x

Matthew Payne

Business & Property Consultant

675 Profile Views

About Me

Business and property consultant offering strategic consultancy services and executive coaching to property businesses and property people looking for guidance and support to fulfil their potential, become more compliant, commercial, effective and profitable.

Get in touch at aficionadoproperty.com or on 07970 773 847.

my expertise in the industry

I worked in the independent and corporate property world for 25 years, working my way up from trainee estate agent to Managing Director of a multi-million-pound estate agency in London delivering record profits in the years that followed. Working closely with my teams, clients and customers in sales, lettings, property management, land and new homes afforded me an intimate 360 degree understanding of a transactional residential property business and the people it served.

Matthew's Recent Activity

Ive only seen press on 4 lenders offering them so far. About 690 still to go...

From: Matthew Payne 26 March 2020 10:28 AM

There was no U turn just like there was no rent holiday I keep seeing landlords being asked to provide. If you look at the text from the government in the days since it was raised in the Commons, as I have said in other posts they were very careful and deliberate with the words they chose to use as politicans always are. There was only ever talk of the eviction process being amended, there was never an indication whatsoever that the use of Section 21 would be suspended. That was simply poorly interpreted by those who wanted to see that happen. The appropriate solution to this would be for tenants in genuine need to make an application to for the rent payments to be covered and paid direct to the LL, just like applications for benefits or the ones businesses are now making for having wages paid. Very simple. That way those that need it will be supported as they should be and those that would have been tempted to get a free lunch will have to keep paying their way.

From: Matthew Payne 26 March 2020 09:51 AM

No good to you now I know, but many payment systems are now accessed remotely, Im not sure whether you have this facility. I used Bottomline technologies which then had a segway to Lloyds where the client acct was held. My client acct posted all rents remotely through our CRM/Lloyds Acct, reset floats, allocated funds to contractors etc and then sent me the payment run by email and set it up in the system, I logged on from my laptop wherever I was and used my card and card reader to check and make the payment. We simply needed to download the software on to each laptop that might need to get involved in the process.

From: Matthew Payne 24 March 2020 13:03 PM

As predicted. Boris was far too vague in the commons the other day on this point, and the loose wording surrounding "landlords starting proceedings" suggested that they may not be removing a landlords ability to serve notice and here we are. There has been some energetic debate about supposed government sanctioned "rent holidays" and the implications for lenders and landlords, so it is useful to get some clarity for the time being at least and whether generation rent like it or not, it does afford tenants more protection getting us into the warmer months when the experts tell us the virus will be far less effective.

From: Matthew Payne 24 March 2020 09:38 AM

Hi Sarah, make sure your attempts to gain access and their rebuffs are in writing esp on maintenance, you may need to rely on them at later date. I would put all comms in writing at least by whatsapp even on basic stuff as it shows a pattern of comms. We are in unprecedented times and you want to make sure you can demonstrate you have done everything by the book.

From: Matthew Payne 23 March 2020 14:18 PM

I know and know of loads of trades who have simply downed tools and wont be working in anyone's home for the forseeable future, so agents and landlords need back up plans in case they get let down. Its tough enough gettting an appt with some of these guys when times are normal. I have also noticed the number of facebook posts increase from people asking for help finding one as X, Y or Z is not working, boilers, immersions etc. I have also heard of van hire companies cancelling bookings, so the supply chain may be affected in ways we had not anticpated.

From: Matthew Payne 23 March 2020 12:02 PM

Any sensible tenants will choose to let the status quo remain and continue paying their rent. The chancers must realise that they will simply be evicted as soon as the 3 months is up, and they will struggle to get through referencing when they have to move? With rents rising fast as well, even if they find somewhere else they will have a higher rent to pay. I have still only heard of one business, Virgin Atlantic who have forced people to take an unpaid period. Of course some businesses may fail, which is a different matter, and landlords will need to understand from their tenants what their plans are medium term and come to some agreement that works fairly for both parties. I dont see the economic argument for all these tenants to suddenly fall on hard times, and a lot of headline grabbing scaremongering is going on. Why do all tenants suddenly work in the supply chain of an airline, a pub or a failing fashion business? Yes Laura Ashley may go out of business but that has been on the cards for years. Yes pubs, theatres and airlines and others social sectors may suffer short term, but there are parts of the economy benefitting from this virus, some booming in fact. If you work in IT or phamaceuticals for example, they are less concerned about what is going on and see opportunity not threat. What about all the tenants that work for Andrex, Boots or Sainsburys? Life is good! A friend of ours works in Waitrose head office and she said last night, they are absolutely smashing their sales numbers. Noone there is worried about paying their rent.

From: Matthew Payne 19 March 2020 12:21 PM

The rent roll for 3 months is £4 billion. The only way this could work is if the government has the appetite to underwrite arrears when any payment holiday concluded. Many tenants would remain in arrears, some would be opportunistic and choose to. Moreover, they would be passing legislation to interfere in existing legally binding contractual arrangements between 2 parties, that would have a knock on effect in the supply chain. The lawyers would need to pour over the implications of such a move for weeks and no doubt be challenged in the courts, so it is not somehting I can see coming to pass anytime soon unless of course the Sunak cheque book is happy to cover everyones losses.

From: Matthew Payne 17 March 2020 10:13 AM

It wont surprise anyone to learn he is a public Corbynister....close pal of him and John McDonnell. Was an advisor to the shadow cabinet on economic policy in recent years and a key contributor to Labours' fortunes at the ballot box. Long may his creativity continue!

From: Matthew Payne 06 March 2020 08:39 AM

I like Heather's ambition to support these people, but this proposal opens up the PRS to greater opportunity for the most high risk tenants? How is that? Landlord confidence aside riding at an all time low off the back of recent legislation, I am sure that very few lenders would allow their charges exposed in this way. Lenders are more risk averse than landlords and they certainly wont want even the slightest possibilty of attracting the inevitable public witch hunt having to repossess and evict a former homeless person, as through no fault of their own, the Housing Minister commited them to a tenancy they were never going to be able to afford from the second rent due date. Every time HMG comes up with a proposal in the blue sky thinking room, before they go public, they really should just pause for thought and do a bit more brainstorming on the Q, "How is this going to work?"

From: Matthew Payne 05 March 2020 12:29 PM

One of the main reasons these tenants are rejected is the clawback system that penalises landlords and agents. Until such time as that is addressed, there will be no improvement. Clearly though depsite the fact that this point is raised again and again, it is ignored, by pretty much everyone other than those it affects. If there wasnt the label of a "DSS" tenant which I agree is not helpful anyway, would the government or TPOS expect a landlord or agent to accept a tenant who offers to pay the rent only on the understanding they may be forced to give it back at some point at their cost? Of course they wouldn't, so why are these tenants an exception? So they will ban the use of no DSS adverts, and what they incorrectly label and stigmatise as open discrimination. In the meantime, landlords and agents will simply have to comply and choose one of several dozen other possible legitimate reasons if they need to as to why those particular tenants applications are not acceptable and the current status quo will remain. It is not actually about rejecting tenants anymore though as the PRS is changing its dynamic under pressure from external influences. It is about choosing the best tenants in the current climate and with the tenant fees act and the aboliton of section 21 this will get worse. What are regarded by some as poorer quality tenants or even reasonably good tenants wont need to be rejected for any particular reason, they will simply be told the landlord chose to let the property to someone else - The "Alpha" tenant who represents as close to zero risk as possible.

From: Matthew Payne 05 March 2020 11:54 AM

Yes it will do, from 1st June it applies to all ASTs, licences, and student housing including that offered by education providers. There are still 100s of agents charging some fees for one reason or another.

From: Matthew Payne 03 March 2020 09:19 AM

If you look at their website and facebook page, there is a lot of ranting going on in particular about one of their other campaigns to bring rents down. This after they campaigned for the Tenants Fees Act which has forced rents up, and now campaigning to abolish section 21 which will force rents up. To be fair they arent the only ones who haven't yet got their heads around market dynamics.

From: Matthew Payne 03 March 2020 08:31 AM

Interesting that in the same report that he cites that lack of security of tenure for tenants in the PRS, discrimination by Landlords in not accepting tenants on Housing Benefit and increasing rents are all causing health issues, and that all 3 need to be tackled. Another reader quoted Le Chatelier's principle the other day that can be applied to commercial markets, and so many commentators simply dont understand or ignore the fact that the PRS is a marketplace, not a state owned commodity. Put pressure on a system in equilibrium and it will change just like squeezing a water balloon. Restrict a landlords rights to who can rent their property, how long they can stay, what remedies they have, they will naturally become more selective and rents will rise. If his recommendations are adopted it will give tenants even less choice and fuel rents to rise even faster if section 21 is removed for example. We have seen this cause and effect already with government policy in these areas which he fails to acknoweldge, instead implying it is unilateral landlord behaviour that is the driving force. The under publicised clawback system is a main reason many agents and landlords avoid tenants on housing benefit, not for any sinister social stigma that is implied. Likewise, the Tenant Fees Act has recently had repercussions for yet higher rents, younger tenants, families and pet owners. Similarly, landlords very rarely exercise section 21 (about 10% of tenancies), and where they do it is either to regain possession to sell, move into, or remove problematic tenants. Landlords do not evict well behaved tenants only to risk a void looking to replace them with other tenants who are an unknown quantity. If anything, most landlords are very accomodating with good tenants and often leave rents unchanged to reduce the risk of them leaving.

From: Matthew Payne 26 February 2020 10:49 AM

I would love to see this research published and meet all these traditional agents, what an opportunity to transform their businesses. They could improve their lettings revenue by 7% overnight by simply commencing marketing when they receive notice from the tenant. If you do voids are like unicorns in London. Asaf has scored an own goal here by tipping them all off....

From: Matthew Payne 20 February 2020 12:27 PM

It shouldn't be for people in the industry who understand the different types of tenancy, so I don't see why any agents would get it wrong. All they need to remember is it's 5 weeks on every tenancy from 1st June 2020 fixed term renewals included. The only exceptions will then be periodic tenancies that commenced as a fixed term before 1st June 2019. Most tenants however will only see the word tenancy and won't understand the difference, so it would be prudent for agents at least to send out a note in plain english with their scheme guidelines so they can't say they havent at least been provided with the information. Likewise, with any historic longer fixed term tenancies that now lapse into a periodic, it's an ideal time to have that conversation. Equally though I know some agents that are going to the other extreme and are planning to refund 1 week on every existing tenancy, even periodics which they have to be careful about. Unless they have consent the deposit needs to remain at the amount agreed in the original TA, as their is no obligation to make any changes.

From: Matthew Payne 12 February 2020 14:54 PM

That wording doesn't reflect in most TAs now and I can't see them passing legislation to say that all LLs and agents have to use the model agreement or their chosen wording. Even if they did, it is perfectly reasonable for a landlord to deny consent to preserve the condition of their property, or want to avoid the costs to remedy. If the premise of Mr Jenricks' strategy is that "well behaved" cats and dogs like unicorns actually exist and should always be given consent, then he will need to come up with some way of a tenant being able to prove that. Animal referencing perhaps. As we know they can't as animals by defintion behave like animals and create damage and high wear and tear, then the only way forward is a pet deposit as you suggest and as most have concurred.

From: Matthew Payne 10 February 2020 13:30 PM

It will be interesting to see whether the service becomes mandatory to use instead of carrying out your own checks. No doubt it won't be free, whereas checking a passport currently is, and one very convenient spin off for the government would be a national database of PRS properties, tenants and landlords. Now there's an idea..

From: Matthew Payne 10 February 2020 11:30 AM

I'm not sure why Mr Jenrick thinks that everyone uses this model agreement anyway, and even the minority that do, will simply continue to use the old version or amend the new one to remove any bits they don't agree with. I don't quite understand why he thinks amending a template on gov.uks website that almost no landlord agrees with will lead to any practical change in whether pets are permitted.

From: Matthew Payne 10 February 2020 08:59 AM

I wonder if the £340 is refunded to the compliant LL if at the end of the year nothing needed enforcing on their tenancies, or is it a contribution to the cost of the council having to enforce standards on all the uncompliant landlords?

From: Matthew Payne 07 February 2020 11:09 AM

I have owned many of both, and there is always collaterol damage to door frames, window cills, furniture, carpets, kitchen cupboards, gardens, as these are animals after all, who do animal type stuff and whose hygiene standards are pretty poor. Noone is to blame, tenants are not being irresponsible, that's just what happens, but someone has to pay for it. There is no such thing as a well behaved or genetically altered dog or cat; even a responsible pet owner cannot prevent the inevitable extra dilaps and wear and tear. I put up with it in my own house, but I wouldn't in a buy to let, unless the tenant was prepared to contractually remedy. I am not sure what Robert Jenrick is expecting to change. He wont convince anyone that a property will be returned in the same condition ever, so Landlords just have to foot the bill? I think more likely, landlords will continue their pet ban, the RSPSA are going to be busy over the next couple of years until the government amends the legislation to allow some kind of separate bond for pets.

From: Matthew Payne 06 February 2020 16:08 PM

Because a cynically contructed database of LLs allows councils to be seen to be championing the plight of "the vulnerable" thus protecting themselves at the ballot box, whilst at the same time creating a cash cow to top up the coffers.

From: Matthew Payne 03 February 2020 09:52 AM

That would be assuming all are ASTs which they won't be. A good number will be Non Housing Act tenancies where deposits don't need protecting - where the rent is too high, there is a resident landlord or a company let as 3 examples.

From: Matthew Payne 03 February 2020 09:46 AM

If you look at the Hometrack/Zoopla numbers rents rose by 3-6% in most cities in the 12 months to Dec 19. The Tory governement doesn't much care though one way or the other. This was not a policy introduced to save tenants money, or where they thought rents could remain unaffected. They like us, knew rents would rise, but this was about young peoples votes, an opportunity to bribe a group of voters seduced by Labours free tuition fees, train travel & broadband, who don't understand the micro economics of the PRS. It was simply politics and them stealing a Labour policy to be able to demonstrate they are a party of the people, a one nation Tory party who fights for the rights of the common man at the cost of landords and big business. To be fair it worked though. 80 seat majority.

From: Matthew Payne 29 January 2020 09:29 AM

There are not many articles that feature in the TODAY pages where the opinion of the interviewee is not heavily biased towards a postion that protects or benefits their own financial interests or of an organisation they represent, which amounts to the same thing.

From: Matthew Payne 29 January 2020 08:01 AM

I have to say I am not convinced it is that easy to fudge inventorys/checkins/checkouts other than in some pretty unorthodox situations, as tenants photograph and all parties get to see the docs. Yes there are honest mistakes/ommissions but they get rectified. My tenants were always lightning fast to challenge even the smallest detail in check outs and we used approved contractors. Why wouldnt they challenge a rogue's version? In 25 years, I've never seen a complaint, or even any press on the subject before now. The deposit registration process is designed to prevent this, however unscrupulous a landlord may choose to be. (The inventory clerk has nothing to gain by being so) If a tenant has been served TDS E, the certificate, the prescribed information, a tenancy agreement, the How to Rent guide, and the inventory check in, there is little chance of the tenant not being aware of the correct process, and wouldn't choose to ignore it. There will always be a tiny fraction of the population that legislation cannot protect as it always requires some engagement and common sense applied to work. I suppose it is possible if there was no agent involved, intro only from Gumtree, the landlord chose to ignore all legislation, the tenant lived in a vacuum, had never rented before, never asked friends or family for advice, or Googled help when the landlord then tried to keep their deposit with a bogus check out, that it could happen very occasionally.

From: Matthew Payne 28 January 2020 14:10 PM

It is ridiculous that anyone would need to pay their District Council £600 for the right to let their property. The council are not a stakeholder in the relationship like lenders, freeholders and insurers whose consent is required. This is just highway robbery to the tune of £12m. Who is next to jump on the bandwagon and demand landlords need their consent as well, Parish Councils, County Councils, the Highways Agency?

From: Matthew Payne 24 January 2020 09:57 AM

There are 2 potential issues if tenant does not provide a cash security deposit to one of the approved schemes at the start of the tenancy. 1) If these choose not to, because they would rather keep hold of their cash. How committed are they to the tenancy? Will they look after the property and respect their obligations in the same way when they know it is not their own cash that is in jeopardy at the end of the tenancy? 2) If they are unable to, why would any landlord rent to a tenant who was down to their last few pennies? Whilst that is regrettable for the tenant, if they have no resource to lay their hands on £1000 then there is a high probability at some point the rent will not get paid and everyday cleaning, maintenance and upkeep in the property will get neglected. It's all very well labelling this as a cash flow problem, but cash flow problems mean things dont get paid for. I would argue that is also very much an affordabilty issue as well. If their bank or credit card company wont lend them a relatively small sum of money that should be largely untouched whilst borrowed (ie: lodged in a custodial scheme until they leave the property and can pay it back) then they are either at the end of their creditworthyness as they are up to their eyeballs in debt already or have a poor credit rating and can't borrow. It all amounts to the same thing.

From: Matthew Payne 22 January 2020 12:34 PM

Including any rent arrears and dilaps, seeing as it currently takes nearly 6 months on average, and the use of sections 8s is more likely to trigger that behaviour.

From: Matthew Payne 17 October 2019 09:57 AM

Breaking News