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

Jonathan's  Personal Profile View my company profile

icon
Jonathan Sandford
1459  Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Jonathan's Recent Activity

Jonathan Sandford
Why linit the criticism to just these councils? Waltham Forest and Newham to name just two more have form for this. As an agency, we been introduced to a number of prospective new landlords this year who were previously self-managing and in too many cases for our liking, the first thing we have to tell them is that their current occupancy is non-compliant. For example, a 2 bed flat in Waltham Forest occupied by a couple who then let the other bedroom to a friend who was made redundant is now a non-mandatory HMO. The definition is a property that that is occupied by three or four unrelated people which form two or more households. Planning permission is required to change the use from C3 to C4 and we have repeatedly been told that permission will not be granted. Similarly, in Newham, where there is a large student population attending UEL, 3 students who can’t afford to rent singly are prevented from sharing for the same reason. To make these properties compliant, the tenants in the 2 bed flat will have to be given notice to leave and be replaced with either a couple or multiple tenants but all from the same family. The same applies with the 3 students. The consequence of this is that many otherwise good tenants will have to be made homeless; in many cases, 3 people are needed to share the rent – even on a 2-bed flat - because for just two sharers, the rents in London are unaffordable but under the requirements driven by the Article 4 Declarations, this sharing will not be allowed and the penalties for non-compliance can be severe. If ever there was one, this surely is an example of the law of unintended consequences Does Waltham Forest, Newham and the other councils cited want to see perfectly good tenants renting perfectly good properties from perfectly good landlords having to be evicted through no fault of their own? Our prospective new landlords were not happy to be told this even though our intention was simply to help them avoid financial penalties Dare I say that the Renter’s Reform Bill would do more good if it sought to remove the artificial, policy-driven barriers to sharing.

From: Jonathan Sandford 30 October 2023 10:17 AM

Jonathan Sandford
The law with regard to property matters is nowhere near as common sense logical as we might think and hope. A colleague of mine did a favour for an acquaintance who is a landlord here but lives in Turkey most of the time. Precisely why, I don’t know, but the ‘favour’ consisted of having the rent paid into his account each month which he then remitted to the landlord’s bank account in Turkey. There was no other involvement. A random council inspection revealed that there were 4 adults in the flat and the subsequent offence was having an unlicensed HMO. The tenants said they were all related – cousins, no less and with the council unable to prove otherwise, the HMO element was withdrawn and not having a Selective licence was substituted. The council instituted proceedings against my colleague for managing a property without a licence and of course, he totally denied this. However the law says that even though my colleague had nothing to do with finding the tenants, setting up the AST, referencing the tenants and dealing with maintenance issues that the tenants had reported, the sheer act of collecting the rent – even though it went straight into his account and straight out again was regarding by the Housing Act 2004 as “managing or being in control of a property”. A QC was retained who advised him to plead guilty to mitigate the level of fine as there was no way he would be able to win that one. He was fined £5000 with a 50% reduction because of an early guilty plea. To this day, he has never regarded himself as having been the manager of, or in control of that property and while he thinks (as do I) that this part of the law is bonkers, there was no defence that could have stood up at the Frist Tier Tribunal. The managing agent absolutely got away with one there

From: Jonathan Sandford 23 July 2021 21:02 PM

Jonathan Sandford
Good news for Central London students - not so good for students in boroughs such as Waltham Forest and Newham. Why? because the level of rents make sharing a necessity not a luxury. So 3 students wanting to share a 3 bedroom flat or house (or even a 2 bed flat) would make the property an HMO. Both these boroughs require planning permission to change use from C3 to C4 (if not already done) and that requires planning permission. Because both boroughs have an Article 4 Direction in place, that planning permission will be refused thus depriving many students of the chance to live near to their place of study at an economic rent. Arbitrary, discriminatory and unfair

From: Jonathan Sandford 16 September 2020 10:02 AM

Breaking News
MovePal MovePal MovePal