doubt LL will bother evicting because they are receiving less rent. Who would replace the tenant. Not exactly going to be lots of tenants queuing up!!

From: Paul Barrett 02 September 2020 16:19 PM

Paul Barrett
I think we are perhaps talking at cross purposes. Obviously a LL hopefully has a residential home for PPR purposes. However that doesn't prevent him having another home where he can take lodgers as well. One night is perfectly adequate for occupancy. Obviously the LL would have everything at his 2nd home in his name and would provide all facilities that lodgers would expect in a home. But certainly he can turn up there once per month. That doesn't not make it a home of his. As yet there is no legislation that requires anyone to occupy a home a certain number of days to qualify as a home. It is more the insurance conditions which require occupancy once per month. It is usually a requirement that any absence longer than 31 days is advised to the insurer. The LL would have a bedroom and other personal items that would be expected in a home. However this is all largely academic as there can't be many LL able to convert BTL to resi mortgages and to be able to obtain CTL for more than 2 lodgers. I consider this strategy is only practical for unencumbered properties. Then there is the hassle factor of staying at the different homes. But that hassle might be worth it if tenants can be done away with. There is massive demand by lodgers. But rarely will it be something many LL will wish to bother with. For me it would be worth the hassle and I plan to achieve the lodger strategy. But unfortunately that won't happen for years. But LL struggling with tenant issues could certainly consider such a strategy. Though I consider the difficulties in raising resi mortgage finance will stymie any attempt to become a lodger LL. You would normally need a lot of money and 50% of the PRS is built on leverage which is where the main risks lie I aspire to become a lodger LL but that is years away. Then who knows what the Tories will do with lodger legislation! ? I certainly don't trust Govt not to give lodgers more rights. There are an awful lot of OO offering lodgings to the point I would say the market is flooded. Playing safe a LL should probably just have a couple of lodgers at his home. Maybe invest in an extension and gave lodgers in to pay for it.

From: Paul Barrett 02 September 2020 10:09 AM

Paul Barrett
Nope a LL register would be an excellent idea. It would result in millions of homeless tenants which would be great news for good LL. Currently there is mass fraud being perpetrated by LL which is UNFAIR competition for good LL. A bad LL is one who lets a property at the outset of a tenancy to a HB tenant when the lender conditions specifically prohibit such tenants. The LL is committing fraud. If the Lender found out they would probably call in the loan. I'm not sure but I have a suspicion that once a LL discovers a tenant receives HB that they are supposed to evict if the Lender prohibits HB tenants. So LL advises lender that it will take about 2 years to evict. Lenders says tough they are calling in the loan due to breach of mortgage conditions. That will affect millions of tenants!! How many LL don't advise insurers that HB tenants occupy. Again fraud as a material fact has not been disclosed. It could even result in a claim being declined! ! Just think your fraudulent HB tenants that you did not advise to the insurer accidentally burn the property to the ground. The insurer validly denies the claim once it is discovered they were HB tenants. Nope a LL register would be a great ideal. No licence no then no letting of that property. Part of the licence requirements would be confirmation of insurer; lender CTL, tenant type etc. Just consider as well all those without CTL that are fraudulently letting their resi properties without CTL! Just that would result in about 1.5 million homeless. Which is why the PTB will never wish to have a LL register!

From: Paul Barrett 28 August 2020 11:31 AM

Paul Barrett
@markwilson So yet another idiotic comment from you. So let us take apart how ridiculous your comment is. Firstly we come to the situation where Council Housing was even available for RTB. Now perhaps we might agree on this that Council Housing should NEVER have been available at discounted prices to tenants. It was outrageous that feckless council tenants as most of them are were able to receive for free massive amounts of taxpayer monies to be able to buy their Council property substantially BMV. I have no objection to any numbers of Council housing being sold off providing it is at FULL MARKET VALUE and that ALL sale proceeds are reinvested in social housing though NOT necessarily in the same area of the properties that have been sold. Now we come to your ridiculous contention that LL are sub-letting ex-council housing. For a start it isn't possible to sub-let council housing To do so is a criminal offence. Though of course many Council TENANTS do illegally sub-let their properties So now we come to the issue that you are highlighting. Your contention that LL should not be letting former council properties. Now I'm sure you are aware of this but it is NOT possible apart from CP for an owner to be forced to sell a property to another. So we have about 2 million former council tenants who took advantage of RTB legislation. The properties were then the now owners to do with as they wished. Many decided to sell them. These sales were on the open market. At no time were such sales restricted to those that weren't LL. As such LL competed on the open market with other potential buyers. Many LL became successful in buying these properties. The vendors could have chosen not to sell to LL. The fact that many former council properties are now owned and let out by LL is no fault of the LL. They didn't force the former owners to sell to them. LL aren't to blame for buying former council properties. If they weren't put up for sale then LL wouldn't have the opportunity to buy them. Perhaps the RTB legislation should have included covenants that precluded such properties ever being let out to tenants. That wouldn't be unreasonable and would ensure that the original intention of RTB essentially for OO would be maintained. Such a covenant would surely have a material effect on the property value. But that is not the point. It should be the case that no RTB is allowed to be let out. But we are where we are. Personally I contend that RTB should be banned unless at full market value. But you really need to withdraw your ridiculous comment that LL are sub-letting council properties.

From: Paul Barrett 27 August 2020 20:00 PM

Paul Barrett
The WFH genie is out of the bottle. WFH workers dread return to commuting. They will resist as best they can returning to the Office on a daily basis. Indeed I would imagine many are doing extra work to prove to employers that they are just as productive if not more WFH. Whilst WFH people are making massive savings. Their real net income to spend on themselves has massively increased. Strip out the costs of working in an office and getting to it saves fortunes. Of course this begs the question on how long employers will pay a wage which largely factors in commuting costs. I can easily see many wages being reduced by £5000. So many former commuters won't be that much better off but at least they won't have the purgatory of commuting. Perhaps employers will simply pay staff travel costs when they do commute the odd times they are required to attend the office. The days of the office worker are long gone. LL should invest in houses away from City Centres as there is no longer any imperative to live near a city. This will be a boon to our struggling High Streets. Commuters WFH will tend to go out at lunch hour to avoid going stir crazy. Local venues should see far more footfall than they previously ordinarily would. I predict there will be more use of local pubs and their food. All in all good news for areas where commuters live. Tough for city centres. They won't be needed that much anymore. So all those low wage mostly immigrant jobs will be gone. No need then for those immigrants. They might as well return home seeing as there will be 4 million unemployed soon. LL invested in city centres need to sell up and move their capital to the sticks.

From: Paul Barrett 27 August 2020 15:41 PM

Paul Barrett
Oh! I consider you have performed magnificently. Just doesn't seem to be the guarantors my way. I agree entirely with the efficacy of a guarantor. Just never been possible for me. They struggle to come up with a deposit my way! I don't think any of my lot have ever been in a stable Govt job. All flakey hospitality workers . For me among so many other things it is the dearth of quality tenants that just gives me too much stress. Just can't be bothered with the hassle anymore. I know I could cope with 3 lodgers easily. I take my hat off to you and what you have achieved. Just not for me. For me small is beautiful. It is as much as I wish to bother with. You need a certain dedication to achieve what you have. I certainly lack that dedication. I'll take a reduction in rental income from just one property via lodgers. No real worries about the mortgage payment. Lodgers are a plenty. Far easier having single unrelated lodgers. You are obviously one of the rare truly professional LL. There aren't many of you with most of the PRS being little chaps like me. I don't think many of us would even wish to be as successful as you have obviously been. I believe most LL would be perfectly content with just one unencumbered rental property. Perhaps that is what many LL will reduce to. It makes life a lot easier. For the small LL having multiple leveraged properties has become a real PITA!! Downsizing certainly makes business sense for many with the Govt continually sticking the boot in to prevent us operating successfully. In light of all that has occurred I consider that the PRA should restrict leverage to no more than 50%. It would have certainly constrained me and would now have left me in a far more resilient position than I am now. Perhaps I wouldn't even to be seeking to getting out of AST lettings. But this CV19 thing has stressed me out to the point I don't want the hassle anymore. Yes I make large good profits but it simply isn't enough to make me to want to stay an AST LL. If they all default I'm bankrupted. My time of life I can do without the hassle. I don't even really need the income. I can get by on my pension. I don't live it large. Never have and never will. It's just not me!

From: Paul Barrett 27 August 2020 04:14 AM

Paul Barrett
Indeed I am one of those LL exiting due to what you suggest. It has been fortuitous that some occupants vacated a few months ago. I have kept the property vacant to give me the opportunity to sell with vacant possession. There is simply no way I will take on further tenants especially with the current prevailing regulations. As you suggest there is no way I can afford rent defaulting tenants. So I have to leave the PRS. I simply do not have the resources to subsidise feckless tenants. For me the risks of being an AST LL are simply not worth the hassle. When things are going well then the net yields are great. But that is predicated on a mountain of risk. That risk I am no longer prepared to climb. You could call me a cowardly LL and that I should have more confidence in my capabilities. Well I am and I DON'T!! I've burned too many times by wrongun tenants who have been supported by the dysfunctional eviction system etc. Enough is enough! The AST business model no longer adds up for me not even taking into account the stress of worrying whether tenants will be paying the rent. With no RGI possible I am truly on my own. I have to say that I do consider that tenants simply aren't worth that much to me in light of all the anti-LL regulations etc. I can adapt my business model to either FHL or as a lodger LL. Far less stress! I believe many LL will ve coming to the same conclusions as me that all the supposed yield in the world is simply not worth the stress of worrying about repossession because of rent defaulting tenants. At least with lodgers or FHL the LL is in charge and NOT the occupants. I'm simply fed up with the possibility of my personal financial future being controlled by feckless tenants. The risks are to me no longer worth it. Of course if Govt made very quick repossession possible in the event of rent default I would retain my properties. In Oz you have 14 days before Police remove you from the rental property. I know this will never occur in the UK and as I'm not prepared to be controlled by feckless tenants I'm going. As you suggest other LL will be doing like me. Whether this will be good or bad for tenants and LL remains to be seen. The LL haters will welcome my leaving the sector but I know for a fact that my former occupants will miss me when I'm gone. They have all praised by dedication to them whilst they were my clients. But I bear no ill -will towards the PRS. It has changed so much from when I started 11 years ago. It has simply changed too much to where for me it is unviable. I accept Govt is winning. I call what I'm doing a Strategic retreat. I will simply adopt a different perfectly feasible strategy which doesn't involve tenants and TA. I sincerely hope that other LL are made of sterner stuff than me and may well profit out of my going. If so I say good luck to them. I for one will NOT resent any additional success they may achieve as a result of my going. They are welcome to it!!

From: Paul Barrett 18 August 2020 01:30 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 07 August 2020 14:42 PM

Paul Barrett
Tenants will forego convenience for fresh air; green space and facilities to work from home. Houses will be what tenants want. The ability to work from home. I have noticed lots of people on fb are getting rid of sheds to be replaced with a shoffice! I intend to get rid of my nearly falling down shed and replace with a far larger shoffice of about 15 x 15' I will also have a smaller separate shed for 'stuff'. That means that the house can be kept separate from any working environment. Any tenant wishing to WFH will have a 30 sec commute. I can see WFH facilities will be an ideal requirement for tenants. That means no flats. Flats will be become dud investments. They are effective prisons if you just can't walk to your office at the end of the garden. The days of tenants wanting to live within easy commuting distance of the office are long gone. So I contend that the price increase for being near a Crossrail stn will be much diluted. People won't mind a longer commute if it is once or twice a week. I believe WFH will become the new standard. City centres will be dead as commuter footfall reduces to easily 50%. LL need to invest in houses and put up shoffices. Be still near a railway stn so a London commute is possible. This means that plenty of coastal locations now become viable. Take Margate as an example. What you can get for London money is amazing. Far better lifestyle and fresh air to. Still possible to commute to London. All those mansions divided up into crappy HMO will be converted back to family accommodation. Will get rid of the druggie dossers and revitalise coastal communities as London money pours into them.

From: Paul Barrett 06 August 2020 18:16 PM

Paul Barrett
I'm afraid that with SC increases and S24 rents have to rise. Remember that rents represent not just costs. They represent the value of that property and it's location. So the rent could be far more than the LL costs. Letting a property is all about maximising achievable rents. Costs are almost irrelevant though of course rent should at least cover those. This is why rents increase in 'gentrified' areas and rightly so. Of course that is always resented by those already there. But that is how areas go from cheap to expensive. It is IRRELEVANT what percentage increase takes rents higher. Another classic example is rents and costs have increased by HS2 stations. I consider that a LL might be asking too much if unable to let. Potentially that is a greedy LL. But if rents charged are paid by tenants then no greed exists as it is a market rent that someone is prepared to pay. I consider that BTL LL are unfairly competed against by unencumbered LL. But of course that is simply the business game. So I DON'T resent unencumbered LL.............I wish I was one!!! But in the PRS there is naturally competition. Some LL may choose to charge less than market rates Their choice. But with things going on as they are I can easily see rent controls being imposed. Govt has seen how easy it is to control LL from evicting. Nobody stood up for LL. If Govt introduced rent controls there would be no support from the public for LL. I would be bankrupted by rent controls which is why I intend to sell up. Even though profitable things are hanging by what I consider are a very thin thread. I know I would be far happier as. Lodger LL with one house. Then I suppose my market rents would be whatever Spareroom indicates are room rates in relevant areas. I know this CV19 thing has shocked me into realising how vulnerable I am. With potentially even more bonkers Govt anti-LL policies I am not wishing to remain a leveraged AST LL. I DON'T wish to compete anymore with LL who are able to offer cheaper rents than me. So for me it is time to leave the AST PRS. I'm actually finding the process all too boring. I like the idea of FHL or a lodger LL. I'm done with conventional lettings!

From: Paul Barrett 03 August 2020 21:40 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 31 July 2020 18:56 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 20 July 2020 11:27 AM

Paul Barrett
@barryx Yes indeed so correct. Many LL are just about viable. They hang on in there so as to hopefully achieve CG over a reasonable period. If this CGT increase occurs as appears to be most likely then little point in LL retaining their rental properties if there isn't any significant yield. Especially in the SE there are billions of CG wealth that can be taxed. Electorally taxing second homeowners and LL won't lose many votes. S24 while it has forced some LL out of the market hasn't been as effective as the Govt had hoped for. Increases in CGT would see many LL sell up. After all what is the point in struggling on thin yield to then find almost all your gains taken in tax. It simply disincentivises 2nd property ownership. There won't be much CG for the next 10 years. LL would be better off getting out now paying the current CGT even though that is painful. It will certainly be a lot less painful than what must be inevitably increased CGT on 2nd properties however used. There are billions of pounds of CG wealth in the SE. The Chancellor would love to get his hands on it now. LL in the SE are on borrowed time. Time to get out with current CG at existing tax levels. There is simply no way that yield in the next 10 years will match future CGT I intend to get out ASAP. Fortunately there seems to be plenty of newbie LL numpties willing to invest in the PRS.........more fool them. Hopefully that will make it easier for me to escape the PRS. No way would I invest now knowing what I know is happening and will be happening.

From: Paul Barrett 15 July 2020 16:50 PM

Paul Barrett
@Barry X You make fantastic points. But in your heart you know they haven't finished with LL yet. Far more pain to come. Like you I'm desperate to get out despite being highly profitable. I simply don't care. I just want away from all the aprobrium cast the LL way. I can't think of any other profession that is so loathed by society. Prostitutes have better social standing than LL!!! People rent them and their little accommodation but don't seem to resent them like they do with LL offering larger rental accommodation!!! This societal loathing is only going to get worse. There is absolutely NO political will to reverse the incorrect perception of LL. We are where we are. A tactical withdrawal is required. Downsize Delverage Sell up Do all this and EVENTUALLY......................someone will say where have all the LL gone? I can't find anywhere to rent!!!! There will be the response Told you so!! Being a LL is a thankless task. Quite frankly many tenants don't deserve our services. About time these tenants were denied rental property by LL not being there. We would then hopefully reach the stage as in Ireland where Govt finds it is desperate to attract back LL and has to offer all sorts of incentives in an attempt to entice the LL to return. By all accounts the Irish LL are having NONE of it and consequently there is a homelessness crisis in Ireland. Who'd have thought eh!!?? Mind you the LL will probably be just as resented but this time for not supplying rental property!! A no win situation for LL

From: Paul Barrett 10 July 2020 01:12 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 29 June 2020 12:47 PM

Paul Barrett
Unearned income!!!! Car rental firms rent out cars Unearned income. Tool hire companies Unearned income. In fact any circumstance where anyone rents anything and pays for with coin of the realm is essentially unearned income for those providing the rental services. Now consider shareholder dividends all unearned income. It is only because LL take a fair chunk of other peoples income in rent to pay for an accommodation service that the user resents the service provider. They should in fact be very thankful that a LL has bothered to invested their own monies into provisioning such an accommodation service. Without private LL there would be millions of homeless. LL charge a price for their investment commodity. This price is usually arrived at as a consequence of market dynamics. It is not the fault of LL that the market is as it is. To change that market then Govt to need to carry out very radical and probably for the LL very onerous policies. So I would suggest that Baroness Kennedy immediately start campaigning to deport the 2 million odd illegal immigrants. Prevent any illegal immigrants trying to enter the UK from across the Channel. Deport those that do manage to reach the UK. Remove the 400000 EU nationals currently occupying social homes. Build millions of Council houses for British Nationals only based on a list NOT on need. Relax planning regulations to facilitate building on alleged Green belt. The price for mass uncontrolled immigration must be more concreting over the countryside. Blame Blair.

From: Paul Barrett 25 June 2020 11:16 AM

Paul Barrett
Yep I don't think anybody is really admitting it yet but I'm sure this eviction ban really is the last straw for many LL. There have been so many last straws but I believe this latest one really is the last straw! LL have finally seen that Govt is really prepared to sacrifice LL businesses for electoral expediency. It could easily have done as the Spanish Govt did and pay rent directly to LL BEFORE giving any remaining amount of furloughed wages to the tenants. Instead it came up with the solution of LL having conversations with their tenants to arrange some sort of payment plan!!!!!!!!!! What are they for real!!!!!???? Conversations and potential payment plans don't pay the monthly mortgage payments!!!! 50% of the PRS relies on rent to pay the mortgage. Many of the other 50% of unmortgaged LL rely on rent as their income and are prevented from even applying for UC as they are all considered to have assets in excess of £16000. Make no mistake the UK Govt has hung UK LL out to dry!! LL would therefore do well to consider adjusting their business model factoring in similar future Govt actions. Govt has finally shown their true colours. Spain have shown the sensible approach but this Tory Govt just can't make the ideological leap to protect LL from the effects of this CV19 issue. Even more bizarre is the Spanish Govt is an avowedly Socialist one and yet they have helped private LL to keep tenants housed with tenant rent being paid by Govt. The supposedly Tory Govt isn't paying rent directly. It seems the Tories have morphed into something even more extreme than Momentum Labour!!! If Spanish Socialists see nothing wrong in assisting LL with rent where tenants cannot pay due to the CV19 issues then why can't the Tories!? It is clear now more than it ever was that Govt seeks the destruction of private LL. LL need to be very mindful of what has occurred and consider very carefully whether carrying on the same old way is a risk worth taking. I have just missed bankruptcy by a smidgen!! Fortunately my Ryanair cabincrew will be resuming flying. They did all pay they rent but it was a damn close run thing. Plus I had to ignore all Govt requirements to stay socially distant etc. I had to move new occupants in. Had I not done so I would definitely be bankrupted. The scandalous Govt behaviour towards LL in this CV19 crisis really is the last straw. I'm convinced there will be a massive shrinkage in the PRS as a result of all these latest events and we haven't yet had the AST and S21 abolished yet!! It does seem that LL are like the proverbial wibbly-wobbly man toy. But this is one occasion where LL won't bounce back. They will be looking to get out of Dodge ASAP! I suggest many LL will converting to lodgers. They will be staying once per month in their multiple residential homes to maintain lodger status of the occupants. I predict the need for LA will massively decline as LL adjust their business models. Gonna be tough times for tenants as many LL sell up.

From: Paul Barrett 21 June 2020 09:00 AM

Paul Barrett
FFS has this Go Simple idiot NOT ever heard of S24!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????? LL are forced to pay tax on mortgage interest which is fictitious income. With no rent how are mortgaged sole trader LL supposed to pay S24 taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????????? It seems even those involved in LL taxation have no idea what they are doing. It is bonkers enough that LL are taxed on fictitious income with Govt then preventing LL from attempting to gain income but can't because they aren't allowed to evict feckless rent defaulting tenants. The world has gone f####### crazy. The eviction ban has highlighted the ludicrousness of the S24 tax policy. I've never read such a load of b######s from a supposed taxation expert. Absolutely clueless!!! This is the situation mortgaged sole traders are in. They are charged S24 tax on fictitious income. They won't have an rent from feckless rent defaulting tenants to pay a mortgage. If they can't pay the mortgage then the lender will repossess. The lender will then come after LL assets to pay for any shortfall probably bankrupting the LL making him homeless. To top it off HMRC will want S24 taxes on the property that was repossessed. Oh!! Yes and the feckless rent defaulting tenants get to walk away scot free. No amount of STUPID discussions with the tenant about a payment plan will ever cause tenants to pay. LL are not discussing anything with their tenants. They either pay up or get out. Only the stupid eviction ban is preventing LL booting out rent defaulting tenants. A simply outrageous policy. Govt is simply presuming on LL that they will resource mortgages irrespective of zero rent being paid. In case the idiot Govt doesn't realise LL don't have access to a magic money tree!! Many LL will have been frightened to death over these Govt actions. Many LL will be getting out of the PRS because of all this.

From: Paul Barrett 20 June 2020 21:27 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 19 June 2020 10:14 AM

Paul Barrett
@ possession friend Indeed totally agree with your response. I totally respect rent paying tenants and do my best to be a good LL. Can't be that bad if previous tenants have returned to me! I have and I must admit I don't mind admitting it despite my vociferous words have on many and even now assisted occupants Currently that is in the form of not requiring deposits until Jan 1st next year. All are paying rent. Yes I know I'm being a bit of an idiot in not taking deposits from Dec 2019 But so far they have rewarded my trust by paying rent and appreciating giving them a year to save up for the deposit has been very helpful for them. They are all Ryanair cabincrew so you can imagine what they have been going through. It has still been a struggle for them and rent hasn't always been on time. But I have worked with them. But what I will never countenance is them not paying rent and thinking they may remain rent free. It won't happen due to how I have things set up. But you are totally correct that I and I'm sure most other LL are of being totally respectful and helpful to their tenants. However that respect DOESN'T extend to providing free or subsidised accommodation for them!!! I don't expect free food from my local supermarket. Neither should tenants expect free accommodation from their LL. Respectful tenants unable to pay rent should offer to surrender the tenancy to the LL. Allow the LL to make a business decision. Many LL would choose to retain those tenants and work with them etc. But that would be a LL choice. It wouldn't be forced on him which is a totally different matter. All my rent paying tenants think I'm great. The 5 I evicted for rent defaulting of many thousands of pounds probably hate my guts. The feeling is definitely mutual!!

From: Paul Barrett 10 June 2020 18:52 PM

Paul Barrett
Absolute twaddle you talk. If there was a fast track eviction process as in Austrslia do you think that would change tenant behaviour!? You seem to expect that LL should provide FREE accommodation for unfortunate tenants!! Are you out of your very tiny mind!!!?? Since when should any business be forced by law to provide FREE stuff!? Well in the UK only LL are forced to do this courtesy of the dysfunctional eviction process. You attitude is simply disgusting. To expect LL to facilitate free accommodation is just too ridiculous for words. It is the idiotic attitudes of people like you that are dragging the PRS to the point that there won't be any LL!! Your support for feckless tenants is simply pathetic. Tenants have opportunity to save. They choose NOT to as they know how dysfunctional the eviction process is. The ways things are it could actually be 2 years before an eviction occurs. Such feckless tenants could potentially live rent free for that long though well before then any leveraged LL will have been repossessed long before by the lender. Feckless tenants should take responsibility for their domestic circumstances. They could experience sudden income loss at any time for a wide variety of reasons. Because most tenants are feckless none of them make plans for such eventualities. It is not the LL fault tenants are feckless so why should LL be expected to subsidise their rent costs when they don't have any income for whatever reason!? Savings make a tenant financially resilient to the point that they would generally have been able to source another income in about 6 months. Having resilience savings means the LL and tenant suffer no financial distress beyond that of a tenant using up savings. But at least no concern about being able to maintain a tenancy. I stress again it is ONLY the dysfunctional eviction process which currently allows tenants to get away with being feckless. It is just plain wrong that the law allows this. You supporting such a situation just proves your complete ignorance about what being a LL is all about.

From: Paul Barrett 10 June 2020 16:49 PM

Paul Barrett
But of course the Councils are lying about a supposed cliff edge. There will be one but in about a year's time. Lying Councils know full well that evictions won't be completed for at least a year and that is being generous! Most will take far longer. All this caused by a huge backlog of cases and a much reduced County Court facility. It is complete scaremongering by Councils and the usual suspects for them to state evictions will occur on Aug 23rd. They should tell the truth but of course they won't as it doesn't chime with their narrative. But what it means is that LL could be without rent for 2 years andd that is if they survive. I doubt there will be any Govt mention of the financial distress that their policies are causing and will cause LL. They know that most people don't give a s### about the woes of the LL. No Govt would be seen dead supporting a private LL in ANY capacity. LL are on their own even being denied the capability of operating a functioning business. LL will surely consider that they will need to seriously consider whether attempting to remain a LL is worthwhile or not. The Govt anti-LL rhetoric and policies against LL are scheduled to become far worse. Which is why I want to be out of the game as soon as I can! I'm stuck being a successful LL for at least another 4 years when I wish I could go now as I know what is coming down the track to potentially obliterate me!! Trouble is it isn't easy to liquidate a position as a a LL. Ideally just need a newbie mug LL to buy my profitable properties. That DOESN'T look like occurring for some while yet. There will be many LL desperate to get out of the game even though there is no current financial imperative compelling them to do so. Of course there will be in the coming months many distressed LL who will be repossessed. So there will perhaps be a cliff edge of evictions by lenders not LL as repossessions occur! There will be hundreds of thousands of leveraged LL who are simply not resilient enough to weather what could be years of rent defaulting tenants. But of course this Govt will never mention such plight of the LL. LL should know they are going to be royally screwed even more!!

From: Paul Barrett 10 June 2020 15:20 PM

Paul Barrett
Nobody is missing the point. Your contentions are simply wrong. Tenants refuse to have savings. They know that the eviction process protects them. They know few LL bother with Civil Recovery attempts. The CV19 issue is just another reason tenants are using to explain their rent defaulting. So what if they have lost their job? What if there was no CV19 issue do you think a feckless tenant would offer to surrender their tenancy!? Of course they wouldn't. They know it could take at least 10 months to evict them during which they know they can live rent free. The crisis in the PRS is caused by the dysfunctional eviction process which facilitates rent defaulting no matter the alleged reason. Until LL start to base their business on the dysfunctional eviction process many leveraged LL will be bankrupted. LL must have sufficient reserves per property per tenancy in case a tenant rent defaults. In practice this renders the BTL business model unviable. It is the dysfunctional eviction process that will see many LL bankrupted. Do those LL believe that Govt will care a jot!? As many such LL will be finding no they do not. LL need to start preparing for bankruptcy but ideally to sell off properties in an attempt to come of the the BTL drug. Leverage will be the death of many LL as it only works when tenants pay rent. Not all tenants do to the tune of about £9 billion a year. Leveraged LL need to seriously consider the risks to their personal financial security before risking all on rent paying tenants. As has been evidenced by recent events tenants have a propensity not to pay rent. That leaves LL seriously exposed to business failure. The risk of BTL is never understood. Few leveraged LL realise that their survival depends on their tenants paying rent. Tenants have no concern with the survival of their LL. They know the eviction process gives them free accommodation. To them it is just tough if the LL is bankrupted. Leveraged LL would do well to consider whether they wish to base their financial future on feckless tenants who could easily bankrupt them. I speak from very personal experience which is why I intend to not be an AST leveraged LL as soon as I can. When I became a LL I was extremely naive and had no concept as to how dysfunctional the eviction process was. Had I been aware I would have invested totally differently. Probably with one unencumbered house. But hey hindsight is a wonderful thing ain't it!!!??

From: Paul Barrett 09 June 2020 23:57 PM

Paul Barrett
I suggest that for the LL able to do so that they should convert if at all possible all their properties to residential. Invariably this will mean selling off and reducing mortgages to zero. A LL may have as many residential homes as they like. If they need a mortgage then it will need to be a residential one. LL are then able to take in lodgers. No more than 4 per property to avoid Mandatory HMO LIcensing. Lodgers are CURRENTLY not protected by the Prevention of Eviction Act. Lodgers are far more effective as far as eviction is concerned. Any rent defaulting ones may be removed very quickly. Usually after 1 months notice. A LL may utilise the RFRA for one home which DOESN'T have to be his PPR and for his other homes where there are lodgers there are no tax free allowances. Lodgers are the way to go. There is an exponential demand by single occupiers. It makes far more business sense having lodgers rather than tenants. Of course BTL mortgages are normally utilised as few LL can afford several residential mortgages. It is the case that most BTL LL could only afford about 2 residential properties from 10 BTL ones. But having lodgers REMOVES the risk of rent defaulting tenants as they may be removed if the LL wishes. In the current climate it makes no economic sense in remaining an AST LL. There is a massive demand for rooms. Lodger LL can very effectively meet that demand while sustaining a viable business irrespective of any tenant conditions or eviction bans Govt imposes on the tenanted sector.

From: Paul Barrett 09 June 2020 06:33 AM

Paul Barrett
It is well known amongst those of ridiculous left-wing views that ALL tenants are as pure as driven snow and that ALL LL are rich greedy bastards!! That mindset is the prism through which the ridiculous left view anything to do with the PRS. LL should be aware that this mindset will NOT be changing anytime soon. Consequently they should be aware that such a mindset infects even the current PTB as well as the usual idiotic left. As such LL need to very careful as to how they operate in the PRS to the point that leaving the PRS would be the best thing to do. It is clear that the PTB intend to utilise the assets of LL to provide free accommodation for feckless tenants. It is for LL to determine whether they wish to be exploited in such a fashion any longer. Some may choose to risk rent defaulting tenants and further eviction bans. Others especially leveraged LL may consider the risks are too high. It is plain that the PTB have NO consideration whatsoever for the costs that a L L occasions especially a leveraged one. Effectively Govt doesn't care if by their penal anti-LL actions they bankrupt a LL. LL should really understand this situation. If they don't they are being incredibly naive. BTL lenders will have no compunction in repossessing rental properties if LL aren't able to pay the mortgage from their own resources in the absence of rent. Do LL really wish to waste their hard earned resources on providing effectively FREE rental accommodation for feckless tenants!? This is probably the most important business decision many LL will ever need to consider.

From: Paul Barrett 09 June 2020 05:15 AM

Paul Barrett
Personally I believe that ALL residential tenants should have the expectation that their rental property is in full COMPLIANCE with ALL regulations. ALL includes the Social and Council housing sector. Tenants shouldn't be discriminated against dependent on how they pay their rent. All LL should be subject to PRS regulations or rather any LL letting should be subject to the same regulations. If that means a Council or HA has to prosecute itself then so be it. Chinese walls are available. Perhaps if Councils etc were subject to the same regulations we wouldn't have things like Grenfell occurring. Can you imagine what would have happened if this had been a private LL!? There would be corporate manslaughter charges and millions of compensation. With the Council...........................NOTHING!!!!! Not fair on Council tenants at all. I'm afraid that the PRS will be regulated out of existence. I have determined to leave. If I could do it tomorrow I would but I am not prepared to do so unless at full retail price and tax efficiency. But I will be going eventually. That wasn't my intention prior to Feb 2015 when S24 was announced. I would conjecture that many other LL will be considering similar actions as me. I believe this CV19 issue has pushed many in the PRS to a tipping point. The Govt eviction ban really is the end. It clearly shows that Govt has no respect or consideration for the small LL. If LL didn't realise they were on their own before they must surely realise this now. Do they wish to be exposed to the exponential risks of remaining in the PRS!?

From: Paul Barrett 06 June 2020 23:43 PM

Paul Barrett
Hardly market speculation !! LL invest their capital to provide a service which they expect to generate an income from paid for by a user. Just like a supermarket. The only speculation is that of providing the service the LL hopes that his offer to treat will be taken up by someone. Of course there is NO guarantee that this would occur but that is the case for any business. This is of course the risk that ALL capitalists take. However most business operates on the basis that it has the ability to operate. LL are the ONLY business that is being prevented from operating without compensation from Govt. . The normal rules of capitalism have been suspended with everyone else apart from LL receiving compensation. That is downright unfair. All LL ask for is for a fully functional market. That means the ability to remove occupants from their properties if refusing to pay rent. LL must be allowed the opportunity to service their costs. Govt has prevented this with the eviction ban. Govt seems to expect that LL have magic money trees!! If Govt wishes to assist the jobless who have been caused by this CV19 thing then let the full contractual rent be paid by Govt directly to the LL as part of their furloughed wages or just paying the rent . All business operates on leverage. LL are currently the only ones that are being forced by Govt to provide a free service. This is outrageous behaviour by Govt. The eviction law should be immediately suspended to allow all LL who wish; to IMMEDIATELY remove any rent defaulting tenant. Govt is effectively using Private LL leverage to house tenants for free. I doubt any LL expected their leverage would ever be effectively co-opted to provide free accommodation for their tenants by LL banning eviction. LL are very effectively being prevented from operating as true capitalists and yet they are still expected to provide a service without being paid for it. Truly and utterly bonkers! This situation is simply unsustainable and evictions will still occur though many will be by lenders as they repossess LL properties who have been unable to pau the mortgage due to rent defaulting tenants who can't be evicted currently. The intent of the eviction ban is to keep tenants in their rental properties. But the eviction ban is guaranteeing that they will be eventually evicted if LL receive no rent. Leveraged LL which are 50% of the PRS simply cannot sustain their accommodation offer without rent being paid. Could the UK cope with 50% of LL properties being repossessed!? I think not! Govt should do the responsible thing and pay LL their rent while the eviction ban is in place.

From: Paul Barrett 06 June 2020 21:09 PM

Paul Barrett
With all this talk about the problems Govt is causing LL with the eviction ban another completely innocent business victim of these rent defaulting tenants is of course the poor old LA. In the absence of rent from feckless rent defaulting tenants I presume LA aren't able to take their monthly management fee. One presumes that such LA victims would stop providing the contracted services to a LL if no rent is being paid. I doubt many LL have contracts with LA that require fees to be paid if no rent is being paid. That would be a bizarre contractual arrangement. So with no rent coming in the LA has no income from many LL clients. How do LA survive this predicament!? I haven't seen mentioned anywhere in MSM about the plight of LA who obviously seek to ensure their LL clients have rent paying tenants. But they are now prevented from achieving this by this ridiculous eviction ban. So as well as LL being bankrupted the same could happen to LA!! I don't believe Govt has fully thought through the ramifications of this avowedly populist eviction ban policy. The overall economic damage that feckless rent defaulting tenants are causing to the general economy are enormous. LA in particular are totally dependent on a correctly functioning market for their business to remain viable. What we DEFINITELY don't have currently is a properly functioning market!!! Govt has very effectively nationalised any rental property where no rent is being paid for at least a year at zero cost to the Govt. Some might call it daylight robbery by Govt. The LL haters would call it LL receiving their just desserts and therefore devoid of any sympathy for their plight whatsoever. Perhaps LL should be forced to wear a yellow house symbol on their clothing harkening back to a period when another section of society was persecuted!!

From: Paul Barrett 05 June 2020 21:10 PM

Paul Barrett
There are many properties especially in diverse areas where due to the size of the family and the propensity for multi-generational domestic living arrangements have far more occupiers than a HMO. Yet NO fire precautions are required. So why are unrelated sharers worthy of decent fire precautions but large families aren't!? Perhaps it is about time that fire precautions were required where there are more than 4 occupiers or individuals whether all one household or not. Properties in diverse areas tend to be overcrowded yet no legal action would be taken against any of the household in the event of multiple deaths of family members from the effects of a fire. It tends to be that these multi-generational properties are occupied by those in the diverse lower socio-economic levels of society. They have less protection from fire than unrelated sharers. Is that fair on those family members!? Obviously requiring the same level of fire precautions as HMO would result in ugly and unsightly interiors which few homeowners would wish to install. However I'm sure that fire precautions could be adjusted for family occupied residential properties such there was a similar level of protection but not so that such precautions would be that noticeable to cause a reduction in perceived property value. Perhaps above a certain number of individual family members it should be a requirement to have additional fire precaution measures installed. It might persuade those in diverse areas not to overcrowd their properties so enhancing the safety of all!

From: Paul Barrett 04 June 2020 13:59 PM

Paul Barrett
Yep I don't believe many LL appreciate what is happening as so clearly explained by John. We LL are the proverbial frog being boiled in water that is gradually being increased in temperature until we are boiled alive. It is very insidious but of course many LL now have no appreciation of how things once were. What is that about those who ignore history are destined to repeat the same mistakes! I don't believe LL understand the full import of what is going on. I do which is why I am desperate to leave the AST lettings market. Easy to say NOT so easy to achieve!! Very gradually Govt is throttling the life out of the PRS and yet few LL see this. I don't know why many LL seem to operate in little bubbles of blissful ignorance. One has only to see the impact of such bonkers Govt policies by looking at the Irish experience. There the dopey Irish Govt is having to repeal it's anti-LL regulations. Trouble is the damage has been done. The LL have gone and they are not for returning. This is causing massive homelessness issues. You would have thought that the Irish experience would have knowledge enough for the UK Govt not to make the same stupid mistakes. But no they are making the mistakes and planning to make more! Once LL leave the UK PRS they won't be returning. Many will just bring forward their retirement. There certainly won't be sufficient replacement LL to maintain the required rental stock. So very bad news for tenants. I predict that many tenants will be forced to return to parental homes. They'll have no job and no possibility of sourcing ever scarce rental.property. LL need to wakeup and build sufficient financial resilience to all that is coming down the track. If they don't they will be squashed!

From: Paul Barrett 03 June 2020 15:12 PM

Paul Barrett
Ah! I see so these corporates are using the likes of naive Shelter as their extermimator to get rid of LL. But I thought Shelter would be against big corporates who tend to have higher rents and are also located off shore in tax havens so pay little tax compared to normal LL. Does seem strange that Shelter an avowedly left- wing organisation would side with big corporates. Seems like Shelter has misunderstood it's own ideology. But I suppose the corporates are manipulating the likes of Shelter to do their dirty work. Once achieved these corporates won't have much to do with Shelter etc. Personally I'm resigned to the PRS LL being eradicated. I'm planning to sell up as soon as possible. It is an unequal struggle when you have Govt wishing to eradicate you. This strategy has been tried in Ireland and it all went horribly wrong for the Govt there which is why they now have a massive homeless problem. All the LL have gone!!! I know once I'm sold up I will never let to tenants again. I might take on some lodgers in one property but no family lettings etc. I just wish the Govt would offer to buy LL properties. The abolishment of S21 etc is another one of the reasons that tenants are no longer for me. If I cannot control my investment asset then I will sell it. I'm sure many LL will be coming to the same conclusions. I well remember the dark days of rent controls and sitting tenants. It seems we are returning to that situation. We will see the demise of the leveraged LL to be replaced in part by cash rich LL who won't use leverage at all. Of course those LL will still have problems getting rid of rent defaulting tenants should they occur. But I would imagine that such LL will be very thorough in their DD on who they take on as tenants. I know in hindsight I wish I had bought just one house very lightly leveraged. I would be in a far better position now. I can see many LL selling up. This CV19 thing has proven how many feckless tenants there are. LL really don't want to base their financial security on such individuals. There will be other CV19 things and so tenants will stop paying rent at the drop of a hat and there won't be much a LL can do to get rid of them. To me that is a busted investment business model! !!

From: Paul Barrett 03 June 2020 09:17 AM

Paul Barrett
Isn't the reason that Shelter supports S24 is that they wish to see leveraged LL eradicated from the PRS!? Presumably they believe that the ex-LL properties will be bought by the evicted tenants! !?? ..................Or other people? ? Of course this would be a bonkers understanding so where do Shelter suggest all the evicted tenants will go once LL sell their properties !? Has anyone asked Shelter where the millions of homeless tenants will live when LL have sold up!? There are more than enough properties already for sale. Yet I see no rush of FTB or former tenants to buy up the currently available properties. Just adding to that already unsold stock won't suddenly make the properties any more affordable than they already are. I guess Shelter might believe that property prices would reduce so much as to make them affordable. Well for that to occur in the SE would mean properties reducing by about 50%. WILL NEVER HAPPEN! ! So I'm fascinated as where all these evicted tenants will go when LL sell up lots of their properties. I know when I sell up I will be making 16 occupants homeless. None of them can afford to buy my properties but then they don't wish to buy. Being tenants is what suits them. Shelter can't force tenants to become OO if they prefer to be tenants. I really don't understand the logic of Shelter wishing to see FEWER rental properties. How does that assist all the evicted tenants? Seems to me a bit of a disconnect between reality and fantasy. I really don't understand Shelter's position on S24. The other thing Shelter keep banging on about are unaffordable rents. Well logically shouldn't the logical response from tenants be to move to mire affordable locations! ? It's what everyone else does when they are looking to buy. Or do tenants believe they have the right to reside in expensive areas at less that market rents!? That would be very weird if they did. Why would any LL invest in what would expensive property and then charge less than market rates just so feckless tenants can reside in expensive areas!? To these feckless tenants not understand market dynamics! ? I guess they just expect people should use their capital to keep them in a style they would like. Can't see many LL wishing to do that!!

From: Paul Barrett 03 June 2020 08:25 AM

Paul Barrett
@James smith Yep I believe your contentions are bang on. I have been amazed at the numbers of searches that have been carried out on online portals for property in the West Country. It appears that many London workers are seeking to move to what is traditionally considered as a holiday area. Of course lots of Londoners have holiday homes in the West Country. So for many Londoners they could just sell their London properties and move into their holiday homes. This would cause property values to substantially increase in the West Country where already locals are priced out of buying property. Introducing the sale proceeds of London property to the West Country will massively increase the prices of already scarce property in the West Country. Also rents will massively increase if as it seems many London workers leave London for the undoubted delights of the West Country coastline. I predict that all Southern coastal areas will be facing a massive influx of London workers. As long as there is an OK train connection to London then being about 1.45 hrs travelling time from Central London pretty much enables most of the Southern Coastal areas to reach London in just under 2 hrs travelling time. There will be no need to go through the daily commuter grind with so many able to WFH so living further away from London makes life so much cheaper and far pleasanter There is no doubt about it that LL especially London LL need to seriously consider whether remaining in London is the wise thing to do. It is clear many tenants feel no imperative to pay their rent. LL will have to adopt far more DD on their tenants. Personally if the tenant cannot qualify for RGI I will require tenants to have at least 6 months of savings to meet normal monthly domestic costs. I will then know the savings account details so HCEO can obtain the savings if tenants refuse to pay rent. It makes NO business sense if tenants refuse to have savings and then face sudden income losses for a LL to take them on especially if RGI isn't possible. It seems that tenants feel they have every right to not pay their contractual rent. LL need to ensure they don't let to these type of feckless tenants. Easy to say not so easy to achieve.

From: Paul Barrett 01 June 2020 22:46 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 01 June 2020 13:26 PM

Paul Barrett
There WILL be a reduction in tenant demand in London. 'White flight' is ramping up as tenants and OO seek to leave London and it's diversity which many have simply had enough of. They are now seeking properties in the hinterlands with no need to be a 45 minute tube journey to work. They can live 40 miles further away for the same commuting costs. The properties are half the price of London ones..For eg. a terrace house in Walthamstow is about £430000 Yet that same house is only £265000 in Southend. The train journey from the Southend coast is 45 minutes to Central London. The journey time from Walthamstow Cental to Cental London is about 30 minutes for about the same commuting costs as from Southend. Why would anyone wish to own or rent in Walthamstow which is a very diverse area when for a considerably reduced rent or houseprices one can have all the same benefits as being in Walthamstow. But in Southend which is a far better place to be than Walthamstow. The beach is 15 minutes walk away. LA are deluding themselves if the believe the London tenant will remain. Many of them in rubbish hospitality jobs are returning to the family home. There simply won't be the hospitality jobs in London and so no need for so many tenants. Empty office blocks in London will create ghost towns. For LA the growth will be out in the sticks. London is a busted flush. It is no longer needed when much of the London working population can work from home. LL should be investing in 3 bed houses in the sticks. That is where the demand will be. As long as tenants can reach Central London easily it matters not the journey time as it will be only carried out max once a week. Things have changed; time for LA and LL to realise it!

From: Paul Barrett 31 May 2020 19:42 PM

Paul Barrett
I would suggest a very quick instant social housing solution would be to offer LL the opportunity to sell their rental properties at market prices to Councils or HA but with LL being allowed to waive any CGT. The Govt is currently spraying around billions of pounds. Why not have something tangible in the form of millions of social homes. Of course it would require lots of evictions as those tenants currently occupying mostly wouldn't qualify for social housing so that Councils would need to evict those tenants and replace them with those on the housing register. There will be many LL that cannot afford to let at LHA rates. I could but refuse to do so. I'd rather leave my properties empty. DSS tenants just aren't worth the hassle. Personally I have no problem obtaining occupants and I suggest many LL should be able to as well. They don't need to lower themselves to taking on DSS tenants. But it would be great if 2 million LL properties could be bought to replace those sold under RTB. I reckon Govt would find easily LL willing to sell them 2 million properties with CGT waived. It would be a very popular move amongst all the feckless welfare scroungers currently in TA etc. It would save many LL from being bankrupted. As it is it will take about 100 years to pay for the CC; QE and now CV19 costs. So why not add the new social housing costs to that lot! ? At least with social housing stock it will remain a permanent public asset providing Govt stops RTB. Essentially Govt will be buying back the 'family silver' 2 million instant social homes won't satisfy all the social housing shortages but it will make a decent start on addressing the issues and will have popular public support. It would be a far better political win for Govt than their attempts to eradicate leveraged LL via S24 etc. They need a far quicker method to recover property to the social housing sector. Even to the point of CP for all those sold off flats as it would be far easier for flats to be managed as social housing than properties in different locations. That would return them to the horrible sink estates they were once all the social housing welfare scroungers return to them. Good idea to put all the dross together and let the councils suffer all the costs for housing DSS tenants. LL want shot of them ASAP.

From: Paul Barrett 30 May 2020 20:57 PM

Paul Barrett
Glad I'm not a London LL. There will be decline in demand in London. Tenants and OO will be leaving London for greener pastures. There are millions of office workers who now rarely need to use a city office. WFH is going to cause major changes in the PRS. Companies have finally realised that they don't need to drag in their workers to a centralised office every day. Those companies that can will encourage their employees to WFH. In fact Virgin Media INSISTS on it. This will be a boon for workers especially mothers with child caring responsibilities. They should be able to give up expensive nurseries etc and actually look after their own children while earning a full time wage WFH. WFH will massively reduce the penalties that women have traditionally suffered from when children have arrived. Indeed it also augers well for PRA interrogation requirements or the MMR if you will. If able to WFH then no impact on a couple's ability to afford a mortgage. Just watch the prices of semi-detached 3 bed houses increase in the sticks. There will be a mass exodus of office workers from towns and cities as WFH becomes the preferred way of working for many companies. To be able to have substantial numbers of office workers WFH will save companies millions in office costs. Companies will be able to afford the same wage levels but still make far more profit once they have got rid of their expensive offices. Companies have seen the light and they will NOT be returning to business as usual. The opportunity to save on massive office costs is too tempting now that they can see that WFH hasn't impacted their capability that much. Of course with the massive reduction in office workers attending expensive city offices there will a substantially reduced requirement for all the workers who service all the requirements of an office based company. There won't be such a need for restaurant workers; cleaners etc. So naturally no need for them to rent in London anymore. All these circumstances will cause millions to remain unemployed. The services industries simply won't be required as much when considerable numbers of people are now working from home. Indeed I am now seriously considering an office at the bottom of the garden rather than a big shed. I predict commuting 30 seconds will become a desired requirement. So I say London LL sell up your now dud properties and buy up 3 bed houses near a stn with decent sized gardens. That is what tenants will want. Plus they are future proofed if children ever come along. Make sure the house is in a good school catchment area and you will have very long term tenants. The times they are a changing!!.

From: Paul Barrett 29 May 2020 14:40 PM

Paul Barrett
Many sellers will refuse to sell at current market levels. A property is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. Currently there are few who are prepared to go through the boredom of saving for a deposit. Spend it all is the attitude of feckless tenants. Plus they refuse to accept they can't afford to be near mummy and daddy. There are plenty of affordable properties just not where these aspirant homebuyers wish to be. So they have to rent from LL who did bother saving for what are usually substantial deposits. Invariably in a declining market lenders require even larger deposits unless the seller can be persuaded to reduce the price. Many LL like me aren't prepared to do this. So we carry on letting as there is still plenty of tenant demand. When property prices have rebounded which they will in about a year LL can sell off. Only extremely distressed LL will need to sell off. With tenant demand still high even they may not have to sell currently. It will be interesting to see whether all the sacked workers vacate their rental properties and return to their childhood bedrooms with mummy and daddy!! Govt would save fortunes in HB if this occurred. Few LL will be prepared to retain tenants who can only afford LHA rates. LL will invariably evict if tenants refuse to vacate. It is gonna be a very turbulent next few years. I believe there will inevitably be a substantial contraction in tenant demand as they all return to parental homes. The economy can't support the current numbers of tenants. Until CV19 came along the economy was doing great. People were employed etc. They could afford to rent. That has all changed in a matter of months. For those LL willing to invest in LHA letting they will make good money as there will be massive demand for such lettings. Trouble is very few LL are prepared to let to DSS tenants for all the obvious reasons It will be interesting to see whether LL are prepared to accept massive reductions in rent so that DSS tenants can afford to stay and rent where they have been. Can't see that happening myself. If that was the case for me that would halve the current market rate I'm charging. I'd rather keep a property empty than take on DSS. There are plenty of lodgers out there far better than tenants. DSS families will struggle to source LL prepared to take them on. They simply aren't needed. There are more than sufficient normal tenants to be able to avoid DSS ones. House prices are going nowhere. They will be static for years.

From: Paul Barrett 28 May 2020 14:49 PM

Paul Barrett
The major thing about this CV19 crisis is how it has exposed how many feckless tenants there are. It has been shocking to see that very few tenants seem to have any concept of financial resilience. I know that for industry etc the just in time business model is very effective utiliser of available capital. Being lean and mean is a very effective business strategy. Of course a slight fly in the ointment to the just in time business model is when global transport breaks down or there are other supply issues. It seems that many tenants have effectively adopted a just in time business model as far as supporting their domestic circumstances is concerned This must surely be considered as the height of irresponsibility. Personal financial domestic resilience can only be resolved by having additional resources over and above the monthly wage. It seems that many tenants have made no attempt to achieve additional resources apart from the monthly wage which is generally fully spent due to feckless spending behaviour. I simply do NOT understand the feckless mindset which refuses to countenance the concept of saving to cover for sudden income loss. Yet when tenants experience sudden income loss LL seem to be expected to subsidise these feckless tenants. Of course this begs the question as to why there seems to be a societal attitude that if a tenant cannot afford to pay rent that month then not to worry the LL will always have massive liquid cash reserves to cover for their feckless tenants. Why would there even be such an unreasonable expectation of LL to have such sufficient liquid reserves!!!?? I know of no other industry where it seems that in the event the customer can't afford to pay for contracted services that it is expected and presumed that the service provider should pay for the loss of income out of their own pockets. I simply don't understand this logic. The behaviour of the Govt to date is completely undermining the PRS business model. I know they seek to eradicate the small private LL especially the mortgaged ones. But once all the tenants have been evicted where will the now homeless tenants go? It is highly unlikely that many of the rental properties sold will be bought by other LL meaning a total net loss of rental property. The property certainly doesn't disappear into thin air but it certainly isn't bought by a tenant or FTB. Nothing is preventing tenants etc from buying now. Just adding more properties for sale to the market doesn't magically make such properties affordable. I believe Govt and tenants are deluding themselves if they honestly believe LL will be prepared to subsidise the feckless lifestyles of tenants. I say to tenants if you wish for tenancy security then arrange your financial affairs such that you would be able to meet your normal monthly costs for at least 1 year without normal wage income. It is simply irresponsible living a just in time domestic lifestyle. It is feckless and should not be acceptable in society to expect LL to cover for such tenant fecklessness. I know for the future whenever I take on new occupants I will expect to see at least 6 months of savings to cover rent and other normal domestic expenditure. If future occupants can't be bothered to save then I won't be bothered to house them. The age of tenant fecklessness as fully exposed by this CV19 crisis needs to be ended forthwith.

From: Paul Barrett 27 May 2020 18:48 PM

Paul Barrett
It must be obvious to all LL that Govt has no intention of assisting LL at all. We can all suggest what Govt could do to assist LL. It will NEVER happen. To Govt this CV19 issue is just a fantastic opportunity for Govt to see its eradication of small LL policy fast tracked by events. Govt is licking its lips in anticipation of all that CGT that LL forced to sell will have to pay. This is a one off windfall for Govt to acquire the CG on rental property over the past 20 years. They certainly aren't going to let such an opportunity slip through their fingers. LL are idiots if they believe things will return to the relatively benign days before Feb 2015. Govt is out to get small LL make no mistake about it. LL need to accept they are beaten and try and exit from leveraged rental properties. Govt simply doesn't have a plan for what happens when LL do sell up en masse. It doesn't have the intelligence to consider the ramifications. Of course across the Irish Sea it is obvious what has happened. A disastrous effect on the PRS resulting in a massive reduction in the PRS and now massive homelessness. The stupid Irish Govt is only now slowly reversing its stupid policies. The lessons are there but the UK Govt refuses to acknowledge the Irish experience. The only way LL stand a chance of avoiding being forced totally out of the PRS is to deleverage as much as possible. Ideally for all LL to have no leverage at all. Only by doing this will LL stand a chance of avoiding being forced out of the PRS. LL simply have to accept that Govt doesn't want LL using leverage to invest in the PRS. One can have a view on the obvious naivety of such a policy but it is a reality which LL ignore at their peril. Currently leveraged LL comprise 50% of the PRS. Ideally this would be reduced to zero with a slight increase in unencumbered rental properties. CV19 has exposed the precariousness of the BTL model particularly exacerbated by Govt preventing LL from getting rid of rent defaulting tenants no matter the reasons why. LL need to wake up the Govt doesn't want you and the State is mightier that any individual LL. There is NO cohesive front amongst LL to combat Govt LL eradication policies. LL just need to accept that to even survive they need to abandon all leverage. Whether LL will accept these realities is another matter! It is my considered belief that LL could still have the same net income as at present but from far fewer unencumbered properties. BTL LL need to urgently convert to unencumbered LL. Govt will still make life very awkward for such unencumbered LL but not to the point where those LL throw in the towel. Being unencumbered gives a LL opportunity to resist a rapacious Govt.

From: Paul Barrett 27 May 2020 16:19 PM

Paul Barrett
Can happen to any LL. Unfortunately no matter how good a tenant may look on paper it doesn't always work out. Many LL will be finding very soon that they will be victims of feckless tenants. Personally I don't have any tenants anymore. So don't have to concern myself with AST or eviction regulations. I only have lodgers who are easy to get rid of. I refuse to have any AST anymore. This means many reject my offer to treat. Their prerogative. I currently have all my properties occupied and paying good lodger rent. I reside in all my properties at least once per month. The lodgers don't mind. Indeed they like the idea as they can get me to sort out all the inevitable little chores that arise. It is also the only way that they can have inclusive rent. All my occupants are enthusiastic as to the way I do things. That won't be changing anytime soon. Gradually I will be selling up. Lodgers aren't able to prevent me selling up so NO issues about selling with vacant possession. Eventually I hope to have one house with 4 unrelated lodgers. I won't be there much as I will be spending much of my time as a 'guest' elsewhere. But of course my house address will be my residence as far as anyone is concerned. To maintain residential insurance I will of course be residing in my PPR house once per month. No more tenants for me ever again. LODGERS from now on! Of course that means only unrelated lodgers so no family lodgers. That might make things harder for me. But when I see the demand for rooms on spareroom I won't have any issues filling my hoped for 4 bed house with unrelated sharers. No couples of course as I won't wish to be involved in Mandatory HMO licensing. Got about 4 years before I'm all sold up. Can't come too soon as far as I am concerned!!

From: Paul Barrett 27 May 2020 00:15 AM

Paul Barrett
The CAB just prove their ignorance and incompetence in their support for abolishing S21. They will be condemning those tenants who will still ultimately be evicted to a CCJ effective for 6 years. Do they not understand that the S8 process will automatically come with a CCJ attached!? How many LA and LL will take on a tenant with a CCJ for rent arrears which haven't been paid off!? Such a CCJ will prevent the rent defaulting tenant from obtaining a mobile phone contract let alone a mortgage! Plus of course the sticky issue in finding a mug LL prepared to take them on. RGI qualification will be impossible. Surely for the CAB the responsible action to take is to advise the tenant to pay their rent by whatever means so that they won't ever be affected by the S8 process when S21 has gone!? S8 will be a pain but there is no doubt that the mandatory eviction will occur if 2 months of rent arrears which is 1 month and 1 day. Not many tenants will game the system by paying down rent arrears to one month to prevent eviction. If they want to be 1 month in arrears it would generally be better to discuss with a LL that this will be the case. It will save the LL bothering with S8 and the tenant won't invariably be evicted. The LL will have a 5 week deposit which could eventually be used to pay the arrears when the tenant vacates. Not many LL would evict for 1 month of rental arrears. But the evil CAB should not be deceiving tenants into taking actions which would have enormous detrimental ramifications for them for years. Remember a LL could easily renew a CCJ every 6 years until satisfied. This would condemn the tenant to effectively be uncreditworthy for decades. I I know if I had S8 CCJ for rent arrears I would just renew every 6 years. Even if a CCJ for rent arrears is satisfied it still remains on credit records for 6 years. I'm sure many LA and LL will wish to know what a now satisfied CCJ was for!? As far as I am aware RGI wouldn't be possible even with a satisfied CCJ for rent arrears. I'm very surprised Govt hasn't fast tracked abolishment of the AST and S21 onto the Statute books. It would surely be an ideal time as Govt would know such S8 eviction cases would be dragged out in court for years. Of course that would be pretty much irrelevant if lenders repossessed properties if LL were unable to pay the mortgage in absence of rent. With capital values not going anywhere many LL would do better to sell as they would suffer from repossession. I'm sure many lenders will be receiving advice from their LL clients that payment of the mortgage is impossible due to a rent defaulting tenant and what does the lender wish them to do. Most lenders wishing to avoid the hassle of repossession will probably suspend repossession subject to the property being sold. It may mean a loss of considerable capital for the LL but with repossession that would happen anyway. All these circumstances just proves how naive many LL are. They simply don't understand the permanent financial damage a rent defaulting tenant can have on them. Many LL will be finding out very shortly much to their great cost. Their dream of BTL will have been destroyed by CV19 and and increasingly dysfunctional eviction process. Bet the GRQ Gurus never mention things like these!!!?? Oh! Yes and the real biggy will be any tenant evicted by S8 for rent arrears will automatically be deemed to have made themselves 'intentionally homeless'. So NO council housing assistance. The days of tenants gaming the S21 process to obtain Council Housing will be gone. The CAB might find their workload increases substantially once S21 is abolished!!!!

From: Paul Barrett 26 May 2020 18:59 PM

Paul Barrett
It is interesting you support the eviction process no matter how dysfunctional it currently is. That at least is good. However it is clear you do not understand at all how the UC system works as far as tenants are concerned. I can assure you that the maximum UC Housing element is substantially less than the usual rent levels in the South. A line from the Wash to the Humber is generally unaffordable for UC claimants. I know my market rents are more than double the LHA rate for my area. Indeed the LHA rent would just about cover half the monthly mortgage payment. Hardly a surprise then that I would never take on a UC tenant at the outset of a tenancy. You clearly do not understand how the HB element is calculated within the OBC. I appreciate that these details maybe lost on you because you are NOT a LL; EA or LA. If you were you would understand how incorrect you are when it comes to your belief that LHA is sufficient to pay market rents. It is of course these boring details which causes many not in the PRS to make comments about things they know nothing about. It would perhaps be advisable to state that as far as you are aware that relevant circumstances are as you state. This will always give you a get out that you reserve the right to be incorrect and advised accordingly. LL and LA shoukd be prepared to correct you so that you better understand how things work. Unfortunately your statements without caveat just make you look stupid. If you seek understanding there are many who are prepared to give it to you. But under no circumstances can you presume that what you state is correct. So as you state and I agree there should be NO mortgage deferment or eviction ban. Trouble is LL face multiple rent defaulting tenants. This is not a normal state of affairs. It is usually the case that a LL has one rent defaulting tenant at a time and can therfore just about manage the losses caused by one rent defaulting tenant requiring eviction. But to now have multiple cases of rent defaulting tenants leaves the LL unable to sustain the losses caused by rent defaulting tenants. This is why evictions should be sped up not slowed down. It is unreasonable at definitely not fair to expect a LL to maintain viability of multiple properties without rent. LL must ve given the opportunity to let a property to a rent paying tenant which requires effectively immediate removal of a rent defaulting one. Govt is preventing this. I for will be selling up as I simply CANNOT ever risk multiple rent defaulting tenants. A fast track eviction process in the event of tenant rent defaulting is the only thing that will prevent me from selling up. I know this will nevsr occur so I will eventually be leaving the PRS. I definitely won't be selling to any FTB or tenant as they can't afford my price. Onlu upsizers and downsizers can afford my properties. Highly unlikely a LL will buy as I require full retail price. Few LL buy at retail price. So it will mean after I have sold there being about 16 homeless occupants. I fail to see how all this benefits tenants.

From: Paul Barrett 26 May 2020 01:32 AM

Paul Barrett
I actually agree with Fabio. There should be no mortgage deferment facility for LL. LL are in business and MUST be aware of all possible issues. But of course for LL to be able to operate their business effectively they need to be able to CONTROL their assets 100%. Now as Fabio knows this isn't currently the case. LL are very effectively prevented from CONTROLLING their business assets by the dysfunctional eviction process made even more dysfunctional by the current Govt eviction ban. LL should be exposed to the icy winds of business competition but to achieve this there needs to be a level playing field. I know of know other business which has its capital controlled by the law which effectively FORCES a LL to provide a free accommodation service with little chance of ever recovering the costs of that service from the consumer. This in effect means LL are forced to do business with one arm tied being their back. A LL must be able to remove rent defaulting tenants very quickly so that he can expose his property accommodation to the full force of the prevailing market. Without a functional eviction process price discovery is effectively suspended. The offer to treat by LL is being prevented by Govt. No other business is forced by law to do this. Without any rental income and the inability to get rid of rent defaulting tenants how are LL supposed to manage! !!?? How do the likes of Fabio suggest LL meet their monthly costs without any rental income!!?? These stupid LRU bemoan the very poor savings status of tenants and unfavourably compare that with possible capital values of LL properties. Well it is NOT the fault of LL that tenants are feckless and don't bother having savings. Next we come to the capital values that may exist in LL properties. As far as I am aware a brick in a house cannot be chipped away and spent in the local supermarket. Property value is very hard to extract and is ordinarily achieved by borrowing on a lender perceived value and that is even if the LL could afford the additional borrowing costs. I thought the objective of Govt and the PRA was to reduce LL leverage NOT increase it. These idiot LRU and the likes of Fabio seem to be suggesting that LL somehow tap into the capital value of their properties to assist their non-rent paying tenants. A most bizarre concept!! These LRU and the likes of Fabio are out of their very tiny minds!! All LL ask for is a level playing field with other businesses which means NOT treating finance costs as income and the ability to control their assets by being able to remove rent defaulting customers immediately. That is how all other businesses work in the UK. Why should LL be treated differently?

From: Paul Barrett 25 May 2020 14:40 PM

Paul Barrett
A question If you have a 5 bed house which requires a HMO licence if all rooms were occupied by unrelated sharers what would prevent a LL letting the house to a tenant who the LL allowed to take in 4 unrelated lodgers? Now obviously the tenant who would be the live-in LL wouldn't be charged the rent for the whole house. They would be charged a room rent. Now possibly the Live-in LL would be given a rent reduction for agreeing to becoming the live-in LL. Being a live-in LL obviously has certain legal responsibilities which a LL would reasonably renumerate for. The rent from the other 4 lodgers would be paid to the live-in LL who would then pass on the lodger rent in cash to the LL. Potentially the live-in LL would even qualify for the RFR Allowance which would obviously never exceed £7500. If any lodger chose to default on rent then the live-in LL could give NTQ of usually 1 month. If the lodger refused to vacate then the LL would assist the live-in LL to change the locks to prevent the rent defaulting lodger from entering the property. It can surely be seen that a LL effectively employing a live-in LL guarantees that the LL can get rid of rent defaulting lodgers very quickly. The LL can charge what rent he likes to the live-in LL. What that live-LL charges the 4 other unrelated lodgers will never be known by HMRC! The only issue I could see would be that lenders would expect all occupants of an HMO to be on individual AST as is usually prescribed in HMO mortgage conditions. But of course with one tenant only in a 5 bed house at what point would a lender consider that a certain number of lodgers would mean the property BTL mortgage had to be converted to a HMO mortgage!? I'm sure there are other issues I haven't considered but ostensibly in principle there DON'T appear to be many downsides to such a strategy. Interesting to see what opinions others have towards this possible strategy.

From: Paul Barrett 20 May 2020 21:07 PM

Paul Barrett
Nope according to a widely held societal view LL are pure evil parasitical scum. Not worthy therefore of ANY consideration at all. LL need to be aware of how they are reviled. Also that they will receive no assistance whatsoever. It is for LL to have sufficient financial resilience when tenants default on rent. If LL cannot achieve this then they SHOULD NOT be LL. The buck ultimately stops with the LL due to the totally DYSFUNCTIONAL eviction process. LL need to be aware that they MUST be financially robust if they expect to survive. LL will receive no assistance from anyone and LL will have their existence made as awkward as possible when tenants default on rent. Remember LL are on their own. Being so reviled is not for all. Personally I hate tenants as much as they hate me. Most of them are feckless and cause untold hassle. But tenants are unfortunately a necessary evil. Make no mistake tenants hate LL and vice versa. Resentment breeds resentment. The best that LL can do is to be sufficiently resilient to protect themselves from rent defaulting tenants. LL need to factor into their business model the dysfunctional eviction process. Few LL currently do this. Unencumbered LL are clearly not so vulnerable to rent defaulting tenants. It must make new business sense to reduce exposure to rent defaulting tenants by reducing leverage if at all possible. It would greatly favour many LL if they assisted to substantially reduce the size of the PRS. The fact that this would cause mass homelessness is nothing to do with LL. LL have no social duty to house feckless rent defaulting tenants.

From: Paul Barrett 19 May 2020 19:15 PM

Paul Barrett
I think you last paragraph sums up what most in society believe......................................EXCEPT for LL!!!! Why this is the case beats me. I just DON'T understand why as a LL my business should. be regarded any differently. Perhaps I am so blinded by my LL circumstances I am unable to appreciate a reality that the rest of society believes. It is almost as though society believes I have unfairly acquired landed assets which the common man needs access to and resents that they have to pay a reviled LL for access to. As though such a LL shouldn't be allowed to have such asset aquisition. There seems to be no objection renting from the State sometimes for more than private rents. No resentment there but introduce a private individual into the equation and resentment rises even though the accommodation service provided is of excellent circumstances. To me I believe it ultimately comes down to petty jealousy. This in that if you LL lived next door you would resent passing over substantial chunks of your income to him. All this because he owned a property asset and you didn't. I fail to see how this resentment should feed into the capital of the LL being controlled by that resentful tenant but it seems the eviction laws etc precisely facilitate that control for tenants. I think perhaps it is down to the recognition that the individual LL has something you want but haven't got and therefore have to pay lots of your hard earned income to have a roof over your head. Large corporates or the State DON'T seem to be resented; if at all the same way as a small LL. To see the difference in reaction try walking down a busy high st in a T shirt emblazoned with I am a proud private LL. Then try again with I am a large corporate LL. I doubt any comments would be made when wearing the 2nd T shirt. But the first!!!?? You will receive a torrent of abuse.................why!? i have no idea.

From: Paul Barrett 19 May 2020 12:18 PM

Paul Barrett
Oh dear are you really that brain dead!? You seriously can't be a LL or LA or any part of the PRS. Your comments are that stupid. So let us address your stupid comments. Pray tell what business is it of any tenant as to how LL finance the letting property!? It is NONE of the tenant's business. It is for the tenant to have sufficient resourcing in place to cover for the proverbial rainy day. It is not for the LL to have savings to cover for feckless tenants not having resources to meet their normal monthly domestic costs. If tenants choose to live a feckless lifestyle that is their choice. Responsible people build up savings to cover for these unfortunate black swan events. Though surely redundancies are something that any reasonably astute rather than feckless tenant would realise might occur!!!! If you are involved in the PRS beyond that of being a Tenant then such idiocy as you have displayed knows no bounds!!! It is NOT the fault of the LL if the tenant is feckless. It is for Govt if they so choose to resource tenants to be able to pay their FULL CONTRACTUAL RENT. If tenants are unable to achieve this then they should offer to vacate to the LL. It is then for the LL to determine whether they wish the tenant to vacate. If this makes the tenant homeless.................TOUGH!!!! It is not for the LL to provide free accommodation. Many LL may choose to do this but that would be their business choice. A tenant unable to pay rent for WHATEVER reason should always offer to surrender their tenancy. There should be NO expectation that the LL will continue to house the rent defaulting tenant. It is of no concern to the LL that by surrendering a tenancy the tenant becomes homeless. LL are operating a BUSINESS and SHOULD have the right to operate it effectively. So if a tenant surrenders a tenancy then for the LL that is just TOUGH!! NO LL has the right to expect that he will have tenants in occupation at all times paying the contractual rent. This is the BUSINESS risk of being a LL. However by feckless tenants refusing to vacate and Govt facilitating tenants from being evicted all this prevents LL from conducting their business. Inability to remove rent defaulting tenants prevents LL from even attempting to source new rent paying tenants. AST lettings businesses are the ONLY business that is legalky firced to provide accommodation services without payment being made. Why do you believe it is LL that should subsidise the feckless lifestyles of rent defaulting tenants. Of course LL have empathy for tenants but that doesn't extend to providing free accommodation if the LL can possibly avoid it.

From: Paul Barrett 18 May 2020 21:23 PM

Paul Barrett
So for those LL that depend on rent for their main or most income how are they supposed to prioritise food etc if they have no income!? This is even with forgetting the 50% of the PRS which has mortgages to service. According to the bonkers logic of this LRU all food should be free Shoplifting shouldn't be a criminal offence during this period!!! How long before starvation would occur!? Can't see many supermarkets providing free food!! If Govt attempts to prevent LL from evicting then there will be a mass ignoring of the Prevention of Eviction Act. Much work for rough men with baseball bats and balaclavas making late night visits. Many mobile phones will be broken when they drop to the floor with great force!! No calling 999!! Surely Govt must understand LL will NOT sit idly by and allow themselves to be financially destroyed by feckless tenants!? These rent defaulting feckless tenants have had plenty of opportunities to build up savings for the proverbial rainy day. Clearly few of them have bothered. Is that the LL fault!? I think NOT. Time for tenants to stop being feckless and have savings to cover their rent in the event of things like CV19 occurring or even just being made redundant. The biggest problem though is that the existing dysfunctional eviction process encourages fecklessness. Quite frankly the AST letting business model is looking quite fragile. For those LL that survive will they just carry on in the same old way!? Can't see it myself; way too risky. I'm sure many LL will be rethinking what they may do for the future. I do believe that all these circumstances have at last made LL realise how vulnerable they are to feckless tenants and the very dysfunctional eviction process. Neither of these two risks will change. So is it really worth the risk of being an AST lettings LL! Perhaps a LODGER LL might be more effective. Nothing wrong with having multiple residential homes and living in them once per month.

From: Paul Barrett 18 May 2020 11:34 AM

Paul Barrett
Unfortunately there are still too many rental properties available. This is a real problem. There needs to be a massive reduction in rental stock before Govt takes any notice. It is not easy to sell up especially in the current market. Therefore rental stock remains liberally available. I just wish H2B was granted for pre-owned properties as well. Many LL would use such a situation to offload many rental properties. Quite frankly H2B buyers would receive far better value in buying second hand properties. They also tend to have far more scope for improvement than the rubbish rabbit hutches that builders try to pass off as houses these days The main impediment for FTB is not any inability to service a mortgage debt. It is the lack of a decent and required deposit. It would seem reasonable to me that Govt should assist OO with a H2B scheme for second -hand properties. We could even have LL selling to tenants. This would be a very effective way to facilitate LL offloading their no longer wanted properties as they try to leave the PRS. H2B for second-hand properties would also be electorally very popular. It also gives LL a reasonable escape route. I doubt the way things will be that there will be much new build being brought to market. Far better to invest those H2B monies in existing properties. it would be a far more effective policy than S24 to persuade LL to sell up. At least there is known to be massive affordable demand. It is just the slight issue of the deposit!!! Govt can assist this very easily by just extending H2B to existing properties..

From: Paul Barrett 14 May 2020 23:44 PM

Paul Barrett
@mark wilson You have some very strange views which must surely feed into your day job opinions. I sincerely hope I am never a victim of your ridiculous ideas reflected in any valuations you may give. As far as I am aware no commenting LL are seeking sainthood! Quite simply like any other business they expect to provide a service which people hopefully use and then the LL expects to be paid the agreed price for the service. NO sainthood required! Just a service provided with NO guaranteed expectation that a LL accommodation service will be used. So like most business a gamble or as you call it speculative. So basically that is EVERY business. I've never come across a normal business that doesn't seek to speculate out of prices for all things. I personally would have nothing to do with any business that didn't seek to speculate out of what it was doing. A small question for you. If LL had not invested their capital in rental property any idea where the results of MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION would have lived. Millions have arrived mostly housed by private LL who through their own efforts have managed to resource rental properties. It matters NOT how these rental properties were resourced. The fact that somebody took the risk to do so is the point. The housing market is a product of so many things. LL however are certainly NOT to blame for the market being as it is. Many LL have in fact been the catalyst for new properties. You truly show your ridiculous colours when you quote the AST introduction as being responsible for the ills of the housing market. It was the AST which very effectively housed millions of people who would otherwise have nowhere to live. I'm sure you remember the bad old days of rent controls and regulated tenancies. Or would as I suspect you do wish for those days to return!? If they do expect to see millions of homeless tenants. You wouldn't seriously expect anyone to invest in such a market unless they were cash rich. God knows how you have remained a surveyor for 40 years with your bonkers views!? I also strongly suspect that you have socialist leanings and as such that makes you not fit to be a surveyor or commenting on PRS issues.

From: Paul Barrett 14 May 2020 12:52 PM

Paul Barrett
@john McKay Yep never experienced 18 month eviction. 10 months has been the max on some of my 5 evictions to date. The losses I incurred mean I will never make a profit as long as I live!! How I wish I had bought just one mortgage free house..............which I could have done............................ ................Doh!! I readily admit when I started out I knew absolutely nothing about the eviction process. In hindsight I do consider that I was a bit of an idiot!! But hey that bitter pill has been taken and learnt from. So now I'm trying to reduce properties to attain that nirvana of one unencumbered house. Doubt I'll achieve it for a few years yet but that is my aspiration. I certainly have no further aspiration to house 16 occupants in nice properties anymore!! The eviction risk is now too high. I simply could not sustain rent defaulting on all my properties. I'd now far rather have one unencumbered property with no real concern about the eviction process. Yes it would be a real pain getting rid of rent defaulting tenants but at least I wouldn't ever be facing bankruptcy if unable to service the mortgage because of rent defaulting tenants. The current mass rent defaulting and projected to be even more dysfunctional eviction process has frightened me to death. I am simply not prepared any longer to have this bankruptcy risk hanging over me through no fault of my own. Let some other LL have the hoped for rental income and the risks that go with needing tenants paying rent to service mortgage payments. I say good luck to such LL whoever you are. You are welcome to the income I attained.

From: Paul Barrett 14 May 2020 10:07 AM

Paul Barrett
Mr Craw is being somewhat disingenuous. I have never met any tenant who complied with a S21. They all wait until the day before eviction. Some of these evictions are progressed a lot faster by transferring to the HCEO. This often catches out feckless tenants as seen on Can't Pay when the tenants always say they are waiting for eviction which they know would take many more months to achieve. The HCEO route always surprises these feckless tenants in that no notification is required by HCEO to evict. It should be a standard protocol that LL should have the option once a PO has been granted to immediately instruct a HCEO without having to seek permission from a County Court DJ. Yes it would be a more expensive option but far more effective than a County Court particularly as what remaining County Courts there are will be overwhelmed by other LL seeking evictions. The process is projected to take at least 18 months using a County Court. The facility of HCEO could save many LL from bankruptcy in facilitating timely eviction so that eviction could take just weeks after a PO had been EVENTUALLY obtained. So there is no need to stop evictions. Most of them won't occur til well into next year!! The likes of Shelter and GR continue to put out the propaganda that tenants can be evicted with just 2 months notice. That would be correct if tenants complied with S21 notices.......................but of course few EVER do!! As the default response of most tenants is to ignore S21 notices then Shelter etc should really quote actually how long it takes on average to evict which is roughly 7 months. This period is when normal times are around. We DON'T have normal times with mass rent defaulting no matter the reason for it. LL must be offered a method to get rid of rent defaulting tenants quickly. Their very survival depends on being able to do so. There seems to be a bizarre concept in society that tenants should not be required to or even consider saving. Any OO would be expected to save to make mortgage payments in the event of income loss. At least 9 months of savings as it is only after 9 months that OO may apply for a DWP loan to pay mortgage payments but only for defined amounts and only the interest element of a mortgage at a restricted IR. The idea that tenants should be financially responsible and attempt a degree of financial resilience to cover sudden income loss for some reason doesn't seem to be expected by society. OO YES; tenants NO. Instead it seems tenants should expect a LL savings to cover for the tenant fecklessnses Again Why!? It seems tenants are to be regarded as children too stupid to determine that it might be useful for them to have savings to cover their domestic costs in case of sudden income loss. I DON'T understand where this societal expectation of tenants not having savings comes from. But it is expected that LL should have savings to cover for feckless tenants. I know of no other service supplier that is expected to pay for the service user to continue to use the service when they can't or won't pay for that service. A most bizarre societal concept. It seems as soon as you become a tenant you can live a feckless spend it all just in time lifestyle in the knowledge that if you run out of money the LL will be there to provide free accommodation which is enforced in law until relevant legal processes have been fully utilised.

From: Paul Barrett 14 May 2020 09:24 AM

Paul Barrett
Yes I always notice whenever anyone is discussing the joys of property investment they always miss out the bit where for such property investments to work it requires rent to be paid. The mere idea that rent defaulting should be factored into the business model never seems to get raised. Of course they rabbit on about voids etc. But they NEVER mention the dysfunctional eviction process if faced with a rent defaulting tenant...............funny that!!! Is it perhaps that to do so would completely make many LL investments unviable!!!??? So perhaps rather than ensuring LL have sufficient financial resilience they are more interested in pushing out product to naive LL!? Perhaps in light of everything that has been occurring in the PRS many LL will seriously consider their exposure to feckless tenants and severely adjust their business models. The results of which will invariably mean offloading rental properties and substantially deleveraging their remaining if any properties. This will mean a substantial reduction in LA business as few of any rental properties sold will be bought by LL. In my experience most rental properties are bought by upsizers and downsizers. Not a FTB or LL to be found!! The logic of amending business models is overwhelming. This CV19 issue has thrown into sharp relief just how financially exposed LL are to feckless tenants. I reckon substantial change will be occurring in the PRS which I believe will mean far fewer LL and rental properties remain. Rents will increase rather than reduce. I would have thought that these dopey rent unions would appreciate that the last thing they need to cause is having fewer LL or properties. What they should be stating is that by any means possible for tenants to pay their contractual rent on time and in full Their ability to be housed is vitally dependent on the rent being paid. I'm not sure tenants quite understand how things work with LL. I do believe that they believe most LL if not all have bottomless pits of money to subsidise their tenants feckless lifestyles. I bet if a lot of LL actually shared their business models with tenants that the tenants would realise how close they could be to being booted out by a lender NOT the LL as the lender quickly repossesses following 2 months mortgage default as a result of rent not being paid. Essentially many LL operate a just in time business model. WITHOUT rent that business model collapses causing severe detriment for both LL and tenant. Not sure tenants realise how vulnerable they are to being booted out if they DON'T pay rent. A lender doing the booting out!!!

From: Paul Barrett 14 May 2020 00:36 AM

Paul Barrett
The problem for LL is that feckless tenant attitudes severely impact upon the livelihoods of LL. The dysfunctional eviction process facilitates tenant fecklessness. This is something that few LL fully appreciated. With now even Govt making the already dysfunctional eviction process even more dysfunctional LL need to seriously review their business strategy. They are effectively being co-opted as free social housing. I doubt that is a viable business strategy for LL. The BTL business strategy really falls apart if tenants stop paying rent. This is what many tenants have done knowing they are protected by the increasingly dysfunctional eviction process which will be even more dysfunctional when the AST and S21 is abolished. The scaremongering of these groups that lots of tenants will be evicted in June just proves how ignorant they are as to actually how long it takes to evict. It is looking more like 18 months to 2 years before that might occur. That is even providing the property hasn't been repossessed by a lender! I doubt many LL could sustain mortgage payments for 18 months without any rent being paid. I suppose these feckless tenant unions must have some sort of undying faith that LL will do whatever it takes to avoid their properties from being repossessed. I believe many tenants will find out soon that lenders will have no scruples at all in repossessing a property where the LL hasn't been able to pay the mortgage because the tenant refused to pay rent. Tenants can have all the rights in the world...................not much use if all the LL have gone!!

From: Paul Barrett 13 May 2020 21:18 PM

Paul Barrett
Eviction should ONLY be made easier in cases of RENT DEFAULTING. Any other deviant tenant behaviour that would result in a longer eviction process would inevitably convert very quickly to a new fast track eviction process. This is due to the fact that any tenant given an eviction notice invariably stops paying rent. This then would play into the LL hands with converting to a fast track eviction process. Using the far longer eviction process very few tenants would ensure this process would last as long as possible because to achieve that would mean continuing to pay the contractual rent which of course few would do. It seems to me that it would be perfectly fair and reasonable that LL had the facility of a very fast eviction process for rent defaulting cases only. Many LL would not necessarily utilise a fast track eviction process as most of them would much prefer to work with tenants to resolve rent arrears. It is usually far more cost effective for LL and tenants alike if both parties can come to a payment resolution for rent arrears. So even if there was a very fast eviction process for rent defaulting tenants few LL would be so prescriptive as to actually evict quickly. I also believe that the mere facility of a very fast eviction process would substantially modify tenant behaviour. That being the case I believe that would substantially reduce the numbers of tenants rent defaulting and consequently reduce the numbers of tenants who are evicted annually for rent defaulting. So the sort of cruel to be kind threat of fast track eviction would I consider change tenant behaviour. It would actually assist these tenants. It surely cannot be deemed as reasonable to expect a service supplier to not be paid for a service that he is forced by law to maintain. Such a fast track eviction process would also greatly benefit DSS tenants as Councils would rapidly arrange for direct payment to LL and to pay the rent arrears to avoid the Council having to house them or become responsible for them. However irrespective of the efficacy that I believe would be of great assistance to the PRS in general with a fast track eviction process I am sufficiently world weary to appreciate that politically no Govt will EVER facilitate such a very fast eviction process for rent defaulting tenants. With the declining effectiveness of RGI and the projected even longer eviction processes I personally have determined to leave the PRS. It is far from easy at the moment let alone in the future when eviction will be even more fraught and lengthy. Hardly conducive to a viable lettings business! A fast track eviction process will never occur. I know when I'm beaten so will beat a tactical withdrawal from the PRS.

From: Paul Barrett 12 May 2020 09:27 AM

Paul Barrett
@ S I Yep I totally agree with what you state. However as a very timid leveraged LL I am in no position to get stroppy. If I wasn't leveraged then no doubt about it I would be much braver! I just have to survive for the next 4 years by which time I will be out of the AST BTL sector having sold up. I just have to hope no more penal policies are introduced before I can get out. Leveraged LL cannot afford to be stroppy as they have too much to lose. Unencumbered LL can choose to be far more vociferous than leveraged LL. It is pointless leveraged LL attempting to kick over the traces. LL will never defeat a Govt hell-bent on appeasing a generally anti-private LL society with consequently even more damaging policies for LL. It is in the nature of things. You only have to see what happened in Ireland which had far fewer negative LL policies. LL have deserted the sector and refuse to return despite the Irish Govt desperately trying to entice LL to return. The LL aren't having any of it and consequently there is a massive homeless problem in Ireland. Belatedly the Irish Govt has realised that it's anti-LL agenda was very stupid. But the damage has been done. It will take a generation before LL return in the numbers they once were. Industry memories will have to fade before the Irish PRS revives. LL simply aren't strong enough to resist bonkers Govt policies. Us leveraged LL are in very parlous positions and simply cannot risk doing anything that would compromise our ability to service our mortgages. If this means even more onerous policies then so be it. It maybe that because of them that LL ultimately respond by selling up. Personally I do not have the defensive capital to pay mortgages without rent receipts. That makes me very vulnerable so perhaps you can appreciate my cowardice. I'd far rather be a timid LL and be gone in 4 years time voluntarily rather than being bankrupted in a couple of years time because of my assertiveness. Survival is all I am interested in long enough to escape the PRS. I therefore don't wish to do anything that might upset the proverbial applecart. I don't intend to be a martyr for anyone. I'd much prefer to be an ex-AST BTL LL who successfully sold up and was doing other things. I aspire to become a lodger LL even though I consider this nay be an unrealistic aspiration for some time if ever. But I certainly don't wish to remain an AST BTL LL and there is no way I can practically incorporate nor could I ever be an unencumbered LL. Getting out of the PRS is my preferred option. CV19 has just delayed this process but hey that's life!! .

From: Paul Barrett 12 May 2020 01:24 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 11 May 2020 20:23 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 08 May 2020 10:08 AM

Paul Barrett
I love the idea that Govt believes that LL and tenants should work together to resolve arrears. So how come before this CV19 issue tenants were causing LL £9 billion in losses per year mostly caused by rent defaulting!? Not much sign of tenants working with LL to resolve rent arrears there! So why would tenants all of a sudden be motivated to work with their LL to resolve rent arrears? Govt knows only too well that rent defaulting tenants will NEVER pay their rent arrears. It also is fully aware that removing a rent defaulting tenant doesn't take 3 months to occur. Very few rent defaulting tenants ever vacate at the expiry of a S21. They all wait many months before a bailiff evicts them. It will take many; many, many, many MORE months to achieve that eviction. There will be mass rent defaulting and such rent defaulting tenants will seize upon the opportunity to live for free. With the Court delays etc it could easily take 2 years to evict. That is if even S21 is still around!! Nope LL must expect massive losses. Will be interesting to see what the HMRC response will be to LL subject to S24 and who can't pay S24 taxes. Fictitious income which is being taxed can hardly be paid with fictitious rental income if the tenant rent defaults. If the LL doesn't have any savings how are S24 taxes supposed to be paid?? Unlike the Govt LL don't have access to magic money trees!! I can see HMRC making lots of S24 LL bankrupt due to their inability to pay S24 taxes caused by tenant rent defaulting. If anything this mass tenant rent defaulting will expose how ludicrous the S24 tax policy is. But Govt won't abolish it. For Govt all these circumstances are just very useful coincidences for it to continue culling small LL from the PRS. Make NO mistake LL you are on your own! Plus what happens with LA management fees if no rent is coming in!? Do LA still expect payment!? With what!? So will LA sue LL who can't pay the monthly fee cos no rent is coming in? It is obvious that LA income will take a massive hit as well from mass tenant rent defaulting. Can't see many LA trying to sue LL. LL will just terminate contracts.

From: Paul Barrett 05 May 2020 19:28 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 04 May 2020 11:59 AM

Paul Barrett
@ lyndon baker Yep I think for your own wellbeing don't allow the likes of arsehole Shelter to wind you up. Shelter have cost good LL billions of pounds in losses. They will carry on causing such losses to LL. I'm afraid we LL need to accept that we will be losers. There really ISN'T any chance that we LL will beat the system. The system is destined to become even worse for LL. Unencumbered LL have a better chance of survival. But those leveraged LL have been shown by this CV19 crisis how risky their standard BTL business model is. Leveraged LL need to wakeup and realise the parlous position they are in. This CV19 has exposed how vulnerable mortgaged LL are. It surely can't be viable for leveraged LL to continue as before. It is highly UNLIKELY that society will stop attacking LL. As such we have to determine what level of risk we wish to run. BTL has finally and at last been exposed as a very risky business. It would be far preferable for all LL to pay off their BTL mortgages leaving all unencumbered rental properties. This would ensure that LL were forever financially resilient Yes it would mean mass tenant homelessness but that wouldn't be the fault of LL. LL being unencumbered would massively reduce the stress that being a BTL is. Of course it would massively reduce LA income. That would just be tough. LL need to consider their own position and sod everyone else. I believe it makes eminent financial sense for BTL LL to deleverage their properties by whatever means. There will be another pandemic. LL need to adopt the Boy Scout motto Be Prepared

From: Paul Barrett 25 April 2020 01:21 AM

Paul Barrett
Perhaps Shelter might like to campaign to get rid of of only rent defaulting tenants very quickly so as to ensure the LL could let to a tenant who while willing to pay rent is prevented from doing so by a completely dysfunctional eviction process. Of course if Shelter did support such timely removal of only defaulting tenants then that would mean most tenants who were being evicted would be able to be got rid of quickly. Not many tenants when faced with eviction carry on paying their rent!! Of course Shelter won't campaign for any such thing. They remain an organisation that actually causes homelessness for potentially good rent paying tenants who can't access properties where feckless rent defaulting tenants await to be evicted. How can it be right when it comes to rent defaulting that Govt effectively facilitates financial distress for LL!? We AREN'T talking about bits of shoplifting here! Rent defaulting is as much as robbing Sub-Post Office used to extract!! We have in effect legalised robbery. How much longer will LL be prepared to tolerate such circumstances!? I'm not which is why I will be leaving the PRS AST or AT sector. Lodgers will be my new business. There are very few rights that a lodger has especially a rent defaulting one! I feel sorry for all those aspirant good rent paying tenants. Unfortunately for you all the feckless ones have caused your potential LL to sell up. Now can I show you round my 4 bed house where I will rent a room to you for £550 pcm. Oh! You are a couple. Sorry you can occupy the property but you must pay for a room each. Can't breach the 4 occupier rule otherwise Mandatory HMO licensing will be required and that simply isn't viable. Of course while each of you will be paying for your individual lodger rooms I have no objection if you wish to spend lots of time in the other person's bedroom. But at no time may there be more than 4 occupiers. Of course an occasional guest may stay as long as I am informed. Lodgers the new form of tenure. No good for families of course but should be good news for singles.

From: Paul Barrett 24 April 2020 15:36 PM

Paul Barrett
Few LL are aware of how they are very effectively co-opted by Govt as free accommodation This is essentially facilitated by the dysfunctional eviction process. It is this dysfunctional eviction process which essentially enforces such FREE accommodation. Few LL have any appreciation that they are entering into an industry which effectively forces them to provide free accommodation when tenants for WHATEVER reason stop paying rent. I can't think of any other commercial enterprise in the UK that would have a sustainable business model if it was forced by legal process to effectively give away goods and services for months on end with no real recourse for civil recovery. Unfortunately for LL Govt knows that the voting electorate has no concerns about LL losing money or not being paid for services. It is this fundamental unfairness that all LL labour under. Providing LL are aware of the manifest unfairness of these circumstances then entering the PRS is done willingly. It is my contention that very few LL are aware that Govt seeks to use their assets for effectively free social housing until the LL could evict. If LL were aware I contend there would be substantially fewer LL with far fewer rental properties. But unless the eviction process is substantially enhanced LL must appreciate that their assets will be used as FREE accommodation. If LL can't afford to be de-facto free social housing for up to 2 years then they really shouldn't risk being LL. Obviously RGI where possible can greatly assist LL to receive rent where a tenant refuses to pay before eventually being evicted. Trouble is very few tenants or their guarantors can qualify for RGI Being a LL especially a leveraged one is a VERY risky business. The CV19 issue has highlighted this situation. I believe many LL will be taking stock of their circumstances and reduce their exposure to rental property risk. This must result in their eventually being far fewer rental properties especially those that are leveraged. Many LL could reduce their exposure to rent default risk and still be as profitable. Unfortunately for tenants they will face a much reduced rental stock to choose from. But of course this will have been caused in large part by Govt refusal to allow LL to get rid of rent defaulting tenants quickly. It is also scheduled by Govt to make things even more difficult to get rid of such rent defaulting tenants by abolishing the AST and S21 with a possibility of also requiring pre-action protocols required in the social sector to be required in the private sector. You have to be a very brave person to become a LL and to ensure you have vast cash reserves to lose as a consequence of rent defaulting tenants. Without those reserves many LL face bankruptcy. So much for rich LL!!!!

From: Paul Barrett 20 April 2020 18:38 PM

Paul Barrett
@mark wilson Yep I fully accept everything you state about business risk. However LL are the ONLY business that is FORCED BY LAW into provide FREE accommodation. Of course LA are as much a victim of these circumstances as well. LA depend on LL for their survival. Of course most LL appreciate the risks they are running but the way they carry on you wouldn't think so!! I have always considered being a leveraged LL is a very risky business. It is very easy to be glib and state that any business could face disruption to it's business model and plan accordingly. If that was a common response very few businesses would start up!! It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to plan for all future eventualities Nobody could have predicted S24. Politically it will never be done but being a LL would be far less risky if you could boot out a feckless waster rent defaulting tenant without any Court action required after 2 months rent default. That means with Police assistance if necessary the tenant is removed by the LL or LA from the property on the 2nd day of the 2nd month as 2 months of rent default will have occurred. That would save £9 billion in losses for LL and would also mean the tax take from LL would increase. Lost tax on £9 billion is quite a lot!!! I am unsure as to whether many LL do truly understand the business risk of the current dysfunctional eviction process. I know when I started out I didn't even know what a S21 or S8 was!!!!!!! I thought you just invested in a property and let it out to rent paying tenants.........................................Doh!!!!! Soon learned the errors in my understanding!!! At such a cost that I will NEVER make a profit as long as I live!!! So I am getting out of the AST letting sector mindful of everything you have stated. Feckless tenants and the current dysfunctional eviction process can seriously damage the finances of LL. Something I only appreciated in later years. Better late than never I suppose!! I believe there will be a flight to quality tenants. I certainly won't even be considering anyone in the hospitality industry. Only those who are guaranteed to receive their full wages if another similar CV19 crisis hits will be considered. It even makes feckless DSS tenants a better prospect that normal hard working people. Such FECKLESS wasters are guaranteed to receive their full WELFARE wages!!! Work or no work!

From: Paul Barrett 07 April 2020 17:34 PM

Paul Barrett
As LL are being stuffed by FECKLESS non-rent paying tenants LL might as well issue mass S21's. They aren't going to be paid the defaulted rent so might as well just accept this will occur and start the eviction process as no tenant will do the honourable thing and give NTQ if unable to pay rent Or at least offer to the LL NTQ. LL can then determine what they might wish to do; whether to accept or not. It is clear from this CV19 crisis that there are millions of feckless tenants. It seems hardly any tenants have built up financial resilience and are now poncing off the LL finances. Surely it WASN'T beyond the intelligence of these thick feckless tenants that they may need resources over and above their normal incomes should it ever be required if they wished. Their income was clearly never guaranteed unless they are in Govt or Council jobs. So why haven't these feckless tenants made provision for such circumstances!!?? Of course these feckless tenants know they can take advantage of effectively free accommodation as the referencing system is so useless and Civil Recovery impossible as Govt won't let LL know where their absconding feckless rent defaulting tenants have gone. Consequently these feckless tenants will be able to source other rental property of which there will be lots more coming to market as a consequence of the collapse in the short-term lettings market. LL have little alternative than to return to the AST lettings market where many will be clobbered by S24 which could well bankrupt them!! Many LL are now between a rock and a hard place. LL will receive NO financial assistance from Govt. Govt actions have ensured that LL will be victims of feckless tenants. Tenants know that they can stop paying rent now and it will then take over a year to ultimately evict them. These feckless tenants will then move to the next mug LL who won't carry out full DD so desperate will they be to have their properties tenanted. LL will be losing billions over and and above the £9 billion that tenants already cost LL annually; mostly in defaulted rent. Of course there must surely be a knock-on effect on LA. I can see many LA having to shut down or amalgamate to survive

From: Paul Barrett 07 April 2020 14:28 PM

Paul Barrett
Though I utterly regret saying this as it goes against everything I believe that tenants should do. But you need to advise the LA that as of now you will NOT be paying anymore rent and you will only vacate when removed by a court bailiff. It is highly unlikely that civil recovery will ever be made from you. You will easily be able to source a new tenancy as referencing is so poor that you will be able to make any old rubbish up as to where you were previously. LL simply don't bother with CCJ as they they aren't worth wasting even more money on one. It will take about 1 year to evict you. During this time save the rent you would ordinarily have paid. Retain this in cash away from prying eyes. Should you ever be faced with a CCJ then you will have the saved rent resources to settle the CCJ. The other point regarding your medical status is that as long as you are paying rent who cares what your medical status is!? As a LL my only concern about a tenant is their ability to pay rent. You aren't dead yet so why would the LL wish to get rid of model tenants as you say that are meeting their contractual rent obligations!? I think this LA is taking instruction from an idiot LL. Most LL are pretty thick and don't understand normal things. They tend to be kneejerk paranoia type of people. I'd love to have you as tenants. No requirement to work to qualify for full welfare carrying on for as long as you are alive. For me that make you a very sound business proposition. That might sound mercenary and it is cos I'm a LL only interested in receiving the contractual rent. This you seem capable of doing so why this idiot LL would wish to get rid of you beats me!!

From: Paul Barrett 04 April 2020 12:07 PM

Paul Barrett
@jeremeyclarke Yes That is what I was getting at. RGI is wonderful for LL who can achieve it on their tenants. Trouble is as you intimate very few tenants can achieve such RGI qualification and therein lies the problem. No mug insurer will insure these type of tenants. The losses per claim can be many months of rent while eviction is processed. With S21 going that could take two years. In my case it would have bern a £24000 payout for a two year eviction. No way will the County Court system be able to cope with all the S8 evictions which used to be managed via S21. I'm afraid RGI is only for those rare tenants who are creditworthy and earn sufficient to meet RGI criteria. Such tenants if ever sourced should be hung onto by the LL for dear life!!! I'd even go so far as to suggest that a rent reduction should be applied if the tenant qualifies for RGI. Such a rare beast is worthwhile mollycoddling!!! I know RGI is a great method of not being that concerned about rent default. It is still a pain to claim on like any insurance really. But it leaves a very nice feeling to know the tenant effectively never ripped you off for rent. Mind you they might have trashed the place BUT the correct RGI policy will cover rent while the property is repaired. But for most LL RGI is a distant dream so dysfunctional are most tenants; i.e. they don't earn enough etc! I was hoping the Tenant Passport concept would gain traction but apparently there is some debate as to whether this would breach the TFA. I think 99home are working on the concept. It would be great for tenants and LL alike if a Tenant Referencing Passport was allowed paid for by the tenant. If it qualified the tenant for RGI then LL could specify only those tenants that qualify for RGI. That would give the better tenants first dibs. It might also encourage tenants to behave such that they might qualify for RGI. In an ideal world I would only consider tenants who qualify for RGI. Only ever found one in 10 years!!

From: Paul Barrett 18 March 2020 11:02 AM

Paul Barrett
Totally and utterly disagree!! If you haven't paid the FULL CONTRACTUALLY DUE RENT by the end of the 1st day of the 2nd rental month then a LL should be perfectly entitled to remove a tenant and all belongings throwing them on the street if necessary if the tenant has failed to vacate and remove their belongings. Police assistance for the LL to prevent a breach of the peace should be used. In Australia police remove tenants 14 days after first rent default Consequently most rent defaulting tenants are long gone by the time the LL turns up to remove them...............................funny that! Almost as though the tenant is behaving correctly by vacating as they are no longer prepared for WHATEVER reasons to pay due rent. I wonder if such an EXCELLENT eviction policy would work in the UK!!?? Perhaps many more LL would be prepared to let to those who are currently unable to source a LL who will take them on as they won't currently for all the obvious reasons. Perhaps Councils would ensure LL were paid rent that the tenant may have squandered elsewhere. Councils would be desperate to prevent rent defaulters from turning up at their offices 1 month and 1 day after not paying their due rent. Perhaps the Treasury would notice an uplift in LL tax receipts as LL wouldn't be subject to the average £9 billion of losses caused in most part by rent defaulting tenants. Perhaps such timely removal of wrongun tenants will induce a change in tenant behaviour and therefore to behave in a ' tenant like manner' as prescribed by Lord Denning. Perhaps lenders and insurers would remove their prejudiced conditions against those on welfare if rent defaulters could be removed very quickly with NO Court action involved. Obviously if any LL professed that a tenant had rent defaulted and it was found this wasn't the case that LL to be prosecuted for wrongful eviction. Yep I can see very good reasons for arbitrarily throwing a rent defaulting tenant and possessions out on the street. Of course no way will the UK adopt the very practical Oz eviction strategy as it is far too sensible for the UK. So the UK PRS will continue to shrink ever more as the eviction process becomes ever more hassle resulting in even more homeless former tenants. Well done dopey UK Govt and Councils..................NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

From: Paul Barrett 21 January 2020 15:19 PM

Paul Barrett
How can Councils participate in fraud!? There are very few legitimate short term lettings that comply with Council; mortgage lender, insurer, freeholder, lease conditions. So how could councils charge business rates to what would be a criminal enterprise!!?? There is a massive failure in the PRS to recognize that mass fraud is occurring with different types of short term letting. It is a fact that many LA are complicit in tgese fraudulent short term lettings. I have many fraudster LL in my block letting to AirBnB when it is specifically stated in the lease that only AST lettings are permitted. The Managing Agents know this as I have grassed up those fraudster LL but still the MA refuse to do anything about the ongoing fraud. I invested in RESIDENTIAL property NOT a potential de facto hotel block!!! Now worse case scenario is a fire in one of these illegal AirBnB flats in my block. The block insurance would not cover the flat damage though it would probably cover losses to other flat occupants. Though taking it to the enth degree I wonder how block insurance would cover all other flat owner losses in the event of a total burnout!? It is a fact that block insurance doesn't cover loss of rent. It would be highly unlikely a tenant would bother continuing with a LL waiting for the flat to be repaired by block insurance even if housed by the insurance company. There is NOT one single block insurer in the UK that will pay for loss of rent whilst repairing a flat. It is illegal to have two building insurance policies on the same flat. Only LL with houses are able to have such rent loss insurance policies. Very few flat owning LL are aware of these issues Residential occupiers should be greatly concerned as to the risks to their investments by fraudster LL or other leaseholders. Of course there is also a significant issue where LL are oblivious that tenants are engaging in fraudulent short term lettings at their properties.

From: Paul Barrett 20 January 2020 19:35 PM

Paul Barrett
Excellent analysis of the situation particularly as regards HMO style accommodation. But what I can see occurring is overcrowding happening. Two or three generations living together. I've seen the tv history programmes about housing in the 50 and 60's where you had town houses with a family per floor!! Ended up becoming slums. But of course it was hidden as these tenants weren't on the streets. I believe Govt is missing a trick with lodgers. Govt should allow ALL lodger income to be tax free to encourage homeowners to let their spare rooms of which there are apparently millions. These vacant spare rooms are a wasting asset to the nation Announcing completely tax free lodger income would I believe galvanise homeowners into letting their spare rooms. Those who tend to have the majority of spare rooms tend to be of the older generation. As such many of them are asset rich and cash poor. Having tax free lodger income would be a boost in income for the many probable pensioners rattling around in these large houses with empty rooms. I'm sure many who are currently extremely reluctant to take in strangers into their homes would be incentivised by the lure of tax free income! After all how many lodger LL actually declare any lodger rent in excess of the current £7500 Room for Rent Allowance!? I never have and never will. Mind you I have never received more than the RFRA amount but if I did no way would anyone know least of all HMRC So I don't know why Govt just accepts that the RFRA is routinely evaded and abolish it with ALL lodger income tax free. It would even be worthwhile homeowners expanding their resi properties. A loft extension with en-suite could be paid by a lodger income in about 4 years. Plus by encouraging this sort of letting the existing housing stock is far better used and of course all that building work would generate lots or economic activity! Got to be good for everyone. Mortgage lenders would love it with homeowners investing in their properties increasing the value of the properties.

From: Paul Barrett 04 January 2020 11:09 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 04 January 2020 08:58 AM

Paul Barrett
GR should no longer be pandered to. They are and always were a London Centric electoral demographic. As such they can now be safely ignored. They have been an electoral clique along with Central London. This demographic has been lost to the Tories. They won't be recovered. The future Tory electoral base lies in the North. A blue wall has now been created and needs to be maintained. It is far easier for people to buy Northern property. It is pointless wasting scarce funds on assisting GR to buy in the very expensive SE. Use such limited funding to assist those in the North. You'll get more Tory voting bang for your buck than waste it on a few self-entitled GR types who won't ever vote Tory as they are young and naive. Keep faith with the North and they will vote for you again. 100% mortgages have been talked about and this would be great for aspirant homeowners outside the SE. Even with 100% mortgages SE property would still be unaffordable so don't bother trying to make it affordable as that can never succeed. If S24 was explained to the very sensible Northern people they would rightly consider it a bonkers policy. They certainly don't want LL selling up. They want the best mixed form of housing tenure so there is maximum choice to suit all pockets and domestic requirements. Personally I would abolish the SDLT surcharge and possibly ALL SDLT Plus get rid of S24 and retain S21. But what I would do is only allow any new BTL or LTB mortgages to be no more than 50% LTV. Any existing mortgages may be retained on existing LTV but may not be increased beyond where it is now. That will reduce the amount of capital that could be spread around multiple rental properties. As an aspiration for the PRS I believe no more than 50% LTV would be wise. As for rent reduction only by reducing demand will rents potentially reduce. As it stands there are currently 1 in 5 non-British Nationals on Council House waiting lists. This is outrageous..All non-British Nationals should be removed from social housing and any Council housing waiting list. British citizens should have housing priority over foreigners irrespective of any alleged need by such foreigners. Substantial reduction in immigration is required to ease pressure on resources including housing. Building more housing obviously helps but reducing demand is the only realistic way of reducing rents. Hopefully with the new Border Controls that will be achieved.

From: Paul Barrett 16 December 2019 15:15 PM

Paul Barrett
As others have suggested more clueless ideas from the Tories. They clearly have no idea as to the business imperatives that the PRS is subject to. The mere idea that LL engage in non-fault evictions willy-nilly is for the birds. Clearly the Tory policy wonks have never had to endure the tortuous and very expensive Eviction process whether allegedly non-fault or otherwise. The process takes just as long!!!! No sane LL engaged in an eviction process without just cause. They know they will be losing bundles but evict to get rid of a miscreant tenant. S21 is also used to give NTQ just in case the tenant doesn't leave when they advise. This so at least the LL could start a PO process just in case the tenant doesn't vacate. Unless there is an equally effective process as S21 then more LL will sell up. Govt seems to believe it can force LL to remain invested with little control over their investment property. They will be soundly disabused of this idea as LL sell up or substantially reduce their property numbers. It is quite frightening as to how little Govt understands the PRS and what motivates LL to remain invested. The PRS has thrived precisely because of the control LL have been able to achieve. It seems Govt's of all persuasions fail to understand these basic concepts. They seem determined to proceed with these bonkers ideas Which is OK if you DON'T mind the PRS reverting to how it was in the 60 and 70's!! If LL are unable to effectively control their investments they will leave the AST market. They are already doing this such that it is impacting the availability of property for AST letting. So of course none of this assists tenants. Govt doesn't seem to understand any of this. I'm sure tenants WON'T thank Govt for the ever dwindling supply of rental properties!

From: Paul Barrett 21 November 2019 09:20 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 04 November 2019 08:46 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 01 November 2019 11:19 AM

Paul Barrett
There is the bonkers idea that LL buying properties for rent prevents others from buying. This is simply not the case. LL need large deposits to buy. Homebuyers DON'T. Most property purchasers use leverage to buy property. The leveraged LL is no more risk to the property market than homeowners. Indeed I would suggest homeowner leverage is far more risky than LL leverage who are mostly leveraged at no more than 75% Homeowners are at 95% A LL can have rent paid by HB if the tenant loses a job. Not so the homeowner. The ridiculous SDLT surcharge and S24 are irreparably damaging the PRS and domestic Residential market. LL are leaving and they won't be returning. Just look at the problems there are in Ireland as a consequence of the introduction of their stupid version of S24. LL are taking early retirement and cashing out. They won't be returning. Tenants are not buying former LL properties not are FTB. It is upsizers and downsizers that are doing the buying. Taxing LL on turnover is simply beyond the pale. It will never achieve its alleged objective of providing more homes for FTB to buy. There are more than enough properties to buy. Adding to that existing plentiful supply won't make FTB and tenants buy them. To make properties affordable you would need to see a collapse in prices of about 50% Never gonna happen!! Mind you unaffordability is only a SE issue. Plenty of affordable properties up North. But for obvious reasons nobody wants to live there. Hardly the fault of the mortgaged sole trader LL!!

From: Paul Barrett 26 October 2019 06:08 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 22 October 2019 13:29 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 19 October 2019 23:04 PM

Paul Barrett
@SI ICTB----- INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL TAX BANDING. I doubt with your particular circumstances you have anything to concern yourself with. The big risk is that the Council refer your property to the VOA who appear to be a law unto themselves liable to apply ICTB to any property with separate AST. Which is why if you keep below 5 occupiers you shouldn't pop up on the VOA radar. Licencable HMO are being targeted for ICTB. The rule is DON'T improve the facilities at your HMO due to the risk of ICTB being imposed Just a bedroom with an en-suite can result in the LL being clobbered for ICTB. Very risky. The VOA doesn't apply it's ICTB coherently across the country. So a LL with HMO en-suites will get clobbered in one part of the country and yet won't in another part. I was just raising a potential paranoid situation on my part that Councils would revalue every CT bill at any rental property where there was a shared property with individual AST. They might even try it for lodgers. My paranoia knows no bounds when it comes to greedy grasping councils who seek to screw every single penny they can out of the PRS even including homeowners with lodgers!! I personally use different SIMs when speaking to the Council officers anonymously so that the number can never be ascribed to me when I do call identifying myself from my normal number. The VOA has no consistent policy which is why I wouldn't go anywhere near any Licencable HMO situation. I don't trust Councils one little bit which is why I am a bit paranoid about the risks of ICTB which could severely upset a rental business model!!

From: Paul Barrett 19 October 2019 15:57 PM

Paul Barrett
Oh! I totally agree with your sentiments. For some reason small independent LL especially those who trade in their own name using mortgages are seen as the devil incarnate. I maintain that there is room in the PRS for all types of offer. But the problem now is that the various offers are not being provisioned on a fair basis. S24 discriminates against mortgaged sole trader LL. There is no advantage to any particular type of LL. Their relevant offers all deserve a place in the PRS to provide as much choice for tenants. That is a Fred and open market and as such is the best way to provide what a private tenant might choose. Of course from a Govt perspective the sole trader LL is lot less easier to control. This is something they really don't like. Yet for over the past 20 years it has been the private rented sector consisting mostly if small independent traders that has provisioned and effectively housed millions of tenants who would otherwise be homeless as they certainly couldn't afford to buy or they would already have done so. In the absence of the ability of people to buy then Govt must facilitate rental accommodation. But by introducing S24 they are effectively attacking about 25% of the existing market provision. That is simply bonkers. Govt should be doing exactly the opposite to engage increased rental provision by all different types of provider. Discriminating against different types of providers is crazy. Tenants have the right to have made available to them a totally transparent PRS. With Govt effectively trying to eradicate the mortgaged sole trader LL this does no service for desperate tenants who cannot see 25% of rental supply disappear and yet that is what is slowly happening. I was discussing things with a B Sortford EA who advised me that in 2018 he sold 3 rental properties on behalf of LL. This year he has sold 23. None of them were sold to FTB or former or existing tenants. They were all sold to upsizers or downsizers mostly from London determining to cash in on the profits of the London property market. I have no problems with the brave new world of different form of private sector rental provision but not at the expense of the small independent provider. There is space in the market for all different types but there must be a level playing field for those providers to operate within. However it must be accepted that for many of these private providers they do not wish to let to those who qualify for HB. Consequently it is only the State that will be prepared to house people that private providers choose not to do business with. Unfortunately for the taxpayer this means Social Housing. Billions need to be spent to house these HB claimants LL simply AREN'T interested in housing HB tenants for a wide variety of reasons. Social Housing with social only rents provision needs to be massively increased and RTB should be banned unless at FULL market value with the sale proceeds being invested in other social housing. There is room in the PRS for all different types of provider but for obvious political reasons the small some trader LL is being eradicated by unfair and penal Govt tax policies. Free and fair competition is good for the end user consumer. This applies in the PRS as any other market. Govt seems to have lost all commonsense in trying to eradicate a vital part of the PRS. If all the mortgaged sole trader LL are eradicated those LL WON'T be replaced by other LL ofif any type. There would be millions of homeless tenants.

From: Paul Barrett 13 October 2019 20:08 PM

Paul Barrett
Luke P very interesting stuff you have quoted. But to 'professionalise' LL would need to be registered which effectively means a National LL licensing scheme which in principle I have no issue with providing the Licensing is FREE or very cheap. This should result in all other LL licensing schemes to be abolished. Registering the LL rather than per property owned. RSW already had this scheme in place but there are many thousands of LL who are NOT using LA who have failed to comply with the RSW regulations. For LL to 'professionalise' I believe a similar scheme that vocational transport drivers are required to have would be appropriate. So that would be something like 40 hrs of CPD training to be carried out once every 5 years. It should also be a requirement that before any property may be let out the LL will be required to undergo the 40 hrs of CPD training. If not then a LA may manage on behalf of the LL until the LL has achieved the CPD training. Such requirements could result in LA obtaining more business from LL who choose not to 'professionalise' which would be their prerogative though doing so they are hostages to fortune of LA who will know the LL isn't able to self-manage. I believe that before mortgage lenders lend for BTL or LTB they should require that the borrower has a LA who will be used to manage or has achieved the CPD training. There would be the problems of being accredited for LL until CPD training had been completed. But I believe as a general principle all those involved in the lettings industry should have taken part in some sort of formal training. The new NRLA should be perfectly capable of devising a CPD training package and delivering it which would garner considerable income for them. This would be great news. Potentially many LL would join the NRLA which would substantially increase the gravitas of the NRLA giving LL a far better lobbying voice. I know that personally had I been required to undergo CPD before I became a LL my investment business decisions would have substantially changed. But certainly some sort of professionalisation for LL should be required. Whether the political will is there for this to be achieved is another matter!

From: Paul Barrett 19 September 2019 12:56 PM

Paul Barrett
There can be no such thing as sensible across the board rent controls. Such controls simply aren't capable of coping with individual LL business dynamics. Let us return to 2015 prior to dopey Osborne announcing the S24 policy. Up til then things had been ticking along OK in the PRS. Rents were set at reasonable market rates. Since 2015 there have been a flurry of bonkers anti-LL policies that has led to LL having to increase rents substantially or selling up. Rent controls would not take account of these business dynamics. Every LL will be affected different ways and would need to manage their individual property circumstances. I'm afraid rents are as they are due to market forces. It would be politically unacceptable but if there was a real desire to lower rents there would be immediate closure of the borders. Repatriation of the 2 million illegal immigrants. Removal of EU migrants who haven't been in the UK for at least 5 years. Removing the 400000 EU migrants currently occupying social housing to be replaced by sole British Nationals. An immediate buyback at market prices of about 2 million private properties for social housing use along with building 1 million social homes over the next 5 years. Plus abolishing all the recent bonkers policies introduced since 2015. NONE of this will EVER happen. It would if I was running things! Indeed the cost burdens on LL are likely to further increase as even more bonkers policies are introduced like abolishing S21. There is simply no way that rent controls could be adjusted to cope with all the detrimental effects on LL which would be slightly different for every LL. Rent controls if introduced will simply speed up the selling up process resulting in an ever declining PRS. That would mean even more homeless. We are talking millions NOT thousands!! It would also result in a massive reduction in tax receipts as inevitably LL will evade rent controls by managing properties themselves which would massively hit LA businesses. A LA can hardly go around collecting brown envelopes of cash for the real rents on behalf of LL clients! Only LL will be able to do this. Very few LL could survive on controlled rents. The last time this was tried most of the LL sold up. This resulted in the rise of Rachman. We really do not wish to return to those days!!

From: Paul Barrett 17 September 2019 09:39 AM

Paul Barrett
Many LL will refuse to pay higher LA charges. They are under enough other cost pressures that are barely being met by rent increases. Where LL are able to they will self-manage. There must surely be a competitive advantage for self-managing LL over those who remain with LA full. management. Such self-managing LL will presumably have lower costs if not using a LA. It will be found by many LL that if they wish to achieve net income from their properties they will have to get their hands dirty. The days of passive income with a LA managing everything are over. LA charges are a significant cost for LL and removing such costs can easily be the difference between viability or not. I predict many LL terminating their LA contracts. Obviously all this is a challenge for LA especially as those self-managing LL not using LA will have cheaper rents than those with LA. This cost burden must surely start to affect where LL choose to invest or retain properties. Investing no more than say 1 hrs drive away will perhaps mean LL are more able to self-manage. Inevitably this will mean fewer properties being retained and a retrenching of investment in properties nearer to where the LL lives. There will to some extent be a large repatriation of capital from the North to the South where much of the PRS investment capital comes from. Not sure how this will assist the poorer Northern tenants with rental stock being sold off. Tenant fees have to some extent suppressed rents. This inevitably now must change as it seems most LA are simply passing on the cost to LL. This simply ISN'T a viable solution as LA will find when LL start terminating contracts.

From: Paul Barrett 16 September 2019 09:50 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 09 September 2019 22:20 PM

Paul Barrett
Really!! Are you seriously that ignorant!? Your naivety simply beggars belief!! Where to start!? There are no residential mortgage lenders as far as I am aware that permit AirBnB lettings. Most lenders do permit LODGERS usually no more than two. So AirBnB is in breach of mortgage conditions which is fraud as the mortgage was taken out on the basis of Residential occupancy and the mortgage product priced accordingly. Then we have fraudulent insurance. I know of NO Residential insurer that permits AirBnB letting. Any homeowner with a residential mortgage is required to be correctly insured. With any AirBnB occupant the homeowner will again be committing fraud as he will not have valid insurance. It is a condition of a residential mortgage that the homeowner has valid insurance. Next we have those with leasehold properties. I know of no Freeholder that permits short term letting like AirBnB. Therefore any such usage is breach of the lease. The freeholder would be legally entitled to call in the lease. Then of course there is the situation where the Freeholder block insurance would not cover damage caused by AirBnB occupants which again would be breach of any mortgage conditions even if a BTL mortgage. BTL mortgages have conditions requiring occupancy by tenants on an AST usually of no more than 1 year in length. Next we have a planning fraud as AirBnB is a business and Councils require planning permission to change use from a residential to a commercial use. Such planning if granted would be breach of Residential mortgage conditions. Then Council tax would need to change to business rates.. Again breach of Residential mortgage and BTL mortgage conditions. So as you can see there are literally very few circumstances where AirBnB would be legal. So my contention remains that most of AirBnB is fraudulent.

From: Paul Barrett 05 September 2019 20:42 PM

Paul Barrett
The LA game is a declining industry. There will be far fewer players and far fewer LL. LL simply won't be prepared to pay what LA may need to remain viable. With increasing costs for LL they need to reduce costs to remain profitable. Dumping the LA is the first cost that could be reasonably dumped by LL. There are now many cheap or even zero cost ways of sourcing tenants. For LA the only way to survive is to have far more properties under management but with the same numbers of staff. Many LA are simply not proficient enough to survive the loss of tenant fees and will struggle to convince LL to pay additional charges to cover for loss of such tenant fees. So there needs to be a vast consolidation of LA. It is pointless LA trying to squeeze LL for more now that vast numbers of them are up against the bonkers S24 policy. But actually all this could be a good thing as far as the remaining LA are concerned. They will become far more professional and will have the security of scale to keep them viable. The days of the small LA are numbered. Not their fault of course but the sheer weight of regulation etc coming to LA is too much to ask of the small-timer. In a town you really only need one LA with one office. They will have an online presence with the office for those who wish to have face to face interaction. LA will need to change their ways of doing things or they will find thenselves out of business or being taken over. This of course must be all very galling for the small LA who has built up a successful business. A bit like mortgaged sole trader LL have done. Well those LL have been hit by the bonkers S24 and now LA with the TFA which is effectively their version of S24. Both polices are bonkers but we are as LA and LL all in the same boat as victims of totally ridiculous Govt policies. Many LL are being put out of business by S24 and the same will happen to LA. Effectively LA are victims of the TFA and S24 as LL are terminating contracts as they leave the PRS or decide to self-manage to reduce costs to cope with S24. There is on the near horizon another massive threat to LL and LA alike..................................RENT CONTROLS!!!!!!! IF they occur expext a mass exodus of LL from LA to becoming self-managing LL. There will be a massive black market and LA can hardly be expected to collect more than the controlled rent!! For LL this won't be a problem. No problem collecting the real rent in cash from the tenant above the capped rent level. If Labour get in expect RENT CONTROLS to be introduced effectively overnight. Which is why with such threats I am converting to lodgers. No more AST lettings for me!!!

From: Paul Barrett 26 August 2019 20:31 PM

Paul Barrett
Rubbish BTL hasn't distorted anything!! Properties purchased by LL could equally have been purchased by potential homebuyers but for many reasons they didn't do so. That is NOT the fault of LL who did come up with the resources to buy properties. I well remember back in 2007 purchasing new-build properties. There remain at least 10 remaining unsold. So desperate were the developers to sell that they sold all of them at a massive discount to the onsite HA. Nobody was preventing the properties being bought by homeowners who for whatever reasons failed to buy the properties.........................funny that!!? So lets dispense with the Govt propaganda that you are repeating that LL prevent others from buying. The UK property market is open to all. It all depends on resources. Those who become LL have usually worked very hard to obtain the very large deposits that BTL lenders require. Homeowners do not require large deposits to buy. There are more than enough properties to purchase. LL buying property don't prevent anyone else buying the many other properties that are for sale. LL have no more engaged in property speculation than homebuyers. What anyone chooses to do with a property once purchased is up to them. Property is like any other commodity. I speculated on buying my residential properties. I always reckoned I would make a PROFIT or speculation as you might term it!!! BTR by the way will NEVER replace the private LL. The business model for a start is extremely vulnerable to any looney Govt or Mayor introducing rent controls. Govt simply has to appreciate that the capital of millions of private citizens is required to be invested in housing stock to ensure millions of people have somewhere to live. Govt in trying to prevent and eradicate such private citizens from investing in rental properties has yet to explain where all the millions of homeless tenants are supposed to live when all the private LL have gone!!!! Any ideas!?

From: Paul Barrett 14 August 2019 16:02 PM

Paul Barrett
Unfortunately thorough referencing while ideal may not result in finding tenants who can qualify for RGI. It is simply a fact that very few tenants are able to qualify for RGI and therefore the LL is forced to take as an informed gamble as they can. The vast majority of tenants are of very low quality as far as referencing is concerned. This makes being a LL with a mortgage a very risky business. With S21 being abolished this becomes even more so. If you factor in RGI to the possession process then you are easily looking at 10 months for eviction and that is using the current supposed quick S21 process!!! The reason for the longer period is that most RGI claims don't have to be submitted for 90 days. The reason for this is obvious. The RGI companies hope that rent arrears will be resolved so that no claim is made. I waited until the 85th day before I made a RGI claim as the tenant kept promising to pay. I did warn them that once I made the RGI claim they would be evicted. So giving the tenant the opportunity to recover rent arrears 10 months for eviction is easily achieved!! That means for at least 5 months the LL has to find the monies to service a mortgage. All insurance claims take time!! Even RGI when it is critical to be paid. RGI is more of a cashflow issue. So for every mortgaged property with RGI on it a LL would need at least 5 months of mortgage payments. That is obviously on the basis that in extremis all mortgaged properties rent default at the same time and RGI is available on each of them. Now imagine the situation where very few mortgaged BTL properties are capable of achieving RGI on the tenants and you can see the massive business risk that mortgaged LL are running. Indeed LL suffer losses of over £9 billion per year most of it due to rent default. This is something that is rarely discussed. But as a general principle can it be right that so much rent defaulting is facilitated by the current system.. Surely tenants should be able to be removed by the LL without any court action the day after the 2nd month of rent default!? That would be 1 month and one day where rent is paid in advance which is the case for most tenancies. But Govt effectively conspires against LL with a currently dysfunctional eviction process such that LL suffer massive losses which can only very rarely be covered by RGI where achievable on tenants or their possible guarantors. The facts are that the PRS comprises of very low quality tenants which occasions massive business risks for a LL. I don't believe the vast majority of mortgaged LL appreciate how much risk they are running by taking on tenants who can't qualify for RGI. Taking on low quality tenants is OK if as LL there is no mortgage to pay. Then all you lose is income which is still a bummer but won't usually bankrupt you which could easily happen with a mortgaged LL. S21 is far and away the process the LL use to get rid of rent defaulting tenants. I've had to evict 5 and it never happened in 2 months from my issuing the S21 notice!!!

From: Paul Barrett 12 August 2019 11:32 AM

Paul Barrett
Easy response is to reduce sharers to 4. However a guest may be permitted under certain circumstances. That means the guest can have no connection with the address. Now it maybe that the 'guest' happens to be the same person as the Fifth sharer. It maybe that the 'guest' chooses to pay the other sharers for the guest facilities. Obviously the LL will permit guests which do not have to be in a HMO Licence size room. So a new AST will be required with the former sharer having to sign a surrender document. I believe there are other types of occupant which would mean a property is not an Mandatory Licensed HMO if there are 5 or more occupiers. Now if the former Fifth tenant doesn't want to play the game then they will have to permanently vacate and not even stay as a guest. The LL would just have to increase the rent by Fourth for the existing tenants which may be done when the new AST is produced. With many of the new Mandatory HMO compliant properties failing to meet the new regulations it won't be easy for the tenants to move to another shared property. There have been very few 4 bed HMO so it will just mean the non-compliant fifth bedroom can't be used so tenants will be effectively paying for its non-use. It will mean a rent increase for each of the remaining 4 occupiers of about £150pcm! I'm sure the remaining tenants will be delighted to be paying for an empty room which used to be let saving them £150pcm each in rent!! Very few LL would be prepared to accept the same rent each from 4 occupiers with no rent from a now absent Fifth occupier. The viability of many of these properties will be called into question. It should be the case that only self-managing LL might chance it as I'm sure no LA would let a property when it should have an HMO licence and actually DOESN'T!!!?

From: Paul Barrett 25 July 2019 09:21 AM

Paul Barrett
It might seem counter-intuitive but the easier Govt makes it for LL to manage their businesses the more LL will choose to stay in the market providing those vitally needed accommodation services. It is only because Govt is making it harder for LL that many are choosing to leave the market or not bother with becoming a LL. I have always said that the easier it is made to get rid of miscreant tenants the more likely it is that LL would be prepared to countenance risking letting to more difficult tenants many of whom are languishing in very expensive TA. Govt by it's very attempts to give tenants security actually introduces INSECURITY!! LL will NOT allow themselves to be controlled by Govt as some sort of quasi social housing providers. I would question as to whether tenants would vote Tory if it is realised that Govt actions to introduce security for tenants actually achieve the opposite!! Reduced availability of rental stock hardly gives the security that tenants allegedly crave. The best security that may be provided by LL for tenants is that which encourages market rents and facilitates near enough complete control by the LL of his rental properties. Those are massive incentives for LL to remain in the market which de facto gives tenants security that there are rental properties available. It is pointless having rent controlled secure properties if there are no LL to provide such!! The whole exercise becomes somewhat pointless! I do believe that the PTB and tenants have a mistaken perception that LL will continue to be LL come what may. I do believe that gradually this perception is being recognised as a false one. But it will be too late before everyone realises this. As happened in Ireland the LL left and now there is a massive homelessness problem. The Irish Govt is now desperately trying to persuade LL to return. Understandably many LL simply don't want to play anymore. Many have effectively taken early retirement and show no signs of being willing to be coaxed out of that retirement. With the age demographics of UK LL this is what is happening here. Many LL were 5 to 10 years away from exiting the PRS. They have just brought forward those plans earlier than they might. They don't see things improving in the next 10 years so not unreasonably they are determining that enough is enough and are getting out while the going is reasonably good. Not good news for tenant security at all!!!

From: Paul Barrett 13 July 2019 10:00 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 11 July 2019 17:25 PM

Paul Barrett
Perhaps we should be using the services of private detectives!!!?? With effective FREE referencing for every Johnny come lately it seems the doors have been opened for anyone to game the system to obtain a tenancy. All a fraudster has to do is pay the deposit and 1st month's rent and then not pay anything. Wait to be evicted could be an extra 8 months of free accommodation!!! Courtesy of the poor old LL!! Do that 3 times and a fraudster tenant could have saved enough for a deposit on a house purchase!!! The world has gone crazy. There will be a lot more nightmare tenants than slum LL in the coming years. Personally I will be using LRS who offer the facility of sending a checkmyfile link to a tenant prospect to enable them to send the full reports from all 3 CRA to the LL. As this is free there is no fee ban to consider. I would suggest that at least 75% of tenant applicants won't bother sending their Credit reports to the LL. So that will be an ideal filter for LL. Any who do send their reports can be whittled down by the LL to leave most likely bona fide tenant applicants who can then be subjected to more intense referencing by LRS. £40 per tenant apparently. Use LRS referencing and if RGI qualification occurs that costs £150 for an annual policy for up to £50000 including legal costs. Of course there are other referencing operations out there. But they only check soft searches not hard credit searches. Only banks and the consumer themselves can see hard credit searches. Of course with the tenant applicant sending the free credit reports to the LL email address for free will give lots of valuable information..Very few few fraudsters are able to construct false credit profiles. This is what I will do in future. I simply cannot afford to pay for referencing for every Johnny come lately..So I will have to become more selective. This inevitably means without a valid passport I will reject a lot of tenants. My advice to tenants would be to obtain a passport and Register for accounts with the 3 CRA. These are Credit karma Clearscore MSE Credit Club. You can register with the CRA directly which are TransUnion Experian Equifax. Everyone should access their free credit reports. It costs nothing and you never know when you might want your credit files to be correct. Before any credit application or other usage of credit file information ensure the details are correct even if detrimental. You only want to be assessed on CORRECT information!!!

From: Paul Barrett 11 July 2019 08:40 AM

Paul Barrett
Yes I get there is a lot of sophisticated fakery out there and with the TFA LL are now disincentivised to carry out thorough referencing due to the cost. No LL can afford to pay for multiple exhaustive referencing for every Johnny come lately tenant applicant. I do not see why the Tenant Referencing Passport system cannot be used to produce effective referencing. However there is some uncertainty as to whether it is possible for a LL to advise a tenant prospect that UNLESS they provide their TRP to the LL they will not be considered. This is NOT the LL requiring a tenant prospect to obtain their TRP at their cost as the LL is perfectly entitled to state that they are NOT prepared to pay for a tenant prospect to be referenced but that if they do show a TRP to a LL then that LL will CONSIDER them!! LRS are running scared currently and have withdrawn their highly effective TRP product. They are attempting to find out from the PTB whether a TRP purchased by a tenant prospect to be in with a chance of being considered by a LL is breach of the TFA. The TRP methodology is a highly effective form of referencing. A tenant should only need to purchase one TRP valid for 3 months to then be able to approach multiple LA and LL with their one TRP. If the the TRP is that good it might even qualify the tenant prospect for RGI. Without a TRP facility many tenant prospects will struggle to even be considered by LL. Preliminary enquiries will result in many tenants being rejected whereas an effective TRP paid for by the tenant could well encourage a LL to take that tenant on. As it stands currently LL are going to be increasingly selective so as to avoid taking on a wrongun tenant of which there are millions!!! Personally I would like to see a State run TRP service like a driving licence. If you want to rent you get a TRP from the State. Cost would be about £100. But that would be it!! A lot cheaper than tenant fees used to be. You need a Passport to leave the country why not a passport to be able to rent if the LL chooses you!? It would also solve the problems if R2R as it would be the State determining the status of the tenant. It would also ensure that the State would be able to provide certainty as to many tenant's status so that a Windrush issue doesn't occur again!

From: Paul Barrett 05 July 2019 21:17 PM

Paul Barrett
Income tax would be about £6 billion per year. The reason it ISN'T.........................the PRS suffers losses of about £9 billion per year. Such losses are offset against income causing a lower profit amount to be taxed. The majority of the losses are caused by rent defaulting tenants. The way to generate more tax is to change the eviction process in cases of rent default only so that rent defaulting tenants maybe evicted by the LL with police assistance without recourse to any court action. This to occur after two month's rent default. This means after 1 month and one day where rent is paid in advance monthly. Such a situation would enable a LL to quickly relet and of course generate taxable rent receipts Govt must realise that the current eviction process is costing the Treasury £billions in tax. The question needs to be asked. Should the taxpayer essentially support feckless tenants in their rent defaulting? Which currently the Govt is by the mere fact of the dysfunctional eviction process. Surely no Govt should be supporting a process which facilitates massive losses to LL and the Treasury!!! The eviction process only needs to be amended in rent defaulting cases. It is Govt which is causing the massive losses to the Treasury. LL would be highly delighted in having more tax to pay on rental income as it would mean substantial reduction in rent defaulting losses Wonder if Dopey Govt will be able to join the dots to see how more tax could be achieved from LL. Somehow I doubt it!

From: Paul Barrett 03 July 2019 12:53 PM

Paul Barrett
The 'hostile environment' is ENTIRELY appropriate. Unfortunately the way it is managed has been substantially inappropriate. It should be Govt Agencies managing the borders. Trained professionals not untrained LL should determine who has the R2R. The 'hostile environment' for illegal immigrants should be rigorously and thoroughly enforced. But it does tend to sweep up those that should not be subject to it. These are then left with no Govt support and can suffer greviously inappropriate treatment. That must be resolved. In the meantime Govt must be much more considered as to how it manages thing to avoid making mistakes like with the Windrush debacle. I have been advising my EU nationals they must obtain Settled Status documents. Most of them haven't a clue they are required. It is technically none of my business but I'm just trying to help them out as I will be selling up and they will struggle to source another rental property without the correct documentation if R2R is still in force. Nobody wants illegal immigration but Govt must provide support systems for those who accidentally are caught up in a system which sanctions them when it shouldn't. Passports should be made free. It is now a vital document even needed by British Nationals to rent in their own country. I see nothing wrong in there being allowed sponsors for some of the pages in a passport. Many large advertisers would love to be able to use a passport as an advertising medium. The State should attempt to provide a free passport for every citizen who qualifies. The citizen won't realise but it is an ID card by another name. Nothing wrong with that and at least the citizen gets a passport out of the whole situation. The passport being seen as the most bona fide of ID documents. So free UK passports please in black as per the original Card UK Passport. Doing this would substantially reduce the distress that an inappropriately imposed 'hostile environment' can cause. Govt must factor in assistance for when it goes wrong. Those needing it should be given every assistance to regularise their status even if it means the State pays for things because the citizens can't for whatever reason. We need to have British citizens assured of their status. Nothing says that more than a British passport.

From: Paul Barrett 25 June 2019 01:42 AM

Paul Barrett
Err!! How many LL would ignore any rent cap!?? I would be one of them So the capped rent would be paid in cash. Then I would at the same time collect in cash the extra rent to make a market rent . Fortunately I self manage as a LA would be unable to carry out what would be in effect criminal instructions. This would mean a substantial loss of business for LA as LL terminated management contracts to be able to collect cash rents. I will commit crime in obtaining my market rent. Few tenants will kick off as they know that only by paying a market rent will they achieve a tenancy. There will be NO receipts for the additional cash rent HMRC will be unable to detect those LL who obtain cash rent in excess of the controlled rent. Tenants and LL will deliberately enter into a conspiracy to defraud HMRC It will be to their mutual convenience that LL and tenants won't say a thing. Both will want to maintain a tenancy. The tenant will know that there is no way a LL will let at less than market rent. Govt simply doesn't have the capability to detect cash payments being made to LL. I predict many LL obtaining safes. I predict that many LL will start settling credit card bills etc with cash. I predict the tax take from the PRS plummeting I predict that many LL will reduce their alleged rents to below the 40% tax threshold to avoid S24 effects. I predict that few LL will be declaring many profits as they will only be receiving controlled rent!! In short it will be a disaster. Of course I was forgetting a collapse in BTL values as lenders will only be able to lend on the basis of controlled rent levels. There will be a knock on effect for residential values. Bank loan books will be substantially devalued resulting in a bank CC. Banks will require cash injections for portfolio LL to keep the LTV within agreed parameters. This will bankrupt many LL causing many evictions and consequent homeless tenants. Rent controls would destroy the business models of many mortgaged LL. Of course the cash rich LL won't be that fussed if they are in for the long term. Yes they would suffer a reduction in net rental income which whilst annoying won't bankrupt them. 50% of the PRS is comprised of cash rich and unmortgaged LL. Just wondering where the other 50% of tenants currently letting from mortgaged LL will stay!? Rent controls would be an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy as a whole. However to avoid all I have suggested I will be ensuring I am no longer an AST LL in about 3 years time A GE with Corbyn the winner would see rent controls introduced overnight. Good luck to all you LL who intend to stay the course.................I'm out of here!!!!

From: Paul Barrett 19 June 2019 11:34 AM

Paul Barrett
The only way to level the playing field is for ALL LL to be licensed. There are too many LL getting away with not observing regulatory requirements which is manifestly UNFAIR competition for LL who are diligent and do comply or try to comply with all legal letting requirements. For far too long good LL have been letting bad LL get away with it. There also needs to be licensing and qualifications etc for LA. Currently it is possible to walk out of Prison and set up as a LA the following day! This brings the whole LA sector into disrepute. There needs to be far fewer LA but they should be qualified and trained to do the job for much larger property portfolios. LA need to have a large number of properties under management if they are to provide a viable service. It is unreasonable to expect LA to do this without sufficient income to provide a viable service and an income for LA employees etc An effective and all encompassing LL licensing scheme would force many LL to become compliant and would see some leave the sector. This would ensure that tenants receive the effective service they deserve. Tenants deserve a professional service. With licensed LL LA would have far fewer problems with their LL clients. LL are getting away with things which ultimately causes Govt to dump on good LL. I would be perfectly happy to grass up all bad LL I know of. Trouble is it is very hard to find rogue LL. I only know about 2 LL in 10 years. It is just too easy to be a rogue LL which is why I believe licencing will at least be a start to making LL compliant with regulations.

From: Paul Barrett 17 June 2019 21:41 PM

Paul Barrett
Interesting case with regards to incompetence of DWP JC Tenant now 13 months in rent arrears. Tenant submitted HB application in Oct 2018 I submitted UC 47 in November 2018. Nothing heard. Tenant warned not to submit a third HB application. I eventually managed to have an email sent via a sympathetic DWP manager at a different office from where the HB claim has been submitted. Received a reply a few days ago. Now just get this to prove how useless and incompetent the Harlow JC are. Their manager has stated in an email that the reason the HB claim has been rejected was because there was no valid AST at the time of submitting the HB claim. So work this out. AST for 6 months signed on April 1st 2018. Two month's rent paid. Then no rent from June 2018. So AST was for 6 months expiring in September. As per the AST terms it proceeded onto a Statutory Periodic Tenancy. This was the AST the tenant used as part of his HB claim. Now this will really dumbfound you. The DWP Manager no less has stated via email that the HB was rejected as there was no FTT AST in place at the time of the application!!!! Now there is NO requirement to have a FTT in place when making a HB application. It would be somewhat strange for the DWP to expect a LL to issue a new AST for 6 months when the tenant was already 6 months in rent arrears!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have requested for an interview under caution with a DWP Fraud Investigator; not for me but for the fraud perpetrated on my tenant and I by the DWP Manager!!!! You really could not make it up. The Harlow JC do not seem to understand that an AST is valid until a tenant has signed a surrender letter along with the keys returned or has been evicted. This is basic stuff. How can they be so incompetent!? I have NEVER heard anything so ridiculous that unless a FTT is in place within the FT period that it is NOT a valid AST. Just beggars belief that we have these incompetents controlling our business. I have only ended up with a HB tenant because his role was made redundant He was on good wages etc Anyway the idiots have now replied that it will go to a Stage 1 complaint etc. As I know sweet FA about the new UC system I am instructing Caridon to sort things. I am simply amazed at the level of incompetence shown by the Harlow JC. Councils wonder why we don't want to take on their homeless!!!!!!?????

From: Paul Barrett 13 June 2019 00:55 AM

Paul Barrett
@Luke P Excellent post. Very effectively illiterates exactly why I REFUSE to ever take on HB tenants. It is not really the tenants themselves it is the pathetic system that allegedly serves them along with the pathetic eviction process. Govt doesn't seem minded at all to address all the very relevant issues you have so pertinently pointed out. Govt just doesn't seem to understand that LL do not need to take on HB tenants anymore. There are lots of far more profitable tenants out there not reliant on HB. I well remember Govt believing that by reducing LHA rates to the 30th percentile of the BMRA that this would cause rents to be cheaper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My rents are now DOUBLE the LHA rate so of course HB tenants will NEVER be able to afford my properties. Govt is seemingly Incapable of understanding that it cannot constrain a market with a political straitjacket!! So no surprise that homelessness is increasing and is only made not noticeable by Govt expending billions in DHP. LL etc know exactly what is going on but Govt has been allowed to get away with their political policy of the OBC and LHA freeze when in actuality it has been a completely failed policy. It would have been far cheaper to pay slightly more in market rents rather then the horrendous costs of TA to say nothing of the costs tangible and otherwise with the domestic upheaval of tenants having to vacate because their HB etc is insufficient to meet the LL requirement for a market rent. Of course Labour aren't saying much as they support S24 which is a major reason why LL are getting rid of HB tenants!! Smoke and mirrors!!

From: Paul Barrett 12 June 2019 20:11 PM

Paul Barrett
No more so than in any other business cycle. The sooner a No Deal BrExit occurs the better. This is what was voted for. It needs to be carried out ASAP. Forget economic effects they matter not. What will be will be. I have every confidence in the ability of the UK to thrive in world markets uninhibited by the protectionist EU. The sooner the UK starts on its sovereign journey the better. That is what was voted for and so it must occur. As regards migration it has been an unmitigated disaster. Millions of unwanted and unneeded migrants depending on Working Tax credits to make low paid jobs viable. Most BrExit voters have no problems with appropriate migration. Something I fully support. The UK just curently doesn't have sufficiently robust migration regulations to only allow the migrants that a duly elected sovereign UK Govt decides are required. Just like the Aussies do. Any migrant fetching up on our shores I would immediately return. The last time I looked there were all safe countries off UK shores. The only way I would accept the UK as being the first safe country is if the migrant landed at a UK airport. I agree that there is no need to provide UK Border Agency Cutters as effective taxis for what are actually illegal economic migrants. The UK must have control of its borders. Remaining in the EU prevents this. Such a state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. Which is why leaving the EU will greatly assist border control. But the UK must be open to those migrants that the UK needs. The UK cannot allow its economy to degrade for lack of skilled workers. If the reality is that the UK has to scour the world for such skilled workers then so be it. Until the UK can train sufficient skilled workers that it requires then the UK will need to plunder the skilled workers of other nations. Even the most ardent nationalist could not in all seriousness deny that the UK will need skilled migrants for years to come. This obviously is as a result of the complete failure of the UK education and training system. Migration is the price that the UK had to pay. This causes pressures on available housing stock and has ultimately resulted in S24 etc. There are always major effects when control isn't exerted. Blair throwing open the borders to a EU allcomers ultimately resulted in the EU referendum with its leave vote. Remember this was a political strategy to rub the right's nose into diversity. Well the right has got its own back by voting OUT!!

From: Paul Barrett 30 May 2019 21:07 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 30 May 2019 18:28 PM

Paul Barrett
Something that could greatly assist tenants is to announce that the Room For Rent Allowance is to be abolished. For any residential property unencumbered or with a residential mortgage to be able to take in lodgers completely tax free. Obviously the number of occupants would need to be no more than 4 to avoid Mandatory HMO Licensing. There are millions of spare rooms in residential properties that could be used for lodgers. These would ease tenant demand on normal rental properties. So if a LL can afford 5 residential mortgaged properties then lodgers may be taken in completely tax free. No S24 either. Most residential mortgages restrict lodgers to two as a maximum anyway. Of course not many homeowners would want to take in lodgers to their various residential properties. But tax free rent could be the vital incentive to encourage such homeowners to take in lodgers. Of course for troublesome tenants the only real protection against rent defaulting ones is RGI. But RGI isn't easy to qualify for so is not a viable for most LL. As suggested most LL take on a massive risk when they let to tenants who don't qualify for RGI Few guarantors if they can be sourced would qualify for RGI. The public at large simply doesn't appreciate the massive business risks that LL take when letting to tenants who mostly can't qualify for RGI. There comes a point when letting to lower quality tenants is not worth doing anymore. One wrongun can destroy profits for years. Only a speedy eviction process will encourage LL to risk letting to lower quality tenants.

From: Paul Barrett 24 May 2019 18:22 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 22 May 2019 08:30 AM

Paul Barrett
I have read the Labour Housing policy and I'm quite impressed by their intention to build massive amounts of housing especially different types of private tenure types. This will only work with closed borders. Not sure whether Labour intends to close the borders. Housing is the most important thing for the electorate. For a Govt to remain in power they need an effective housing offer. The Tory one is pathetic. They are hell bent on eradicating LL who provide housing until social housing is built in sufficient numbers so that tenants can move from the PRS to the SRS. But without closed borders it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to build your way out of housing shortages. In the meantime evil leveraged LL are seen as a problem even though they aren't and in fact provide housing for those who can't possibly house themselves. Many LL will be leaving the AST sector. Perhaps investing in B & B is a better investment strategy. TA is desperately needed by councils and it will be decades before TA B & B may be dispensed with. The only electoral hope is that the Tories and Brexit party have more seats combined than Labour and all the other parties put together. A Tory/Brexit Coalition would make for an excellent Govt. Get rid of neo-liberalism for a start! But I do fear that the right will inadvertently bring in a Marxist Govt. I'm not sure the right is politically sophisicated enough to understand this. But I fear a minority Labour Govt in coalition with the SNP. This could result in an independent Scotland. Personally I'm planning for a Labour Govt and am getting out of the AST market. Selling up to reduce leverage. Yes I might be exposed to rent controls. But at least I should be able to pay a small mortgage and won't be subject to S24 as I won't have much mortgage interest income!!

From: Paul Barrett 20 May 2019 11:45 AM