x

Matthew Payne

Business & Property Consultant

2600 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 t. 07970 773 847 e. matthewpayne@aficionadopropertyconsultants.co.uk

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

I dont see how cash is workable if a tenant moves out of one property straight into the next. The new agent will want cleared funds in advance, but the current agent wont release until the tenancy has ended, the deposit (or its effect) cant be in 2 places at once, unless someone underwrites one of them with their own cash, or insurance. If that has a solution, I cant see there being much interest for a landlord to have to sue an absent tenant who having moved on, chooses not to pay their £170 dilaps whether obligated to or not. Or if the cash remains with the current tenancy until the dilaps are resolved, is the new landlord/agent expected to accept a lower deposit and then pursue the tenant to top it up? Whats the remedy when they don't? Feels like an administrative nightmare where landlords are once again going to be the ones most exposed.

From: Matthew Payne 15 January 2021 17:40 PM

There are less people negatively affected by the pandemic than people realise. I appreciate there are some tragic stories out there and people who have lost their jobs, but many have been remployed in other industries as well. I read a report the other day that said the average Brit is £7300 better off over the last 12 months due to WFH and greatly reduced expenditure, gyms, pubs, holidays etc, even if they have been furloughed. Likewise I just dont see or hear of these massive rent arrears whether landlords or agents that would warrant such a huge number of evictions. All that said though, even a relatively modest 10,000 section 21s will be too many for HMG as most will be relying on social housing for their next place to live. If for that reason alone, the 2021 removal of section 21 is pretty much guaranteed.

From: Matthew Payne 15 January 2021 17:02 PM

All good Qs, it will be interesting to see how they do manage the transition to avoid a cliff edge of evictions. They cant risk section 21 going back to its former notice at any point, so I can see 6 months remaining until they ram this statute through the legislative round hole. Section 8 notices I see staying in the current format for now, and likewise anyone seeking possession thorugh the Courts after they expire, as HMG still has control. What they need to quickly deal with though is the ability of landlords to remove tenants without any 3rd party involvment.

From: Matthew Payne 14 January 2021 12:25 PM

As I have just posted on LT. Renters Reform Bill = Get out of Jail Free Card in the real world game of covid monopoly. They have no choice but to fast track this now. They have no plan to tackle the unprecedented backlog of section 21 evictions that is coming later this year, where those tenants will then need to rely on the well provided for Social Housing sector. Oh, hang on, there isn't one, sorry, I meant they will sadly become homeless, and a massive headache for the government with nowhere to house them, and a general election on the horizion by 2022. Ergo, remove Section 21. Simple as that.

From: Matthew Payne 14 January 2021 10:50 AM

There wont be cash deposits, each tenancy will have a zero deposit insurance policy which a landlord will claim against, so deposits won't need to be mobile as we understand them today.

From: Matthew Payne 14 January 2021 10:39 AM

I think most lettings agents now use a repectable CRM that keeps a digitial record of payments, albeit some perhaps dont realise their capabilities or dont have confidence to use it. I have just help a client reduce their costs by removing an unecessary 3rd party supplier managing their payment run, as they had been persuaded that their CRM wasnt capable and they needed to use their software in addition. Tiffle & piffle.

From: Matthew Payne 13 January 2021 13:18 PM

Exactly, from a practical perspective nothing has changed. No Courts were about to start evicting people during this winter, and any possession orders granted would have been with forward dated eviction dates for the summer. Nothing to see here.

From: Matthew Payne 08 January 2021 14:04 PM

Typical form to leak everything first to test opinion. That aside, there is absolutely no chance politically that any government would allow the eviction of a single tenant during winter, during the most deadly part of a once in a century pandemic. Irrespective of official extensions, no Court is likely to do so either with more humane considerations.

From: Matthew Payne 07 January 2021 17:39 PM

Tenants wont thank Andrew for his interference when the vetinarian industry from the off will start charging £1000 for these certificates to cover the cost of the insurance they are going to need to indemnify them against their sign off. It wont get as far as clauses in tenancy agreements anyway, they are only issued to tenants a landlord intends to rent a property to.

From: Matthew Payne 07 January 2021 17:28 PM

Yes and the right kind of guarantor as well, one who cares about a potential default in context of their own credit rating/reputation.. Ive seen countless cases in recent months helping clients managing arrears where gaurantors turn out to be retired uncles or aunts living off their pension on some grassy knoll in some remote backwater who dont have the interest or capability to remedy any situation.

From: Matthew Payne 02 January 2021 11:35 AM

The DPS is very heavily tenant centric. Their starting point is they are going to give all the deposit back to the tenant, unless a landlord produces a smoking gun with signed confession.

From: Matthew Payne 30 December 2020 14:07 PM

This is tinkering at the extreme edges. Since 1997 the population has grown by 14% whilst social housing numbers have dropped by 7%. No surprise that we have a 1.2m SH waiting list which is growing quickly with councils putting many of these people in B&Bs. 2021 will see the first wave of pandemic evictions as well for rent arrears, whether section 21 or 8. A huge number of those will join the queue unable to return to the PRS. I wouldnt be surprised to see a big tax incentive for private landlords to take SH tenants. HMG doesn't have any other plan for next year or the 5 after it.

From: Matthew Payne 30 December 2020 14:02 PM

Well done Belvoir.

From: Matthew Payne 24 December 2020 11:02 AM

They missed out having defined standards of execution and training for its members, so that the EPCs have a standardisation they currently lack that can be relied upon, and the guesswork that exists in far too many is removed. Some assessors cant even be bothered to slide open a loft hatch. Difficult to get buy in from stakeholders on more signficant changes when the foundations are built on standards lilke that.

From: Matthew Payne 16 December 2020 11:16 AM

Completely agree. I saw from the inside of many businesses who just didnt get lettings and saw their only way to gain market share was to charge landlords 5/6/7% and then hit tenants hard on admin fees to square the equation. Some agents with this model lost 25-30% of their revenue overnight and then has to swallow referencing costs on top as their landlords had got used to paying for very little. Ironically they were the architects of their own downfall, as the agents least affected by the change had no more than 5-10% exposure.

From: Matthew Payne 07 December 2020 14:25 PM

There will always be a spread on compliance standards from those agents that take time to understand the legislation and nearly all will think they run a tight ship when may will not. Its about a lot more than identifying what needs to be done and then assigning a member of staff to carry out the task. The agents that have genuinely mastered it have it culturally ingrained in their business from top to bottom, where everyone understands how important it is to maintain the highest standards and protect their staff and customers at all times. When they then build the right processes in the right framework, train their staff regularly and constantly audit the metrics they have a winning formula. They will be in the minority though.

From: Matthew Payne 30 November 2020 09:51 AM

A pet reference? Landlords have a socially distanced meeting with a pet as part of a pre tenancy checking process? To do what exactly? There is no due dilligence that can be done to establish how well behaved a pet is or how caring an owner is, and its missing the point, poor behaving pets arent the issue, and even if they were I'm not sure what the agenda for such a meeting would be to check this. Animals are animals the world over and behave like animals, and you either accept them or you dont. Lets not try and pretend there is a screening process that can paper over the huge crack the government has opened up with capping deposits and removing tenant cleaning obligations. I have never been into a dog owners house, mine included, where there isnt the obvious additional dog damage to the fabric of the property to one degree or another whether door frames, wooden flooring, carpets, sofas, window sills, lawns etc and the inevitable whiff of dog. Thats the nature of the beast. Meeting it or the owner wont stop it behaving like a dog during the tenancy, and a 5 week deposit, covers little as it is, let alone redecorating and steam cleaning/replacing carpets etc. Even a well behaved dog with a caring owner leaves behind hundreds of pounds of minor decorating and cleaning related dilpidations as 99% of exiting tenants wont consider the need or expense to make the property allergy safe for new the incoming tenants or are "dog blind" as many are, and so so caught up in their affection for their animal they can't see whats in front of their face. If the DPS or anyone else want to underwrite their "guidance" with cold hard cash, as landlords used to be able to do with 8 or 10 week deposits and contractual steam cleaning, then perhaps this constant lobbying might start to get a few more listeners, otherwise, lobby the government, it's they who have created the problem.

From: Matthew Payne 24 November 2020 12:09 PM

Exactly, how many tenants would have been in 9 months arrears and not been already evicted before 23 March when the average section 8 possession claim took 5.5 months before the pandemic? None? Hardly much of a concession to landlords.

From: Matthew Payne 18 November 2020 14:02 PM

I read one forecast yesterday that just the current Court backlog won't be cleared until 2023, and thats without any new claims; it is getting bigger not smaller. It will be very interesting to see what develops over next year with lenders. As more lanlords stop making mortgage payments, there will come a tipping point. Before a massive wave of repos will no doubt come some heavy pressure from banks, probably in the Spring after the 2nd wave/winter has passed urging government to get on top of this. HMG will need to address this to avoid the economic shock of tens of thousands of repossessions and the homelessness that will follow with no spare social housing to fall back on. Banks aren't going to tolerate another 2 years of this, even if landlords have no choice.

From: Matthew Payne 05 November 2020 09:41 AM

Exactly, but this is a lockdown in name only, its busy as hell out there this morning and there are so many exceptions that the only real practical implication is don't have a party at your house. If R doesnt start to come down pretty sharpish, prepare for a proper lock down, from what I have read, hospitals have 7-10 days left at current rates.

From: Matthew Payne 05 November 2020 09:28 AM

...the renter proves they are a “responsible owner”... Can't wait for practical detail on this when it's published. I hope for all tenants getting their hopes up for a realistic proposal that would see landlords fully protected and allow them to have pets, that it's not the "Vet Issued Certficate Plan". I am afraid that will be as useful as a bit of paper to provide proof of responsibility as monopoly money would be to pay off any rent arrears.

From: Matthew Payne 03 November 2020 15:04 PM

Its a great point, the government can't simply ask people when they choose, to ignore certain parts of statute when it suits them. Sets a dangerous precedent. The law should be followed 100% of the time otherwise anarchy will follow. If HMG doesnt like the law then change it. Will be interesting to see how this develops.

From: Matthew Payne 30 October 2020 10:25 AM

I'm not sure what the fuss is about. It has been part of the CPRs and various codes of practice for years.

From: Matthew Payne 28 October 2020 12:02 PM

In business speak, they call this "Consensus Management". In laymans terms, that means - we can make it look like you are an important decision maker in the process, provided you agree to all our our requests and don't make any trouble, so we don't then need to make you do it anyway under duress. It took Andy Burnham 10 days to work this out.

From: Matthew Payne 26 October 2020 17:49 PM

As I have said on previous linked posts, even if this legislation is passed, it will have no teeth whatsoever. Unless there is a list of demonstrable standards and behaviours that define "well behaved", that are then gauranteed by the issuing vet or the government with a financial remedy, then no pet will be deemed to be any different from that that they are today. An immeasureable risk. I assume Andrew isn't winging it with a plan to have vets meet a pet for 10 mins, issue a certificate saying they are well behaved, the industry forced to accept that as fact, and then at the end of the tenancy if they have got it wrong and there are pet related dilaps, then that's unfortunate and the Landlord will just have to foot the bill, as the vet thought they seemed well behaved when they met them 12 months ago. If that's it, I am sure we have more worthy legislation worth debating in Parliament, as that won't lead to a single additional pet finding a home, whether statute or not.

From: Matthew Payne 26 October 2020 14:25 PM

I'm not sure what needs reforming, they have had all the power they have needed since the 2004 Housing Act to do this.

From: Matthew Payne 20 October 2020 17:14 PM

This guy just wants his 15 mins in the sunshine. Just another hangover from the Tenant Fees Act they hadn't considered which they are now triyng to address with their sqaure peg approach after the event. None of this will be enforceable as with the DSS cases, it is only a matter of presentation and communciation on these blanket approaches. On top of which, the obvious weakness and loophole will be certifying a tenant is a caring owner or an animal is well behaved. Apparently, Andrews' plan is to have a tenant have this certified by a local vet with a piece of paper they can wave in the air. Clearly someone will need to underwrite that certificate to make it reliable, like a gas safe engineer does with a gas cert, otherwise it wont be worth the paper it's written on but I can't see the vetinary industry wanting that responsibility or liability. Any owner can appear caring, any pet well behaved in a 10 minute meeting. Any proper assessment would take weeks, home visits, medical etc etc. I can see all the vets when challenged for these guarantees quickly losing the appetite to get involved, unless the government plans to foot the bill for the industry wide insurance policy they would require to participate. If I was a vet, I wouldn't touch this with a very long bargepole.

From: Matthew Payne 16 October 2020 11:16 AM

Hi Laurence, yes you are right. Basically spend £10k on items on the list and you can apply for exemption. Also worth scrutinising what ratings/stars you have on page 2 to see whether any assumptions have been made by the assessor which are incorrect. If there are, and you challenge them successfully with some evidence you might turn your D into a C with no spend. Bs and As are for the territory of the best ground/air source heat pumps, which is where HMG/the green agenda wants to get all housing to stock over the next 50 years as boilers are phased out. Cs are reward for not letting the heat escape, As & Bs for creating the heat without burning anything.

From: Matthew Payne 15 October 2020 17:20 PM

Here is the maths. Currently, 62% of EPCs are rated D-G, thats 12.2m dwellings already existing with a sub standard EPC. If the PRS makes up 20% of all dwellings, that means 2.44 million rented properties cannot be relet in just over 3 years time without £24.4 billion being spent by LLs to qualify for exemption. Thats £5billion in VAT as well as lots of economic activity and other tax. Big numbers. Perhaps the sudden date change to 2025 is as much about increasing tax receipts quickly as it is about Doha. Nothing will stop this, all D-G owners just need to work out is what they are going to do in the next 4 years.

From: Matthew Payne 15 October 2020 15:03 PM

EPCs were born out of our commitment to the Kyoto protocol in 1992, which has since been revised by the Doha amendment which we have legally committed to. The KP was created to dramtically drive down greenhouse gas emissions. The amendment was agreed a few years ago to speed up progress and makes our targets a legal requirement in international law. Huge pressure for the government to deliver especially when 40% of UK GHG emissions come from households. Ergo it is no surprise that HMG has brought forward the C grade date by 5 years. Even less of a surprise that this phoney consultation ends on 30 December, just 15 minutes before the Doha Amendment comes into force on the 31st December, whilst parliament is in recess and Ministers are on holiday, meaning the the government won't have time to read, let alone act on the content before our legal commitments change. Expect to see in January, Ministers response to the consultation being references to the enactment of the Doha Amendment on 31st December, their hands are tied, targets to hit, international law, etc etc, EPC Grade C at 2025 cannot be changed.

From: Matthew Payne 15 October 2020 10:40 AM

This rebalancing is to be expected now there is no requirement to commute into the office every day and won't be ever again for millions of people. Anecdotally most businesses seem to be planning their arrangements over the next rolling 5 year plan based on a flexi hybrid model. No expensive permanent office space, and therefore no 5 day a week commute. Instead firms will be investing in serviced office space both in central london but also in the shires where meeting rooms and hotdesking can be booked on demand or on short 2 year leases facilitating the face to face element required to run their business. Peoples homes will become their main office, with then sporadic meetings with clients and colleagues in these new locations. Even over recent weeks with everyone able to go to work if they wanted to, I haven't counted more than 8 occupied spaces out of 200 at the station car park. Normally 200 have gone before the 7.03 leaves with another 50 lining neighbouring streets. The shift in business attitude has been seismic, this is not just a lockdown piece.

From: Matthew Payne 15 October 2020 09:39 AM

They haven't got long if they plan to. EPCs were born out of our commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, to rapidly reduce the amount of GHGs we produce and the Doha amendment of that comes into force on 31 Dec 2020. Aftet that we have legally bound targets that we have to meet. When property/households makes up about 40% of the UKs emissions I cant see them backpeddling on the mechanism that delivers them ie. EPCs improving the energy efficiency of property. The government have probably got more pressing matters to focus on in the next 10 weeks as well, with Brexit and Covid, cant see them even reading what the Guild or others even say on it.

From: Matthew Payne 12 October 2020 15:26 PM

Rent arrears have to be handled by multiple means of communication for several reasons. Firstly, whilst the snowflake generation may not like it, having to discuss a debt of any sort with the person or organisation to whom you have missed a payment to, is of course going to be uncomfortable but that goes with the territory of being a responsible adult facing up to the challenges of life. Tenants should not be spared this discomfort just because it is a call they will find arkward, choosing to hide behind text messages. A call from an Agent or LL also adds gravity to the situation, a text is too casual. Of course calls need to be civil, professional and non confrontational, and dare I say it, I agree with Mark, it's much easier to get to the bottom of the situation and perhaps a bit of empathy if required can sometimes help resolve things more quickly. Landlords likewise should not cower from a call with their lender if they have missed a mortgage payment. Secondly, text messages went out with the Ark, whatsapp is the only reliable medium to exchange digital messages, and any conversation should be backed up with a whatspp message as a summary of what happened on the call. Texts get lost, sometimes take hours or even days to arrive, especially at the moment if people are at home more and don't have a signal. They are not a reliable way of date stamping correspondance. Thirdly, 7, 14, 21 day letters/demands by registered post as an additonal layer are good practice in the lead up to a possible s8 notice (or don't hurt with s21 either) and are often a requirement for insurance policies.

From: Matthew Payne 09 October 2020 16:44 PM

There will be a backlog for a year or two. It was never going to happen, but we knew that back in the Spring when the government said it was sticking to the original deadlines. At that time, let alone now after a lockdown etc, with most rental properties (excluding new build) not having a recent enough EICR, one conservative estimate was that these certificates needed to be done at a rate of 58,000 a week. Not enough electicians to meet that demand. Not enough electrians quailfied to issue the certs. Not enough electricians interested in doing them, and being dragged away from far more lucrative work. It will be interesting to see what appetite there is for enforcement after April, when there is clearly an ability to challenge any fines handed out.

From: Matthew Payne 07 October 2020 14:50 PM

I notice they have set up stalls at petrol stations asking for donations from motorists to help impoverished tenants pay their rent. As with donations to help the starving in war torn African nations that seem to end up funding the lifestyle of the dicatator clinging to power, I wonder how much of the cash collected will actually end up in tenants pockets.

From: Matthew Payne 06 October 2020 18:06 PM

Standards vary in all industries, this is no different. I think the problem has been that we all just accepted the art of producing an EPC as an exact science when they were introdcued and people didnt much care what they said anyway as there were no implications to the ratings. 12 years on it suddenly matters. It was only when I started reading them a few years ago I realised that some assessors put more effort in than others, were more skilled perhaps and there was a default position that if you couldnt see it, it didnt exist. On insulation as per my example, that makes a massive difference to the outcome. Assessors are not paid to try and get the best rating though, so they won't question the owner and ask whether they have any invoices or gaurantees for example that demonstrate that cavity wall or sub floor insulation exists, so homeowners needs to be prepared for the appt, whether paperwork or drilling holes.

From: Matthew Payne 02 October 2020 13:25 PM

It's not just size and accidental errors though Gary even in 2020. Had a client ealier in the year put their 3 bed house on the market, got an EPC done, when it came back I noticed it was a low F. I know the house and thought it was far too low. When I looked at the detail, the assessor had pretty much checked nothing, and assumed 'no' to everything on insulation, including the fully lagged loft that was easily accessible on a drop down ladder to stick your head into. We challenged it with evidence and got it upgraded to a C. This won't be an isolated incident.

From: Matthew Payne 02 October 2020 12:03 PM

You can apply for exemption on any property if an owner spends £3,500 on addressing recommendations on the EPC but where that still doesn't get it to the required grade, whether E today, or later C. There is the Green Homes Grant that can be used to address some certain improvements like double glazing where the government will pay about 2/3 of the cost. A starting point is also to check the current EPC is accurate, many are not.

From: Matthew Payne 02 October 2020 10:43 AM

If a property is more modern with a D or E, and the EPC was done from 2008 until about 2015, for £35 its worth getting a new one to see if the result is different. For the first few years, the standards of inspections was pretty poor. Even today, many people dont read their EPC and accept the grade they are given. Many assumptions are still made on apppointments about insulation and if you are not there to inform or show them, they will simply mark it down as absent. There will be tens of thousands of Ds, Es, Fs, Gs that are actually a lot higher in reality. If a property is listed, you can pay the council to come and inspect to demonstrate it cannot get to a C without huge expense, and they will give you a letter which then allows you to register for exemption. Likewise, on any property, if you cannot get it to the required standard which is currently E, for £3500, you can get exemption, provided you do as much as you can with that sum. £3500 doesnt go very far, so I guess this will give most older and bigger properties a get out of jail free card anyway.

From: Matthew Payne 01 October 2020 09:41 AM

It's a start but this addition will only scratch the surface, we need dozens, if not 100s more, 7 days a week. There is a backlog of 25,000 possession claims alone, and that number is 4 weeks old. The backlog of total Court cases back in the summer I saw quoted at 530,000 and was forecasted to climb by over 100,000 a month, so let's call it 800,000 now for round figures. With Courts at 25% capacity and another lockdown looming, that number is going to keep getting bigger.

From: Matthew Payne 24 September 2020 12:44 PM

You don't go to BoJos house for drinks with his 12 Etonian pals and then publish the following day that the Tories are going to win a 600 seat majority in the next election, in your recent poll. There are minimum credibility standards on polling, hence all reliable pollsters like You Gov for example quote the sample size, selection criteria and margin of error. On 2000 respondents, the margin of error is 2%. On a sample of 13, the MOA is so extraordinarily large, that statistically it is unrecogniseable as meaningful data, especially when you consider the demography of people GR come into contact with, so not even a survey either. You don't have to be a pollster to know this, so further demostrates that GR deliberately used unreliable and inconclusive data in an attempt to mislead their audience.

From: Matthew Payne 23 September 2020 14:34 PM

Yes, way too early. Normally about 4.45pm just as Bob sneaks out of St Stephens he gives his PPS an envelope and asks them to give him 15mins before opening it and adding it to the gov.uk website. Public Service accountability in technicolor.

From: Matthew Payne 18 September 2020 14:37 PM

Exactly, the campaign gun fro May 21 has sounded! He is simply shoring up support amongst tenants, many who may have had their heads turned at the 2019 GE by the Tories with all their own tenant friendly mood music. He knows there will never be a rent freeze anymore than he could wish to freeze house prices, but he has to be seen going into the trenches appearing to fight their battles. Conviction politicians are long gone sadly.

From: Matthew Payne 17 September 2020 17:19 PM

And 10 years on, you are still in the minority.

From: Matthew Payne 16 September 2020 14:31 PM

The 2 are about 7 years apart in their design, about 10 housing ministers, 3 GEs, 1 referendum and exit from the EU, a pandemic. A lot has changed, it is not one strategy or a joined up set of policies. It is one isolated, knee jerk, reactionary bit of statute after another, which is why by design it is also not an attempt to get rid of private LLs.

From: Matthew Payne 11 September 2020 15:21 PM

Well it is a combined 16% if you include part disposal, which is massive. Even at 9%, if true and the trend continues gathering pace with the remaining Landlords being significantly more risk averse regarding the quality of their tenants, then there is your social housing crisis in one fell swoop, albeit I thought we were in one anyway. However, one thing the government has perhaps been particularly clever about is closing any window on LLs getting out cheap if they increase CGT in the autumn. The six month notice basically stops a LL selling to an end user before the CGT increase will likely come in in April, essentially meaning that if a LL does try and sell, they can only sell to another investor, thus stopping a massive reduction in the PRS. Could be a complete coincidence though, they haven't been clever about much in recent memory.

From: Matthew Payne 11 September 2020 11:13 AM

The lack of trust is unfounded today anyway and harks back to decades past when there was less regulation and professionalism likewise - akin to the age of dinosaurs for agents and their clients alike, so much has changed. Unless a lettings agent has the deliberate intention to run off to Mexico with some (not all) of the cash then it is virtually impossible to empty a client account by being a bungling fool such is the advancement and capabilities of commercial banking and CRMs. So it would be possible to fool the system for one day, but an individual dodgy agent would only be able to make off with about £5k, IF the company had the right processes in place. I had defaults in place on my client acct that limited individual payments numbers and sizes, duplicate names and accounts, changes of account details, I could see that days payment run on my phone and stop it if I wanted to, and above all, all payments were reconciled to the bank the following morning, so any theft would be spotted immediately. Daily recs on top meant it would be easier to rob your high street branch of Lloyds than steal from my client account, and I firewalled it so I could not make unilateral payments myself, like the 2 key thing on a nuclear sub. Perfect tranparency. Further still, CA balances are insured, hence CMP even if you were to be unlucky to use an unregulated back street LA who had no processes, no CRM and worse still pictures of South America on his desktop.

From: Matthew Payne 10 September 2020 10:41 AM

8% swing on tenants, not the population. I agree, people that can afford to will vote on more ideological grounds, but young tenants battered on social media by the Tories in the months leading up to the GE will vote on what puts money in their pocket, hence all 18 year olds, many of them with Right Wing roots voted for Labour when they said tuition fees would be banned. Fickle bunch, easily bought.

From: Matthew Payne 10 September 2020 10:16 AM

There is no need to extend the eviction ban again, none of the current backlog are going to be heard for several months as it is, and for many it could be a year or so depending on the detail. I understand cases are to be heard will be prioritised based on largest debt for landlords and greatest vulnerability for tenants. Submission date has gone out the window.

From: Matthew Payne 10 September 2020 09:31 AM

I have to disagree chaps on the motive, not the possible fallout. The government cannot afford to lose anymore landlords and that is not its intention or policy strategy, however much it may feel like that. It has been a bungled mixture of general elections, changing governments, a dozen or so housing ministers that have meant housing policy has been made by different people with different agendas and the collaterol damage has been landlords. For example, the Tories knew their tenant vote collapsed in the 2017 GE and they had a concerted effort to get it back in order to beat a resurgent Labour Party, hence the 2019 Tenant Fees Act, which worked, they got an 8% swing. Nothing at all to do with Landlords as a focus. Nor is this eviction extension.

From: Matthew Payne 10 September 2020 09:15 AM

It's single or linked transactions, but ultimately apply to one address so still higher end. The threshold wasn't the issue though for the bank, it was agents choosing not to register with HMRC if they didnt need to, which when refused, then doing so, would have been the most straightforward solution to get an account open.

From: Matthew Payne 10 September 2020 08:54 AM

This is the thin edge of the wedge. The greatest economic threat we face is not the effect of the lockdown or the fear of the virus but the epiphanic moment for millions of businesses that they can massively reduce their costs by running their businesses differently, having been shown in the lockdown that their staff have been trustworthy and more productive working remotely. Whether leases or travel, the savings to be had are game changing for many industries, a catastrophe for others. Anecdotally, I know dozens of businesses that have already dramatically changed their strategies to reflect this and permanently, not just during the rest of this pandemic. The bigger the city or business that relies on the activities of the commuter/traveller, the more they are going to suffer until they themselves adapt as we have seen Pret try to do last week for example with coffee subscriptions. A similar challenge exists for countries and supply chains that rely on tourism or the more lucrative regular flow of business flights supporting their GDPs. Holidays will slowly return, but many businesses have worked out they don't need to fly people all over the place anymore and in fact in doing so have actually been harming their business, but they never would have taken the decision in normal times to stop flying. Heard a powerful stat the other day, from a large US engineering business that normally flies its' guys all over the world every day has increased its' productivity by 19% when none of them were able to fly. New strategy for the future - very little flying - now needs sign off at the very top. That absence will make a huge impact to the bottom line of many economies, ours included.

From: Matthew Payne 07 September 2020 13:47 PM

Yes UPRNs which in years to come will become like a digital passport for a property, all history linked to it in one place whether tenancies, compliance, sales, planning, utilities etc etc. Different organisations will have different levels of access. A dream for HMRC and councils. Going to take a long time to slowly pull all the data together before people can rely on running a comprehensive report, no different than the far more simple ambition of having an EPC for every property. We are 12 years into that ongoing project.

From: Matthew Payne 07 September 2020 11:20 AM

This winter will be a one off, simply because we dont have a vaccine, and whilst that may make for students to argue these clauses should be accepted this year, it sets a precedent that is then difficult to pull back from. CV19 like flu is here to stay and people will die from it every year like they do from flu. Every year the vulnerable will be vaccinated and it will become an every day part of life in the 2020s. So do we then extend this to flu break clauses - how can you discriminate one virus against another? Then what about other illnesses or injuries? Pandora's box and one where students in the future may wish they had kept quiet when there is very little student accomodation on offer in years to come.

From: Matthew Payne 07 September 2020 10:51 AM

Yes I was surprised as the photos could have been of any property, but it was their suggestion. I initially requested that they return to reinspect but an email is far more cost effective for them especially if they are not local. I suppose if I had invited the reinspection, the chances of me lying would be slim, otherwise I would look pretty stupid when they turned up.

From: Matthew Payne 07 September 2020 10:05 AM

I am suprised they have the addresses of all the rented propeties in the city. I would also like to understand how they conducted their review of these 30,000 homes as well in terms of manpower and also reliability. I would imagine that's a tall order at the best of times, let alone when many of the Councils staff have been furloughed, many departments closed, with those remaining no doubt helping support people during the lockdown.

From: Matthew Payne 07 September 2020 09:48 AM

Since 1st April? You would have thought when council's have had many of their staff furloughed that the remainder would have had far more pressing issues to deal with in their communities helping people affected by CV19 than doing audits on EPC ratings. Clearly a lack of leadership or understanding of how to run their business in East Lindsey. That aside, I would recommend anyone with a non compliant EPC gets a new one done before committing to any recommended works, especially if they were done in the first few years after 2008. Many of the ratings were based on guesswork and assumption when the assessors were first starting out. They are far more accurate and a fair reflection of the actual EER today, albeit it does often comes down to the quality of the person doing it. If possible be at the appointment as there will still be an element of assumption on insulation etc unless someone can be there to answer their questions. (Had one on a house recently given an F, as the assessor asked no questions and assumed nothing present on most things, wouldn't even stick their head in the loft to check for lagging. Challenged it with photographic evidence and got it revised to a C).

From: Matthew Payne 07 September 2020 09:32 AM

Completely agree. Meeting tenants and landlords face to face is a game changer in terms of establishing information, intent, character, motivation etc etc.

From: Matthew Payne 06 September 2020 10:49 AM

I am not sure why councils of all organisations think they are capable of running a compliance operation for anything, let alone something as complicated as lettings. The flaw in the local government system is it's based on territory not on expertise. Just because it's in your patch, doesnt mean you know how to look after something. It would be no different to a lettings agent announcing they are starting a licensing scheme for off shore wind farms or diesel emmissions, they wouldn't have clue, but at least they are generally process orientated and good administrators. My experience of councils over the years has been poor, whether planning, tax, selective licensing, building control etc. Always delays, always mistakes and always expensive. To compound a distinct lack of capability with shocking administration is cheeky to say the least at £1100 a pop, but then to be fair noone recognises this as anything other than a coffer filler, and the 58% increase is simply lockdown driven. Not enough car parks or swimming pools have been open.

From: Matthew Payne 03 September 2020 14:07 PM

This was simply kicking the can down the road to give them a bit of breathing space and thinking time, as you say the 4 week extension doesn't really have any practical benefit, but the pressure from lobbyists about Manic Monday and an avalanche of evictions wasn't a risk worth taking when any spare time they had when on holiday has been managing other more immediately pressing issues, like exam results, the return of children to school, quarantines, Brexit negotiations etc. As far as the 20 September, dont be surprised to see this extended again or legislation passed. No government will want to see people being evicted at its hand (as this would be seen as when Scotland and Wales have extended already), after furlough ends, during winter, during a pandemic when cases and deaths may well be rising, when we may well not have a trade deal with Europe perhaps and of course just before Local Council Elections in May. If I was Boris I would be looking to kick the can hard into the Spring when better weather arrives, when we might have a better idea on what the economy looks like and when a vaccine might be ready.

From: Matthew Payne 25 August 2020 14:34 PM

The increased 6 months notice required almost, but not quite yet, slams the door shut on landlords benefitting from buyers who want to benefit from the SDLT holiday. So effectively they cant get rid of their tenants and if they decided to sell, their property is now far less attractive to a buyer unless they get it sold now and a buyer making good enough progress to serve notice by the end of September, but only if the RDD allows. RDDs at the start of the month mean that window is already pretty much closed for many.

From: Matthew Payne 21 August 2020 16:54 PM

Not all surprised and in fact very predicatable as we have been discussing on Landlord Today earlier. This decision and others coming up are only being made by HMG in their constant game of policital chess with Labour, the other home nations and the lobbyists, with one eye on the polls. Boris had absoletely no choice but to extend after Scotland and Wales has already done so. Political harikiri not to follow suit. Whilst disappointing for many landlords, and a relief for many tenants, neither featured much in the decision making process.

From: Matthew Payne 21 August 2020 13:46 PM

Not yet started proceedings and expecting a court date in 3 or 4 months? Absolutely no chance whatsoever. It was that before the now 5 month backlog (and a highly eviction seeking 5 months at that) and the much slower socially distanced timetable the courts have to now adopt.

From: Matthew Payne 21 August 2020 10:01 AM

I cant see there being many far reaching consequences other than for those who fail now to amend a simple process if up to now they have had a blanket ban on all DSS tenants. Those that now get in trouble over it have got far greater challenges up ahead if they can't manage even that.

From: Matthew Payne 06 August 2020 10:27 AM

Landlords and agents "ignoring the judgment" is not the same as what she would like to say which is "they are not doing what I want and accepting all DSS tenants". As we have discussed on other posts, blanket discrimination by agents and landlords directly on grounds of gender or disabilty alone is not the driver for the vast majority, and where there is the odd maverick that does discriminate in this way, they should be prosecuted as Polly says. She is either choosing to ignore or doesn't understand the real issues behind why DSS tenants are not an attractive propostion, either because she knows there is very little she will be able to do to address those challenges or doesn't care what they are. The "indirect" in the Courts judgment is only a reference in context to how the tenant's rejection was handled. Had we got into the detail of why that ladies application was rejected, it would have been no different to all the others - affordability/clawback etc as she was not told it was because she was female or a single parent. If anything her campaign will probably draw more unwelcome scrutiny onto the group of people she claims she is trying to help in these uncertain economic times and they will find it even harder to find somewhere to live.

From: Matthew Payne 04 August 2020 12:15 PM

Anyone that has owned a dog in particular, the same can be said for a lot of cats, knows that high wear and tear and extra dilaps are guaranteed, it goes hand in hand with having a larger animal living in a property. I have owned many of both and my home and furnishings are always worse off for it, but if you are a pet lover you put up with it at home. Yes bay window sills, all window sills, door frames, doors, wooden floors, kitchen cupboards get scratched, get stained, carpets wear thin and get matted in hair, and often you are left with a pet odour that just no amount of cleaning will get rid of. Then there is the issue with allergies for the next tenants etc etc. There are degrees from 1 to 10, but it is never in the same condition as the check in. Someone however must pay to remedy it and we are not talking about a £100 pet deposit. Quite often a full redec is needed, new carpets etc, it can run into thousands if the tenancy is a reasonable length and you get a big smelly, hairy dog that the tenants treat like another human. You paint one wall in a room, you must paint them all. Similarly, you can’t replace only the worn or stained part of a carpet. Not only would there need to be a significant deposit, professional cleaning obligations would need to return which the TFA also knocked on the head. When I ran my agency, I made no large pets standard and advised my landlords, even the pet friendly ones of the possible expense and hassle in between tenancies if they were unlucky enough to get a 10. Even at a 1, I had more than enough tenants with no pets, why take the risk at all? The occasional one was allowed by clients, but we often took 10-week deposits, loads of extra clauses, prof clean including steam cleaning, regular inspections etc. Still not full proof but we are currently a million miles away from being able to offer any meaningful remedy to a landlord after the TFA has made it even worse. I don’t agree with Steve either that it is about compromise with pets. No, its not. The property must be returned to the landlord in the same condition, less normal W&T. You wouldn’t loan your car to someone with no financial remedy and agree in advance that there had to be an expected yet also unknown compromise on its condition when it was returned.

From: Matthew Payne 23 July 2020 15:25 PM

There will need to be a simple exemptions register which hundreds of thousands of properties will need to be able to apply for, or the ratings on on the initial EPCs are inaccurate. Bs will simply not be possible for large swathes of stock. Ive just looked at the EPC on a modern 1bed flat. It has only one minor recommendation for improvement. Once done it will get a maximum potential score of 79 which is still a C. Is the inspector therefore saying that the block has been built to a sub standard EER and there is nothing that can be done to remedy it short of knocking it down and starting again? Do the government plan to make Bellway Homes responsible?

From: Matthew Payne 20 July 2020 13:09 PM

Big numbers like this need contextualising if you are trying to illustrate how much worse a scenario is. Firstly, rent arrears normally run at about 8% over a rolling 12 months anyway when we dont have a pandemic, so it is only the increase that's relevent. Secondly, what do you class as an arrear, 1 day late or 7 days late, must compare apples with apples? Thirdly, what are the reasons for the arrears? Most arrears are timing issues where tenants pay manually, have set up their SO late, or want to get their Landlords attention for whatever reason, affordability is never high up the list of reasons. So how many more tenants are in arrears than in January (measured in the same way) as a result of affordabilty caused by the economic shock wave of the pandemic? It won't be anywhere near 500,000.

From: Matthew Payne 09 July 2020 11:11 AM

Exactly, whilst I welcome her input, it's the one thing she didnt mention and ultimately the most straightforward solution to avoiding mounting arrears, a section 21 backlash in the autumn, homeless tenants and a court system that won't be able to cope. They should just create an online application for means tested "rentlough" payments like they have everything else. Would weed out all the chancers at the same time, as if they are refused the support, it means they have the cash.

From: Matthew Payne 09 July 2020 10:51 AM

When they thought it would be a brilliant idea to reduce deposits and cap them, they either didnt give two hoots about what the implications would be for pet owning tenants, didn't have one conversation about what they might be or more likely knew that these tenants would be disadvantaged but wrote that off as collatoral damage versus all the votes won from the majority of tenants with no pets, and hoped that some "furry" platitudes in the media might then persuade landlords to accept pets anyway. People arent getting more pets due to the lockdown. The number of searches has increased only because before the government interfered tenants didnt need to make specific pet friendly searches, many landlords accepted them as long as the risk was underwritten by a larger deposit. Now tenants desperately have to apply filters online looking for listings that accept pets as they are being turned down by most landlords who would have considered them before but are not now able to. That is a trend that will continue unless the government allows a pet deposit or something similar.

From: Matthew Payne 08 July 2020 10:19 AM

If she advised him to do that 8ft monolith that killed his 2015 election chances stone dead, we have nothing to worry about, in fact I welcome her appointment.

From: Matthew Payne 07 July 2020 18:51 PM

Always frustrating when the foundation of these campaigns and quotes made to support them are not even based on fact. "The government has already intervened to stop businesses from going under, and mortgage holders from losing their homes". No they haven't, their intervention has perhaps saved some but many businesses are folding, repossessions will rise sharply and most lenders paid no attention to what the government asked them to do for homeowners or businesses unless they were prepared to underwrite all of the risk, and why would they? They wont now either lend 90% of the value of a property, so why would a landlord now be expected to write of 20% off their investment based on government action that never existed outside soundbites on the 10pm news? Conversely if the Baroness could get a landlords costs to reduce by 20% to be written off in the same way as 20% of the rent she proposes, she may find she garners more support at least from highly geared landlords, but that still doesnt address older landlords that use their rent as an income vehicle. Why would they be expected to foot the bill?

From: Matthew Payne 07 July 2020 18:12 PM

That's a pretty luck lustre attempt to offer some useful content, and doesn't warrant the term guidance. At 6 pages with a load of white space it isnt much more than a leaflet, and the subject requires far more detail, or left alone. The advice offerered isnt particluarly streetwise or reliable either in context of what we know is happening at the coal face. No Landlords call their tenants and pretty much invite them to not pay their rent, automatically offering help if needed, many are unable to. "Apply for a mortgage holiday if you can" is wreckless advice without a detailed health warning to go with it about the implications of doing so, now and in the future. "By confirming they are affected by coronavirus this allows the landlord to apply to defer mortgage payments..." No it doesn't, it doesn't make any difference at all. Most lenders chose not to offer MHs, and those that did had application process via underwriters.

From: Matthew Payne 07 July 2020 17:38 PM

And beyond Angus. Next wave will happen, it is a foregone conclusion. If you read all the science bit, cases have been steadily increasing, and in fact there are more carriers out there than in March. As soon as the floodgates are opened on July 4th, only a matter of when not if. Most experts predict the autumn when the weather changes. Just in time for September when normality could have retured as you say. Government knows all this of course, but they have to get economy open otherwise there will be no society left anyway. Another 50,000 deaths will be the price for the majority surviving with some economic future.

From: Matthew Payne 26 June 2020 13:37 PM

I agree Mark! Making someone homeless is always a last resort, Covid 19 on top of a housing/affordabilty/unemployment crisis will mean they will be even less inclined to do so, and if your tenants are a family, forget it. Will never happen. Dont be surprised to see some tenants taking advantage of this as well as we saw with the supposed rent holidays. Expect to see Dr's notes being waived in Court citing stress, anxiety and mental health issues where before there were none.

From: Matthew Payne 26 June 2020 13:32 PM

Classic needs based sales to be fair. Hightlight a problem that could exist, make it sound complicated and scary as hell, and then leave the door wide open to offer to fix it for them. Agents have been doing this to Landlords for years! Yes good agents will be doing it, but there are plenty who won't, who dont know how, or who don't want the risk, who Neil is hoping to get a call from. Numbers game.

From: Matthew Payne 22 June 2020 13:29 PM

Lets hope No 20 since 1997 knows something about property....

From: Matthew Payne 22 June 2020 13:15 PM

Whilst there are large swathes of tenants paying their rent as normal, many others whom have fallen into genuine hardship who need support, there is a very public third group who are taking advantage of this loophole. There are 1000s of anecdotal pieces of evidence out there where tenants have blatantly used this window to deliberatley profit from the pandemic, I have had dozens of calls from LLs asking for advice on how to handle these situations. I am sure Sim and his teams own data will reflect this as well, so there shouldn't be any need for doubt or speculation about what might happen now the evictions ban has been extended. More of the same for all 3 groups.

From: Matthew Payne 10 June 2020 10:38 AM

I thought that was common knowledge. Many smaller agents use the Open Rent back door to advertise on RM, its far far cheaper of course.

From: Matthew Payne 01 June 2020 16:20 PM

Chestertons also love getting their free bit of PR. Richard Davies is suggesting Landlords need to discount their current asking prices to avoid a void period. He has not however said they will need to accept a figure lower than the previous tenancy, which is the actual measure of rents decreasing. Sounds to me like he is on a purge for some price reductions to get some deals done, which is fair enough. Only 25% of the properties on their website are let. The more that landlords hear in the trade press that rents are coming down, the more likely they are to accept a lower offer. Nice bit of postioning and conditioning I would say.

From: Matthew Payne 01 June 2020 16:09 PM

Im not sure why they are postioning this with agents at all, it is the landlords decision alone as to what type of tenants they prefer, and they are perfectly entitled to make those choices whatever they are provided they are not in breach of statute, a comfortable affordability rating for one, which will vary from landlord to landlord. Would like to hear their independent legal firm go on record with the advice they have provided.

From: Matthew Payne 15 May 2020 12:15 PM

There were a few blood vessels about to burst in the trail above, so I thought I would just clarify that he wasnt talking about Resi for change, that's all, no other reason for the distinction.

From: Matthew Payne 07 May 2020 13:10 PM

And I'm not fond of his politics dont get me wrong, he is one of JCs buddies, but everyone deserves a fair trial!

From: Matthew Payne 07 May 2020 12:41 PM

Yes I read it, its 4000 words long and thats the only mention to Resi in his intro paragraph explaining why there will be an economic crash. His blog is really about an economic collapse, how businesses will cope, banks and pensions - he isnt talking about the property market. When he comes to talk about lower rents it is in the paragraphs where is solely focussed on how businesses will need funding, need to find ways to survive and one of them is with his proposed solution on rents. When he talks about landlords, it is always in context of their business tenants.

From: Matthew Payne 07 May 2020 12:39 PM

His blog is about business survival and commercial rents, if LAT are suggesting he is talking about Resi tenants they are misquoting him and setting hares running.

From: Matthew Payne 07 May 2020 12:00 PM

Yes, having worked as a smaller independent and part of the big corporate I agree with Lyndon. Smaller agents make their own policies and processes, larger agents have them made in a petri dish at head office and there are so many firewalls that any discretionary flexibility is virutally impossible. The smaller lettings agents have a pretty good chance of surviving this provided they have made the right decisions early enough, and continue to do so and plan for the inevitable later lockdowns. This first one was a warm up for the real thing. The bigger agencies are too big, have too many fixed costs and are run by dinosaurs, many of whom have never been agents. Look at LSL. Sacked their CEO last week. Look at Countrywide. They will be lucky to survive this. Paul Creffield has taken to writing begging letters to the Housing Minister and their share price still looks pretty ugly.

From: Matthew Payne 06 May 2020 12:03 PM

I agree. Relationship and evidence. You can only have a good relationship face to face or on the phone, and good relationships will prevent many not all issues spiralling out of control or resolve any issues to start with. Evidence however of everything should always be kept for compliance and litigation. Have a call, summarise in an email. If they disagree with the summary they will query it, if they dont, the summary is deemed accurate. I also believe a prompt call adds some weight that someone is prepared to get stuck in and deal with something personally and head on. Letters and emails get ignored, and can suggest the sender is seeking to avoid any personal contact, which can be counter productive. I used to have a credit controller in my last business who managed all my rent arrears and debtors. Collected it all by phone (with follow up in writing). People paid just to make sure they didnt get another call. Not a nice feeling when your phone rings thinking it might be that person chasing you for money you owe.

From: Matthew Payne 06 May 2020 11:16 AM

Not sure how an agent or landlord can refuse or prevent a valid notice being served and actioned? What would they do, physically prevent them from moving out on the last day and magically suck the rent out of their account the following month after the standing order had been cancelled? Must be some soft tenants out there if they are claiming they allowed themselves to be talked out of moving, or persuaded they are not allowed, they seem to be experts on most other things.

From: Matthew Payne 05 May 2020 10:13 AM

I understand why Chestertons would come out with this PR, makes sense to talk a market into activity, but these arent big numbers however you measure. A 28% increase in almost none, is a fraction more than almost none. I saw a national survey result last week showing that 60% of people will change very little about their behaviour when the lockdown ends. I dont think we will see a surge in much in the coming weeks whether lettings, of any other industry. With a rising mortality rate in the UK, now up to 15% from 13% last week, most of the people I speak to or read about are going to keep their heads down over the summer just to avoid getting contaminated, and I would have thought Londoners even more so, albeit I speculate there. If people do rush out in droves to get back to normality as they suggest, there will be a second much bigger wave, and many scientists say thats actually likely to happen in any case, as hoping we could snuff this out to 0 carriers whilst theoretically possible, would be like betting on horse in the Grand National with 3 legs, the odds are that long.

From: Matthew Payne 05 May 2020 10:05 AM

Hi Andrew, its all down to the interpretation of the police if you were stopped. It doesnt sound unreasonable to visit a property you own once in 7 weeks to check it's still standing when there is far more blatant abuse of the lockdown taking place every day. I always find it amusing how so many people go to do there essential shopping on a sunny weekend dressed head to toe in leathers on a 900cc sports bike with no panniers, no rucksacks, along with their 5 mates who have also decided to do their shopping at exactly the same time, equally as unprepared.

From: Matthew Payne 04 May 2020 11:29 AM

I didnt say it would prevent the lender repossessing if it wasnt there. I didnt say it was a legal requirement. It could compromise a lenders rights to sell the property immediatley if absent and therefore there are implications for the borrower. Most mortgage offers detail that any additional costs in the lender exercising their rights caused by the borrower are the responsibilty of the borrower, and possibly delaying the lenders ability to sell the property with vacant possession might create additonal cost which is not in a landlords interests. It is certainly good practice to include and if the government makes any moves towards assured tenancies then every lender in the land will insist once more that this clause is included and flashing red and making a noise in every TA so everyone knows it is there. (I was just pointing out to Philip that this is one way a tenant can learn the property is mortgaged but they have no right to know.) It is not a standard clause it is usually added on page 16/17 in addtional clauses, and I am not sure why any landlord or agent would not add it for the sake of completeness to reduce risk, however small that may be.

From: Matthew Payne 30 April 2020 10:01 AM

Yes and no. The tenant doesn't have the right to know, but if the TA is drawn up correctly, there should be a Mortgage Ground II clause which basically gives the lender ultimate authority to repossess and is giving the tenant notice of that from the start. If the clause is there, that is informing the tenant of their right to repossess and the risk that poses. If the clause is absent either there is no mortgage or whoever created the TA has failed to add it, which could then compromise a lenders rights and have implications for the landlord who may just want to hand the keys back.

From: Matthew Payne 29 April 2020 19:53 PM

The key here is the language used and whether it is deemed a landlord has provided consent to anything that might be described and then later misconstrued as a holiday, a deferred payment, a reduction etc and what the implied terms might be. Any shortfall needs to be treated and documented in the same way any normal arrears would be.

From: Matthew Payne 29 April 2020 09:09 AM

Perhaps not mediation, but I have been contacted by a number of landlords since this started asking for advice as to how to handle certain situations, some of which have been to do with tenants and rent payments. Getting a formal mediation service involved could be a death nail for any remaining goodwill between a landlord and tenant and as such signal the end of the tenancy as soon as this is all over.

From: Matthew Payne 28 April 2020 16:59 PM

No of course not and is actually designed to prevent the illegal immigration from happening in the first place, as it creates one more obstacle for anyone overseas from thinking it would be easy to get into the UK and live there. If properly policed by landlords and agents, illegal immigration will start to drop and that would reduce the strain on the taxpayer on a lot of fronts. If you know you will have nowehere to live, no benefits, no right to NHS treatment, no job, no blockbuster video card, you are less likely to want to come here in the first place.

From: Matthew Payne 22 April 2020 14:31 PM

I accept that some people from all races are racist to their core, but the Right to Rent scheme wont have made them more racist, or someone who previously very liberal now one. You would know their nationality and the colour of their skin anyway, so if those are drivers for a landlord as opposed to the usual considerations like employment or references then this legislation would have changed very little..

From: Matthew Payne 22 April 2020 12:45 PM

The enforced savings by the pandemic are actually quite considerable, tracker mortgages are down, no commute, no expensive lunches and coffees, no gym memberships, no kids clubs or school lunches, even Sky Sports is free. Chuck it all in a spreadsheet and it adds up to quite a meaningful amount.

From: Matthew Payne 16 April 2020 11:02 AM

I am not sure why a landlord would take a mortgage holiday when they dont need one? Affects your credit worthyness, makes the mortgages more expensive, and they then still need to be paid anyway. Where is the logic?

From: Matthew Payne 16 April 2020 10:50 AM

It is hysteria like this that led to all the panic buying in the shops. Shout loud enough for long enough and people think a problem exists where there isn't one. Campaigning like this is only about self promotion.

From: Matthew Payne 14 April 2020 10:35 AM

I am sure the tear off slip wont be returned by anyone, a bit of symbolism perhaps. It is worth doing from an education perspective. There is a lot of fake news going around about tenant rent holidays and lobbyists calling for this and that. Constructively engaging with your tenants in explaining what the guidelines actually are, what is expected and what the possible outcomes could be if they stopped paying rent is a useful exercise and will lead to less arrears.

From: Matthew Payne 14 April 2020 09:55 AM

The implication of rennovation was that nothing was essential, so any of us doing DIY away from our homes would not be allowed. However, if you are a trade and you are doing work on an empty property following social distancing regs, as your livlihood depends on it, then that would be allowed, so the WHO is relevant depending on the cirmcumstances. I know plenty of trades who are still working and being allowed to work, gardeners are still out in force as well. Bet you get a ticket though if you get pulled over and you tell him you are off to mow auntie bettys lawn for her.

From: Matthew Payne 09 April 2020 11:52 AM

I am sure there are some jobs that could be justified as essential maintenance that cannot wait, but there will be plenty of others that will not. Rennovation is a broad brush, pardon the pun. Ultimately it will be down to the interpretation of the law and judgment of the police officer if you get pulled over.

From: Matthew Payne 09 April 2020 11:48 AM

The irony is the Tories have done this to win over young voters over who are more likely to vote Labour, and it is a traditional Labour policy area. However, as their ill conceived policies start to bear fruit, ie smaller PRS, less choice and higher rents they could well face a backlash from these tenants who then turn to Labour at the next election. They may well need to reverse these policies to save their own skin.

From: Matthew Payne 09 April 2020 11:09 AM

The flaw is forcing all landlords to pay to join a scheme when they may be fully compliant. If they are genuinely interested in tenant welfare they should carry out their checks at their own cost, and fine those in breach. I dont understand why the PRS gets this perverted attention where you have to pay to have someone check you are not breaking the law, that's what certification is for. The council doesnt force car drivers to pay to join a scheme for them to enforce car maintenance standards even though they may have a valid MOT and road worthy car. The law exists and it is for central and local government to police it from existing tax receipts.

From: Matthew Payne 08 April 2020 14:50 PM

Hi Jonathan, in your case as an owner it would be regarded as a hobby and not essential maintenance even if the garden does get a bit overgrown. Yes if you employ someone they can do it, as they cant carry out their job remotely. The key is all about movement not what you may be doing. An employed person is permitted as HMG doesnt want to deny them the opportunity to work if they can do so safely. You travelling there would be regarded as non essential as your livlihood is not dependent on it, and CGT payments in the future wont count. They are trying to limit the number of unecessary car journeys as statistically there will more accidents, more ambulances called away from the front line.

From: Matthew Payne 08 April 2020 14:40 PM

I have seen only 5 BTL lenders openly declare a holilday so far, and no doubt there will be conditions attached and fees to use, so I would say virtually no LL is taking a mortgage holiday currently and with section 24 and all the other layers of red tape and licensing, this urban myth that landlords even make modest profits now they are taxed on turnover and profit needs to be addressed by commentators. So I would say it is largely untrue, the exception being landlords that may have low or nil mortages on properties inherited or bought a long time ago.

From: Matthew Payne 02 April 2020 11:17 AM

I would check their terms, unless they have a very unusual set having read 100s of sets over the years, lettings agents terms normally say its a % of the gross rent or something similar, in fact I have never seen a set that say its a % of the intial rent or normal rent even if it changes, so this would be a first. I am sure if you had a rent review that triggered an increase they would change their tune.

From: Matthew Payne 02 April 2020 11:04 AM

It is good advice though. The current crisis is where we find ourselves whether we like it or not, and nothing will ever be achieved in extremes burying your head in the sand or either party being too belligerent. Open communciations and good relationships between landlords and tenants are more likely to lead to an agreeable solution for most, and that's how most deals are brokered in a business. This is just another one of those. (he doesn't say he backs a longer possession notice, so I am not sure why that is the headline, he just says with courts closng, that will simply be the reality)

From: Matthew Payne 31 March 2020 10:41 AM

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