x

Sue Kelly

2239 Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Sue's Recent Activity

If landlords aren't careful, they'll be pricing themselves out of the market. There is a limit on how much people will be able to pay. Putting rents up to unsustainable levels will likely result in increased rent arrears. They'll end up much worse off then as it's unlikely they could. recover these debts. If landlords are running their lettings portfolios as a business they should be tied into long-term low fixed-rate mortgages which will minimise their exposure to interest rate rises.

From: Sue Kelly 11 November 2022 07:03 AM

There is no evidence that the virus will be any less virulent in the summer months. It has been spreading in countries that have been in their summer months - Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other African and American countries south of the equator. If self employed/zero hour contract workers are renting they're unlikely to be able to afford to pay their rent for for the coming months. The government really needs to get to grips with this.

From: Sue Kelly 24 March 2020 10:07 AM

Why on earth would anyone do that?

From: Sue Kelly 24 March 2020 10:02 AM

I'm not surprised by these comments as people always get defensive when they feel threatenend. The bottom line is that if agents are abiding by the law, ensuring that the landlords they work for offer decent housing and are willing to carry out the necessary repairs on a timely basis and they themselves treat the tenants with respect, they have nothing to fear.

From: Sue Kelly 17 January 2020 08:21 AM

Save!! A large number of tenants are barely managing to afford to pay their rent let alone paying to put food on the table. I don't think you live in the real world!!

From: Sue Kelly 28 June 2019 09:50 AM

Farage puts Farage first!

From: Sue Kelly 30 May 2019 09:43 AM

Emma, What is written in this article that leads you to believe that this will lead to tenants being able to live rent free in a property? It seems to me that maybe you need to improve your vetting if all your tenants wreck your house(s). On the surface this type of approach sounds as though it would benefit both landlords and tenants - that is until you look at the charges this agency imposes on both landlords and tenants.

From: Sue Kelly 15 January 2019 08:08 AM

There is a limit to how much people can afford so with rent rises there'll be a larger percentage of rent arrears. More complicated that just supply and demand.

From: Sue Kelly 02 November 2018 09:18 AM

There are rules and anyone who enters the lettings market has an obligation to adhere to them. Ignorance is no excuse. They are running a business not a benevolent society (there are rules that govern those as well I assume). If you don't want to abide by the law then don't let property. It's as simple as that.

From: Sue Kelly 30 October 2018 09:53 AM

Which is exactly why landlords with small portfolios shouldn't be investing in this market. If you have to discriminate and charge unrealistic rents to make a profit then maybe you need to reassess your strategy.

From: Sue Kelly 23 October 2018 09:24 AM

From: Sue Kelly 22 October 2018 09:20 AM

Maybe they are referring to the rent they charge - making up the difference between the actual and discounted rent they pay their landlord clients. I doubt it.

From: Sue Kelly 05 October 2018 08:53 AM

I expect there'll also be a corresponding rise in rent arrears.

From: Sue Kelly 28 September 2018 08:35 AM

In many instances, don't banks own the properties with landlords acting as mere intermediaries? The Housing Act 1988 allows you to serve a Section 8 notice which will inform your tenant that you intend to take him to court if he doesn't pay within a further 14 days. You can potentially claim the rent arrears and any costs incurred. You can also take out insurance to protect you in case your tenant falls into arrears.

From: Sue Kelly 29 August 2018 10:30 AM

Of course this is the case. Property prices are way too high and are unaffordable for many first time buyers. This is a good way to drive down prices.

From: Sue Kelly 29 August 2018 10:24 AM

If you have valid reasons for wanting your property back, there are many other alternatives to Section 21.

From: Sue Kelly 29 August 2018 10:22 AM

I have lived in two houses where appliances kept tripping the main fuse boxes. In both cases there were significant problems that could have caused death by fire or electrocution at any time. I agree with both Krisjan and Kathy. Landlords already have a responsibility to ensure that electricity provisions are safe. The only way they can really know this is to get it checked by a qualified electrician. If tenants are stupid enough to put their own lives at risk then they will have to face the consequences of their actions. As a landlord you have a legal and moral responsibility to keep the occupants of your properties safe. Why would choose not to meet those requirements and put your whole business at risk?

From: Sue Kelly 20 July 2018 17:28 PM

Surprised at the tone of the comments for this article. If you are a good landlord/letting agent, surely you want any that aren't to be dealt with so that they don't tarnish the reputations of everyone in the lettings industry? Tenants have to live with problems in their homes on a daily basis. If you live in a property that is damp, have faulty gas equipment or trouble with your electrics your life can be hell. If you are a landlord/letting agent of a property that has these issues, and you don't sort them out, tenants pestering you to make repairs etc. is a minor irritation and you can get on with your life without it having a significant impact. It's in everyone's interest to weed out the bad landlords/letting agents. Does anyone disagree?

From: Sue Kelly 18 July 2018 10:23 AM

Tip of the iceberg!

From: Sue Kelly 03 July 2018 07:58 AM

The bottom line is that house prices have to fall to realistic affordable levels. Government intervention has kept prices high when the market should have been allowed to find its own level.

From: Sue Kelly 26 June 2018 14:12 PM

I'm a little confused by your statement Gordon. What makes you think that I want to be paid more money without earning it? I thought that was what I was arguing against - landlords and letting agents charging extortionate rents for doing little to merit ever increasing charges. It seems you've missed the point entirely. I believe in a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. I also believe that everyone should be able to afford to put a roof over their head and food on the table. If that makes me a bad person then so be it.

From: Sue Kelly 17 June 2018 13:51 PM

More than 20% of workers in the UK earn less than the so-called living wage of £8.45 an hour. We will always need people to carry out jobs that do not require a college/university education but these people should be paid enough to afford a roof over their head. As should single parents who can't work full time due to childcare responsibilities. I agree with a lot of what Richard says. The financial systems across the world need mending but that's unlikely to happen any time soon. Money was spent by Jo Public prior to the crash but I believe the blame firmly lies at the door of greedy bankers and their wealthy clients who have salted billions offshore in tax free havens. Young people prior to the crash were pushed into home ownership by "financial advisers" desperate for commission offering loans at 7 times annual salary with no deposit. Of course they defaulted because the mortgage was unaffordable and the homes they'd bought dropped in value and left them with negative equity. Credit card limits increased three or four times a year to levels that were totally unsustainable. That's where a lot of the money went. Yes people spent money they couldn't afford but they didn't take the country to the brink. Massive funds were spent bailing out the greedy bankers followed by quantitative easing. Some of this did find it's way back to those that really needed it to compensate them for mis-sold financial products and PPI. And getting back to wages... many employers have paid ridiculously low wages for years expecting the government to make up the difference through in-work benefits. If employers can't afford to pay employees a real living wage then they shouldn't be in business. The same goes for landlords who charge extortionate rents for substandard housing. Where they have very little equity in the property they need to understand that they are merely middle men creaming money off those least able to afford it. That doesn't mean that there are no ethical landlords out there. I know there are many. They've also been conned into believing that the pension hits and dire savings rates they've suffered can be replaced by money made from property investment and letting property. Many are finding out this is a flawed investment strategy as they're perpetually at the mercy of whatever government is in power. Austerity doesn't work and isn't necessary and it's time the poorest amongst us were not made to suffer in the name of a political ideology that has shown time and time again to be deeply flawed. Feel better having got that off my chest :-)

From: Sue Kelly 15 June 2018 18:20 PM

Barryin Wilts... I do think that utilities - electricity, gas, water and the railways should be nationalised and that foreign investors shouldn't be making huge profits at our expense. As far as supermarkets, butchers, retailers are concerned, you have a more varied choice of where you shop and what you buy. If you need to rent a house near where you work and your kids go to a local school you might find that there are only a only a handful of affordable homes available. If they are all unaffordable do you give up your job and hope you'll find another in another area every time your rent increases? Do you move your children from school to school chasing rental property you can afford? Would you expect poor, disabled and elderly people to suffer from hypothermia in the winter months because they can't afford to heat their homes and cook nutritious meals? And do you think that we should continue paying for a substandard rail service when we've no other way of getting to work/school etc.? I think it is you who needs to "get real".

From: Sue Kelly 15 June 2018 10:47 AM

I suspect they knew full well what would happen. Maybe they hoped that property values would fall as landlords rushed to sell and the glut of properties on the market forced prices down. Not very clever though as there aren't enough people in the position to buy even if properties dropped by 20%. And they've not made any attempt to provide an alternative supply of homes to rent - unless they offer to buy properties off landlords for market value and take over the tenancies themselves. This is a problem that isn't going to go away until the government fixes our broken property market.

From: Sue Kelly 15 June 2018 10:20 AM

Which is why Gordon I believe housing should be provided through charities - or subsidised as with council and social housing. There are lots of ways to make money but expecting to make it through high rents is not the answer. In fact, don't many landlords buy property as they expect it to increase in value and they will make money when they sell it? I'm aware that this is a gamble but so are many investment strategies. If landlords raise rents to unaffordable levels then they risk tenants falling into arrears - and that causes headaches for everyone concerned.

From: Sue Kelly 15 June 2018 10:16 AM

Can't keep putting up rents. No-one will be able to afford them. Time this exploitation was dealt with propertly. A roof over someone's head is not a commodity, it's a necessity. Profiting from someone else's predicament is unethical and obscene.

From: Sue Kelly 15 June 2018 09:02 AM

Your profit margin is obviously a major factor but the measure of whether a business model is viable is whether it delivers a net profit (or there are expectations that it will in the future). Amazon struggled for years making huge losses but it had investors with deep pockets. It diversified into a number of different areas and is now hugely profitable. If letting agents don't diversify then no, their current business model is not viable.

From: Sue Kelly 31 May 2018 05:23 AM

When you apply to a recruitment agency for a job that is advertised would you be happy to pay £500+ for the agency carrying to carry out referencing and "admin" tasks? No of course you wouldn't. The employer pays the agent for finding a suitable employee. Letting agents perform a similar service but deal in property not employment. Think about it! And every letting agent I've dealt with has been very keen to tell me that they work for the landlord - not the tenant. If they insist on taking money from the tenants, then they ARE working for the tenants too. Better make sure they treat them well otherwise they could be contravening Consumer law.

From: Sue Kelly 31 May 2018 05:18 AM

Rents have to be affordable so if landlords put their rents up significantly they may find they have increased arrears.

From: Sue Kelly 30 May 2018 09:09 AM

I suggest you examine your business model Simon. The one you're currently operating is not viable.

From: Sue Kelly 30 May 2018 08:48 AM

How much time does the average agent spend on setting up a tenancy? I'm genuinely interested.

From: Sue Kelly 30 May 2018 08:47 AM

I totally agree. I had to read the article twice as it seemed unlikely that the tenants were being fined but that's how I read it the first time round. This is totally in line with every policy the government has in place - DWP, Home Office, employers etc. It's nothing to do with giving tax payers value for money. It's all about the rhetoric. It's unlikely that these sanctions will ever make a significant difference to the number of illegal immigrants living here. It's just another way for one of the governments "preferred suppliers" to make more money when administering this flawed policy. Going after "soft targets" gives them the excuse to avoid doing what they're paid to do - that is, to put robust policies in place to monitor visitors to our country and to know where they are if they overstay their welcome. And this is nothing to do with Brexit. In fact, I expect the situation will worsen if this goes ahead as there'll be less funding available and fewer staff dealing with this. They'll all be manning the ports!! I despair!!

From: Sue Kelly 29 May 2018 08:36 AM

Owning your own home is not always the answer but while property prices at the lower end are being artificially held up because of buy-to-let policies then ownership by first time buyers remains out of reach. What is needed is a complete shake up and a levelling of house prices which are currently too high. If they dropped to realistic levels and wages rose more people would be able to afford to buy. Not sure why it's seen as undesirable for everyone to be able to afford a roof over their head whether it be rented or owned. Isn't that what a Labour government would work towards?

From: Sue Kelly 25 May 2018 08:30 AM

Sounds like the letting agency my son had the misfortune to have to deal with!

From: Sue Kelly 24 May 2018 14:13 PM

I am entering the lettings market as a startup and do not understand the reasoning behind the need for tenants fees. Tenants are often told that the letting agent doesn't work for them but for the landlord. However, once you take a fee from them you are effectively working for them. Tenancy agreements, checks on the property etc. should be charged for but these are business costs the landlord should expect to pay for. Many letting agents charge both the letting agent and the tenant for carrying out the same work which I don't believe is ethical. There are many ways letting agents can tweak their business model to make money. If they can't work this out then they don't deserve to be in business. This is my personal opinion and I know that will not be popular on this forum.

From: Sue Kelly 24 May 2018 13:31 PM

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. It's becoming almost impossible for people on benefits to rent PRS properties which means that those in private rental properties must be working. You obviously have no idea of the level of benefits paid to people who don't work. I suggest you check your facts before posting unhelpful comments in future.

From: Sue Kelly 11 May 2018 11:01 AM

Fit For The Future package - How can landlords mandate that tenants take out liability and contents insurance? Surely this is an unfair term? And a "service charge" - the equivalent of one week's rent. Is this not the same as so-called "admin" fees? C'mon.... surely the industry can do better than this!

From: Sue Kelly 30 April 2018 08:04 AM

As I said, I've yet to find one. Had problems with deposits not protected properly, no gas checks/certificates, no EPC, unfair clauses in Tenancy Agreements which although asked to pay for told only landlord able to vary, high fees, no prescribed information, failure to respond to calls (agents), infestations, dangerous electrics, disrepair - gas and water leaks, dangerous stairs, windows/vent sealed I could go on. All these properties were larger than average with mid-range rents in decent areas. As a tenant I kept the properties clean, was a good neighbour and paid the rent. I've heard of many experience worse that I've endured.

From: Sue Kelly 27 April 2018 10:39 AM

Where are these "heroes"? I've yet to find one and I've been renting for almost 20 years.

From: Sue Kelly 27 April 2018 08:17 AM

Blah, blah, blah..... We have organisations who are meant to oversee Landlords and Letting Agents behaviour. We have legislation that is meant to protect both landlords and tenants. Do any of these work efficiently and effectively? No!! So what are the chances that the suggestions put forward here will be any better? None!

From: Sue Kelly 02 October 2017 08:27 AM

Well Jeremy... The first thought that came to my mind was why, having probably been paid by both the landlord and the tenant to carry out these checks, have they not been doing what they've been paid to do? Maybe both landlords and tenants should be requesting a refund from the Agents for taking money under false pretenses!!

From: Sue Kelly 14 September 2017 09:20 AM

Why should landlords expect tenancy reference fees to be paid by the tenant? If you apply for a job, you'd be flabbergasted if your potential employer asked you to pay upfront for references to be obtained as part of the recruitment process. By the same token, when applying for a loan or bank account, you are not asked to pay for any credit checks undertaken. These costs arise as a result of the landlord wishing to make sure that the tenant they choose meets THEIR criteria and should be factored into the business costs involved in running the tenancy. Tenants pay rent for the privilege of renting the property and this, along with a deposit if deemed necessary, should be all they are required to pay.

From: Sue Kelly 03 May 2017 07:58 AM

Breaking News