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

David's  Personal Profile View my company profile

David OConnor
David OConnor
Executive Director
4495  Profile Views

About Me

Having built several successful companies alongside a growing family I have developed finely turned organizational & leadership skills. Combining the business skill of prudent planning & financial probity with the flare and ambition seen in the best sales office, I have built three successfully businesses one of which was sold to a large corporate in 2014 (two currently active).

my expertise in the industry

I am a motivated individual with extensive business knowledge (from accounting, business process, sales & marketing), considerable people & leadership skills. With a proven track record in problem solving & profit generation I am determined to offer complete commitment to achieve the highest results.

David's Recent Activity

David OConnor
More regulations is not needed what is needed is the enforcement of the legal rules we already have, on paper we have the best legal system in the world it is just not enforced. Companies that already follow rules will have more costs when margin are already under pressure; & The criminals that break the rules will not follow any new rules. Enforcement is what is needed!

From: David OConnor 23 October 2017 11:59 AM

David OConnor
What is a letting fee? Tenants contents insurance? Filing the paperwork to protect the tenant’s deposit? Producing a legal tenancy agreement to which the tenant is a party? The above are example of work done by an agent on behalf of the tenants. It will be difficult to construct an enforceable law that says you cannot charge for a required service? If the law is passed it should be challenged by trade bodies as the concept appears highly flawed. How can one law say you have to do work to protect a deposit for example by no one pays for the work to be done? Maybe the government can do the work? The government could underwrite all tenants’ deposits, all unpaid rent & repair all damages for free. This is nonsense.

From: David OConnor 11 April 2017 17:39 PM

David OConnor
Those that understand fairness and this sector will see this as an attack on aspiration. The does not benefit FTB but benefit the super rich 'buying for cash' and large multinational companies. If you have a legitimate issues with the sector and want to increase tax revenue, the profits of all entities in this sector should be taxed at a higher level and not just those that are 'geared' i.e. have mortgages. This policy should be presented as a attack on the middle classes that it is and it should lose the Tories vote but in reality there is not alternative. The middle classes have comfortable lives and therefore will put up with it for now. But the reality is that we are the power house to the country and have the ability to make change. The UK is in desperate need of a new political party as currently the Tories represent multi national & the super rich & Labour, well what can you say, probably not a single one that has ever run a business successfully!

From: David OConnor 24 February 2017 11:37 AM

David OConnor
The Law seems to be working in this case. The laws are there; it is more enforcement that is needed not more red tape that the ethical companies will following but the rogues will not and therefore will not improve the industry or offer any more protection. More rules is never helpful. More Enforcement like this will make the Rogues think twice.

From: David OConnor 23 February 2017 11:22 AM

David OConnor
That makes no sense. All taxed income cycles through to became the 'turnover' of any businesses the taxpayer uses. It is neither gross profit or net profit. There is no tax subsidy. The government are simply attacking an easy target. All in the housing sector know that the solution is easy and that's release land to the market so encourage building of new homes. Simple economics increase supply and costs of property and rent will come down.

From: David OConnor 21 February 2017 12:16 PM

David OConnor
The only Landlord that will not be affected are the landlords with no mortgages that are already making the most profit! That's a fair tax policy NOT! Do not make the mistake that these politicians are stupid they have their own agenda and Landlords are an easy target with the added bonus that the middle classed Landlords being attacked will never vote labour so it is a win - win for the Tories. The power house to this country, the middle classes currently have no political party that represents them! Oh well we will just have to make the best of it!

From: David OConnor 02 February 2017 10:59 AM

David OConnor
Simple. It is 'domestic waste' of the tenants and as a helpful landlord/friend you are helping them dispose the waste. Just make sure your tenancy agreement make in the responsible of the tenant to remove waste. Encourage the tenant to remove waste themselves and them you are only helping them if they can not for any reason do it themselves.

From: David OConnor 06 December 2016 16:10 PM

David OConnor
Complete nonsense! Where an investor is buying you just need to make arrangements for access for tenant viewing prior to exchange and do not exchange until you have you tenant lined up. Also their should be no voids as long as you market as soon as you know when it will be available. If the landlord or agent is experience there should be no voids. If the Landlord wishes to use a cheap option them they can and will have problems! Lettings is a complex business and if you pay peanuts you get ..........!

From: David OConnor 30 November 2016 12:01 PM

David OConnor
The Landlord will normally be under a management contract. So that will not easily be changed. If charges go up for landlords many Landlords will go for the cheap low service option or the find a tenant only option that many now offer. These models are either 'not transparent' (hidden costs) or they do not generate enough income to have experienced professional working for them. Affect on tenant will be worst service and an increasing dis-functional letting sector. The Government either does not understand this sector or is engineering it to be taken over by institutional investors. Either way this government, with the lack of official opposition continue to attack the middle classes for the benefits of institutional investors or the super rich. The middle classes so need a new political party!

From: David OConnor 30 November 2016 11:44 AM

David OConnor
Yes but you have to pay your own council tax & utilities and have all the additional cost related to laundry cleaning etc. Plus a much higher risk of damage to the property. As in most investments with higher risk comes the potential of higher rewards. For most the stability and lower risk on long terms tenancy is still the way to go!

From: David OConnor 01 November 2016 14:52 PM

David OConnor
The 3% surcharge applies to the whole value so the fact that many were below £250,000 is irrelevant! Institutional / bulk purchase investors can ‘not’ pay the surcharge; this is likely to be the reason the 'so called' units do not equate to the amount collected. And that will be why these figure do not reflex the normal resale business that most agents see. As without a doubt 'normal' investors are significantly reduced. Also investor who 'did up' 'run downs' are much reduced as the stamp duty surcharge reduces the marginal in many cases to zero. The stamp duty policy is flawed on every level.

From: David OConnor 31 October 2016 11:01 AM

David OConnor
The tory party is no longer the party for the aspirational middle classes they want rental properties to be owned by old money (no mortgage required) or institutional investors (because these are so much more efficient! NOT!). Let’s hope they wake up soon as these policies are wrong on every level! As everybody loses, accept the super rich.

From: David OConnor 28 October 2016 11:35 AM

David OConnor
The UK has a robust system of protection for both deposit and tenant protection. All financial transaction carry some risk & currently we have a good balance of Landlord & Tenant Protection. If Landlord, Agents or Tenants break the law they should be prosecuted. More red tape would only mean more cost to the consumer and would in all likelihood change nothing.

From: David OConnor 18 October 2016 11:08 AM

David OConnor
The fact a property is 'mortgaged or not' is public records. It is good practice for a tenant to obtain a copy of the registered title from land registry for £6 is. This will also confirm you are dealing with the owner if you are not going through a good letting agent. Most good agents and Landlord do consider the merits of reliable stable tenants when considering rent increase as the rent level is not the only consideration when running a successful tenancy.

From: David OConnor 14 October 2016 10:21 AM

David OConnor
Why is this good for first time buyers; it just means less homes will be built. To help FTB's we only need to reduce the harsh lending rules for under 30's. Underwriters should be able to underwrite and not forced to follow earning ratio that are impossible for many FTB's to meet. In my view if you have paid £1,000 pcm rent for several years you should be allowed a mortgage with similar monthly repayment. We just need some common sense. And slowing building even further is not the answer for FTB's or the country as a whole. It is a poorly conceived policy from a political class that does not understand housing.

From: David OConnor 21 July 2016 14:03 PM

David OConnor
Inspection are a service that you should get from a locally based lettings agents, yes there would be a small fee buy it is normally good value and sensible to have the property regularly checked. Thank you to an online firm for pointing out that a local agent has major benefits. However good you computer system is it is not replacement for a local agent. Lower fees mean lower service; it has always been so. 'Having a failed tenancies redefines the meaning of expensive'. 'Underselling your home redefines the meaning of expensive'. All independent agents feel free to use this strap line as it says it all regarding online agents.

From: David OConnor 13 July 2016 10:36 AM

David OConnor
Well written piece. Let’s hope the Government reads this as their changes have affected the housing market more than Brexit. The only real downside to Brexit is that the government of the day will blame ‘the people’s decision’ for many years to come to cover their own failings.

From: David OConnor 06 July 2016 10:30 AM

David OConnor
No one wanted to pay fees. I don't like the arrangement fees on mortgages, I think those are unfair excessive compared to any actual work that needs to be done! We live in a free market, and someone has to pay for work that needs to be done. Referencing, Raising Contracts, Check in's, filing deposits, arranging maintenance visits, collecting rent all cost. in the Public Sectors in is paid by our taxes, in the private sector Landlords & tenants agree fees in advance. Tenant fees are just a political gimmick. As in all issues with housing, we need more homes to simulate competition!

From: David OConnor 13 April 2016 09:48 AM

David OConnor
Good plan George! Undermine the section of society that was confident prior to your involvement. The economic confidence is based on property. If you want to help buyer build more homes. SIMPLE. Tighten up residential mortgages & tighten buy-to-let mortgages; who is going to buy the houses that are built? This is crazy stuff.

From: David OConnor 29 March 2016 11:50 AM

David OConnor
Well said. With 'Labour' moving to the far left and the Conservatives seemingly only interested in 'multinationals' and 'old money', maybe it is time for a new political party the 'progressive conservative party' who look after the interests of the aspirational middle classes who are the backbone of our socially democratic country.

From: David OConnor 06 January 2016 12:20 PM

David OConnor
It is true that the current government policy does appear to be an attack on the middle classed landlords that require lending. Whereas those with high amounts of cash are not so badly affected (i.e. 'old money' & 'multinational company'). A higher tax on rental profits would be far fairer than disallowing interest as a deduction against tax (as it seriously affect highly geared Landlord/investors). If the government do intend to promote institutional build to let, they should consider how poorly institutional investor deal with commercial property market and the state of our town centre due to them not adjusting rents to reflect the effect of online trading. They appear to respond very slowly to empty property whereas small scales Landlord respond quickly. On the whole Landlords provide a good service to tenants.

From: David OConnor 06 January 2016 11:15 AM

David OConnor
Simon you could not be more correct. There are several other issues that Mr Osbourne is either misinformed or complicit about. 1) The playing field is be shifted to old money and people that can buy property for cash. The restriction of access to land has for centuries be and the route of social imbalance. These steps will restrict access to investment land for the middle classes who on the whole use lending to access the property market. 2) We need to build more homes and in the medium terms if you want the house build and solid you need buyers and to stall the small landlord market will be a serious mistake. 3) Institutions currently own and control the majority of commercial and retails property and we all see the empty units and the inability of institution to adjust rental prices. There prefer to keep rents high and leave many unit empty than reduce rent. If they when involved in the residential sector in is likely that they would continue this approach which would mean higher rents and more empty property. 3) running a large local lettings agency for many years we saw at first hand how institutional residential landlord would happy leave property empty and in disrepair for extended periods (years) there are no as motivated as small investor to ensure they have the income. Simply small investors/Landlord care more than funds manager or large landlords. Solution: Allowed full tax relief on interest for the first 5 properties (or a capital value amount) a person owns. Restriction relief on properties over that amounts.

From: David OConnor 16 September 2015 09:41 AM

Breaking News
MovePal MovePal MovePal