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

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Suzy's Recent Activity

Suzy OShea

From: Suzy OShea 03 June 2019 17:59 PM

Suzy OShea
Paul Barrett, Well if you haven't noticed all the business failures in the past three years, with British Steel in Scunthorpe shutting, loss of 25,000 jobs and jamie oliver's restaurant chain shutting, loss of 1,300 jobs in the past week alone, then you must be walking around with blinkers and ear muffs on! Britain was doing OK before we joined the common market as it was called in 1973, was it? Almost bankrupt, riven by industrial strife, reduced by the powers workers' and miners' strike to a three day working week and burning candles and oil lamps in the evenings. that in your opinion is doing well is it for a civilised industrialised society? For shame! What hypocrisy! It was the impending bankruptcy of Britain that drove Ted Heath to be prepared to pool some of Britain's sovereignty, to join the Common Market! And he was right so to do, even though he knew that eventually the plan was to produce a federalist state of Europe, which by the way, still has not yet happened some 43 years later! So you believe in the sunny uplands of Britain as an economic independent state do you? i suppose you believe in the tooth fairy and unicorns too! I can tell you that the rebellion of so many MPs in Parliament against a 'no deal' departure means that it is as they say massively detrimental to Britain's economic survival! They don't want Britain to wind up like Greece where at the height of the financial crisis old pensioners lost half their pensions and many committed suicide because they had no way out! You in your brexiteer extremism don't care what the consequences will be. Well, if you are so worried about pooling sovereignty to advance good causes you had better promote rescinding britain's membership of the United Nations and all the joint treaties we have signed with other nations! Ban the free movement of Labour! It was just this source of plentiful, educated, motivated and moderately priced labour that helped with Britain's economic well being for the past two decades! it also helped to prevent the resurgence of union power which Maggie Thatcher did much to undermine with laws banning secondary picketing and requiring a vote of the members before a strike could be called. So we leave, labour becomes more scarce and the unions will resurge again. I don't think that is a good result for our society. That way anarchy and chaos lie! You have spoken of the benefits of reducing the arrivals of immigrants/migrants to Britain. Well, I've seen a reduction of migrants from the EU from 298,000 to a mere 50,000 last year, which you would welcome, except that their places have been taken by blow-ins from all over the world, with almost no control since the numbers of their arrivals have risen from a steady 300,000 to 561,000. How is this controlling our borders with your points based plan? And don't even get me started on the water taxis Britain's coast guard is forced to run to save the sinking boat people from camps like what used to be called the Jungle just outside Calais! Do you think these illegal immigrants, who obviously respect no laws and havew been forced to live live animals through desperation, do you think they are going to suddenly turn into hardworking law abiding citizens? Well, let me disabuse you of that notion immediately. I saw a video of just such an immigrant from Africa to Germany. He was already a criminal and he said that they were all in Germany to milk the system until it was destroyed and commit as much crime as possible. Why do you think AfD - Alternative for Germany is so popular? So instead of having some 298,000 hard working European migrants bolstering our economy both with their work and their taxes, we now have 561,000 blow-ins, most of whom are either direct drains on the exchequer or engaging in criminal activity and drug dealing! Good policy change that!!! Your points system works in Australia because geographically they are remote, and they are also prepared to imprison illegal immigrants in camps on Papua New Guinea, which earns well from the arrangement. Can you imagine what all the bleeding-heart liberals would say if we did the same with our illegals and kept them locked up on the Outer Hebridies? There would be demonstrations daily on the streets of London! So you care as little about the will of most of the Northern Irish to remain part of Britain as you do about the welfare of the British economy, including the welfare of the private rented sector. Well I think I know what most landlords on here will think of your ideas, that they are extremist brexshit. No one with half a brain cell would support Nigel Farage for PM without knowing a single thing about his policies! Your ideas are dangerous and its because there is such a vociferous minority that support brexit that Britain is in this mess!

From: Suzy OShea 30 May 2019 20:58 PM

Suzy OShea

From: Suzy OShea 28 May 2019 11:49 AM

Suzy OShea

From: Suzy OShea 27 May 2019 10:32 AM

Suzy OShea
What business model does not regard the product it provides as a cash cow or a source of profit. We provide accommodation. We do not have charitable status since we are not running charities. So we have to have a secure business model that is profitable. Considering how many tenants can steal rent from landlords by not paying and walk away with impunity, if the landlord is lucky enough that they do just walk away within a couple of months, renting out property is a risky business. I, for one, have always managed my own properties and never used the thieving services of fraudulent agents, who charge money to inspect the property at the end of each tenancy which ought to be part of their management job for which the landlord pays them 10-15% of the rent! So i am glad about the fees ban. i am not glad about the idea of indefinite tenancies and neither are many tenants who often just want to rent for three to six months because they plan to buy somewhere! So how does giving such people a year's contract with a six-month break clause after which they can give a months notice help these tenants? It does not. Getting rid of no fault evictions will make getting rid of troublesome tenants much more costly since it will require court action now and witness statements from co-habiting tenants, which are as rare as hens' teeth, even though the complaints may be legion! And yet landlords are expected to police and evict tenants who engage in anti-social behaviour! What a ridiculous joke! Lets face facts: no landlord would want to get rid of any tenant who pays his rent on time, cleans up after himself and allows his neighbours to live quietly without disturbance! No marginal increase in rent is worth risking getting a tenant of variable reliability! So no fault evictions like no fault divorces are the landlords' only cost effective defence at getting rid of troublesome tenants. So without better safeguards for landlords to enable them to ditch troublesome tenants in the usual two month notice period, only companies with large profits and deep pockets will be able to shoulder this risk. Once such corporate landlords have cornered the market watch rents rise beyond your wildest dreams and watch the referencing requirements rise too. How will that help young people who have just moved to an area to take up work who have not yet established connections in that area? It won't, so once again interference by bleeding-heart ignorant liberals will make it even more difficult for young people to become independent. What this country needs is more council housing to provide moderately priced HOMES for settled families who want to live in an area and have security of tenure! The right to buy, whilst enriching some has impoverished the majority because governments whether right or left wing no longer want to shoulder this social burden! Well done fools!

From: Suzy OShea 24 May 2019 16:44 PM

Suzy OShea

From: Suzy OShea 14 May 2019 04:04 AM

Suzy OShea

From: Suzy OShea 09 May 2019 13:22 PM

Suzy OShea
Paul Barrett, i shall try to discuss some of your points without lowering my debating style to the hostile and insulting style you have chosen to adopt. 1. When you write about S24 would you by any chance be referring to this benighted administration's paltry vote catching attempt to kill Section 21 which allowed landlords to regain possession of their properties within two months? isn't it typical of brexiteers that they always get their facts wrong? 2. On the one hand you state that the arrival of job-seekers from EU countries, who are in Britain to improve their prospects through honest work has led to growth in the private rented sector, with which I fully concur. Generally, i have found such tenants to be reliable and pleasant, both in paying their rents in a timely manner and in helping to maintain the property by reporting problems like mice etc, which a cleaner may not always see. This helps me to find a timely and effective solution! Now veering into the politically incorrect. I would rather house such hard working polite tenants who appreciate the comforts of a well-maintained home, than house some of our nastier home-grown varieties of weeds who come from a tradition of scamming and stealing from landlord and the tax-payers who fund the rental help schemes run by all councils, who treat the property and their neighbours with no respect and who from jealousy, only seek to destroy the environment provided for them in order to cause as much trouble as possible. if this is the variety of tenant with whom you will be sharing your home as lodgers, because you think that a lodger's letting license gives them fewer rights, good luck to you. Your health and sanity, never mind your finances won't last long! On the other hand, you blame the migrants from the EU as being instrumental in the government's decision to crush the section 21 clause! Let me just make one point here clear: itinerant migrant workers are not interested in setting up 'homes' in other people's property. They usually rent a room to keep down costs further so as to maximise their earnings. They can stay for as long as five or more years but ultimately they are ambitious and seek to buy their own property whether in their home countries or in Britain. May's pandering to generation rent is trying to encompass a different client, those who do rent whole properties such as flats or even houses and want greater security than the AST can provide. In that, I can't blame them, since moving is such a stressful chore. In Germany, three year contracts are the norm, with a break clause after one year. Even if the landlord 'benefits' by regaining possession of his property sooner, he can not put up the rent further than any inflationary increase between the start of the rental contract and its termination. Therefore landlords in Germany have no interest in shortening rental contracts or disposing of existing tenants to push up rents. It does not happen. It would be good to introduce such a system into the British rental market rather than making it more difficult to evict troublesome tenants. 3. Now I should like to address the myth of 'uncontrolled' migration from Europe. It always has been a myth since it depends on getting a job. If the economy is buoyant it will attract and employ more migrants. If it is not thriving those migrants will not come in the first place because they have other choices. None that I have met want to sit on social benefits, unlike many native Brits, who sponge off the tax-payers! Having done our best to discourage the migration of industrious, motivated workers from the EU to Britain who are content with moderate wages, though we have seen a huge fall in their numbers from 291,000 per annum in 2016 to a mere 50,000 in 2018, has this in point of fact led to a reduction in total migration to Britain? Far from it! This government has done nothing to impede the rise of immigration from the other four corners of the globe to Britain, since their numbers within two years have risen from the steady 300,000 per annum to 561,000 in 2018, leading to an overall annual increase in immigration from just over half a million a year to a 10% increase in just two years of an extra 50,000 annually, and it has led to an increase in their numbers of 85%. tell me please, how is this government using perfectly legal devices to control immigration to our shores. Do you think such new blow-ins won't be registering with our schools, medical centres and other welfare benefits programmes? Of course they will because that was part of their decision to come to Britain in the first place. There is a far higher portion of these immigrants whose only ambition is to sponge off British tax payers than there ever was amongst the EU migrants. This is due in part to their being housed in depressed areas of Britain where even the native British struggle to find a job, and it is also due to the restrictions placed on them in even seeking work, for which they are given a meagre allowance. Has anyone ever thought of a more stupid scheme: Britain through Brexit discourages fit and healthy young motivated workers who actively contributed to the NI and tax systems to replace these with others who are deliberately kept idle whilst their requests for asylum are reviewed? how is this controlling so-called uncontrolled immigration to Britain? And don't even get me started on the 800,000 illegal immigrants who have arrived in Britain since the French closed the jungle camp in Calais. these will just swell the ranks of homeless criminals and make our streets even more unsafe than they currently are. How Paul Barrett is any of this lack of governance by this fraud of a Conservative government controlling uncontrolled immigration to britain. It does nothing to control it and your dream of a points based system has already been sunk by the reality of the situation! Furthermore, I would be very reluctant to house any of these illegal immigrants from the third world, not only because it is illegal for landlords to do so, thank God, but because many of their cultural norms diverge from European civilised behaviour so far, as to make them impossible to house with 'normal' people! Once again, we see that the Brexiteer lie of wanting to control immigration to Britain has turned to deceitful ash in their mouths and greater crime on our streets for the rest of us to try and avoid. Brexiteers are treasonous wreckers of Britain. Some, were hoodwinked by the deceitful bilge they were sold into voting for this criminally run referendum, which had it had legally binding status would have been struck down for all the criminal corruption of the Leave campaigns! The fact that Britain is saddled with a bloody dishonestly stupid woman who chose to nail her colours to the criminally obtained tiny majority of the vote, but then tries to deliver a secret adhesion agreement in her Withdrawal Agreement is no more than brexiteers deserve. No wonder parliament has rebelled to try and save the economy on which we all depend as the most vital interest to this country! It would be grossly irresponsible of them to do otherwise! 4. You stated that the world does not owe landlords in the PRS a living, with which I agree! we don't seek 'a living from the world' but we do seek a fair playing field for all the work, time, energy and huge financial investment we have put into this sector to provide decent comfortable homes for a fair rate of return, which is our just right. The crushing of section 21 once again tilts the odds against decent responsible landlords so that only the dross and sharks will be left, and they certainly won't be in any mood to repair their properties if Labour wins and rent controls are introduced! Then the price of decent housing will be at a premium because of the scarcity and the rest will just decay into slum dwellings. What a great future for a country which only three years ago was the fifth largest global trading nation!

From: Suzy OShea 02 May 2019 20:45 PM

Suzy OShea
Ms Taylor, There are rogue agents, rogue landlords and a great many rogue tenants. I have had experience of them all, alas! When my son was seeking a shared flat with his student friends, competition was so high in London that the shark agent could demand what they wished. The so-called professional cleaning prior to move in must have been conducted by a blind person, since there was dust on all the skirting boards and electrical sockets, and neither the oven, the fridge freezer nor the toilet, a disgusting shade of dark brown, had been cleaned at all. These were just some of the things I noticed when I fetched the keys for my son. I was appalled that a flat in such a disgusting condition could even have been shown for letting never mind having been successfully let. Being both a responsible landlord and a hovercraft Mum, I put my own team of cleaners and maintenance people in, who took three days of scrubbing the loo to get it white again and also carried out maintenance jobs, like fitting a fire alarm that didn't spring into action at the first sniff of burnt toast, and blocking a large hole in the bathroom where the service pipes were, which was the rodent motorway in the block, and even treating one external damp wall with mould proof plaster, so that neither my son nor his friend would suffer the ill-effects of mould spores. That little house-warming gift to my son cost about £600. When they left, I had to have it done nearly again, because the group had been so neglectful that the loo once again was in a disgusting condition, and the well-intentioned efforts of one of the other mothers who came to help her son clean barely touched the surface. They were not a bad bunch of students but their cleaning roster left much to be desired. So I got my team in again, in order to protect all the students deposits, which were returned in full. What really angered me was that the agent was renting out this flat without the proper safety requirements like fire alarms, carbon monoxide alarms and wanted to charge the students for doing his own job of inspection of the flat. I refused him that since it was his legal duty to inspect the flat which was returned to him in far better condition than the students had received it from him. For my own rental properties, I have them professionally cleaned on at least a weekly basis. My rents are of course higher for this and other services and it takes longer to find tenants but, we always do in the end. Trying to reclaim such costs after the relationship between tenant and landlord has ended, possibly on a sour note, is a fool's errand. better to charge a higher rent for continuous cleaning during the tenancy. You have far fewer surprises that way and maintain the quality of your property because tenants are often reluctant to report faults, especially if they think that they'll bare the blame for that fault and possibly the cost. better to fix the fault quickly before it causes even more damage. however, what in your opinion should be done about rogue tenants, who deliberately don't pay their rent which is stealing and can cause terrible damage to the property before they leave? A national rogue tenants' register would be good, if they don't change their names by deed poll every few years. On the continent all householders are required to register their address with the police. You would be surprised to learn how much responsibility this encourages amongst all house-holders whether tenants or owners. i think that would be a fruitful change for Britain, if we could ever persuade the civil liberties warriors to see the general benefits to society such registration introduces.

From: Suzy OShea 30 April 2019 15:15 PM

Suzy OShea
There is too much talk of a tenant's home. Yes! Its their home whilst they pay rent in a timely manner and don't abuse the premises by kicking in doors because they stupidly forgot to take their keys with them. Then its up to the land lord to secure the safety of the kicked in front door. When it comes to court for criminal damage the fine was ridiculously low, a mere £20 for the fine and no further action to be taken! Repair costs for the door £220. how does this in anyway discourage the tenant from committing more criminal damage in the future! The law and the punishments are toothless. that is why they are so regularly flouted. i just wonder how efficient this david alexander is as a manager if he thinks that landlords in the private rented sector seek confrontation with their tenants. they most certainly do not! Who needs the aggravation! The confrontation comes when the tenant abuses the landlord by stealing his rent from him - for any other theft, the thief would br facing a criminal record and imprisonment, why aren't these delinquent tenants? Or the tenant abuses the premises of the property and even the other tenants living at the property! That is when there is confrontation, and rightly so! Would shop keepers be criticised for arresting a thief that they found on their premises? They would not, they can even hire security staff to protect their goods and arrest the thieves. Yet landlords must take all the abuse the thieving tenants can throw at them, from rent theft, to abusing other tenants at the property, to criminal damage and any other form of anti-social behaviour, for which he is held responsible, legally! And the landlord can't even gain access to his property without sending written notice 48 hours in advance. he is obliged to take the costly and now increasingly extended route through the courts, when the law ought to be changed to have the tenant in arrears arrested and slung out on his ear and all his worldly goods confiscated in compensation for his rent arrears! That is how the laws ought to be changed, not making an already arduous and costly process for the landlords even more so!

From: Suzy OShea 16 April 2019 10:32 AM

Zero Deposit Zero Deposit Zero Deposit