x

Hemi Tanna

2451 Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Hemi's Recent Activity

Generally, I think it's the same issue for most regulations in the sector - a few ruin it for the many. There are areas in my hometown of Leicester where there are To Let boards up all year round due to advertising of student private properties. It put off residential tenants, annoys the local residents and gives the perception the the area is having issues with letting/selling. To Let boards are a great way to advertise to the local area and I often see one property have a board, followed by another 2/3 locally in the next few weeks - marketing gold some may say! Banning them does seem like punishment for those who refuse to be practical about their boards. However, I will also note that I have never used a board for advertising properties. I am a small agency based online and coming up to 5 years of business and not a single property of mine advertised online, has required a board to be let, and be let in excellent timeframes. In fact, the one property I have ever been dual agency on, had their board outside the house and it resulted in a potential tenant knocking on the owners door at 8pm on a Friday night wanting to come in and view! I feel from a marketing perspective, boards can be an invaluable tool to get listings and lead to a referral word of mouth type of advert that money cannot buy. But from a letting perspective solely, no I don't think they are essential at all.

From: Hemi Tanna 23 January 2019 11:42 AM

I agree Gordon. If the tenants request it I always give 12 months providing the tenants are good ones. However, with all the emphasis on helping tenants to buy a home, surely longer tenancies being imposed would not help this? I have tenants who have been trying to find a house to buy for 12 months and have been on a periodic tenancy for that long; they were on a fixed term before that. Circumstances change and that should be allowed for.

From: Hemi Tanna 13 November 2017 12:07 PM

The reason that renters have less than £100 in the bank is because they don't have to worry about maintenance and repairs. Homeowners may have cheaper mortgages, but they have the added disadvantage of having to cover all repairs etc themselves. Rent does not just cover living in the house. It also pays for the service you receive from the Landlords and the convenience of having everything in the house done for you. You claim that the deposit scheme is holding back renters from buying and Paul Collins made the excellent point that £700 does not a house deposit make. You replied using figures where all the deposits in total was quoted - this does not help the individual tenant. Each tenant has individually a deposit - saying £3.5 billion being tied up is no good is not a response; are all the tenants going to bank their tenancy deposits together and buy houses?? This is about individual tenants and, I reiterate, a tenancy deposit will not cause any issue with saving for a house deposit. Finally, I agree that yet again, Landlords are being taken from and blamed. Homeowners have to pay product fees and valuation fees etc..the mortgage lender doing a valuation to agree to lend and the homeowner pays for it and DOESN'T GET THE MONEY BACK! Tenancy deposit is given back when they move, do homeowners get it back NO, they have to pay out again, just like tenants do. Overall, whether you own or rent there are costs. End of. Pay your costs for the choice you make for your housing and deal with your own finances to save for whatever reason you save for; go back to the old days and cut back on luxuries! Save the old fashioned way and not by taking from the people who are providing you with a service. Landlords are expected to do more for less return - whats the fairness in that?

From: Hemi Tanna 29 March 2017 15:25 PM

Breaking News