x

Steve buttery

2204 Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Steve's Recent Activity

I wouldn't sign up to it because to achieve even Bronze status I would have to agree to use recurring ASTs rather than periodic unless the tenant requested otherwise and to take no more than six weeks deposit. I have no legal right to do this because its not my property, it is the landlord's property. I am legally required to act on the landlord's instructions and if he tells me he wants 8 weeks deposit, or wants the tenancy to go periodic because he might want to sell it then this is what I have to do. Saying "I'm sorry Mr Landlord but I've signed up to this scheme, so I can't follow your instructions" isn't an option that's available to me.

From: Steve buttery 10 May 2016 09:44 AM

Agents don't refuse to let properties to people on Housing benefits. It's the landlord who gives the agent his instructions who does that.

From: Steve buttery 22 April 2016 09:56 AM

Bronze level: Does the local authority not understand that the agent has no legal right (except in a genuine emergency) to spend the landlord's money to effect a repair unless the landlord agrees? Equally the agent has no legal right to offer a tenant a new fixed term instead of allowing the tenancy to become periodic unless the landlord agrees. Nor does the agent have the right to place an upper level on the deposit. The other listed "requirements" to achieve Bronze status are legal requirements anyway.

From: Steve buttery 21 April 2016 09:50 AM

Over the years this lady must have paid many thousands of pounds for food, and depending on where, when and how she shops she'll find that the price she pays for her weekly groceries can vary enormously. It's clearly a rip-off. She should start a petition to make supermarkets give their food away free of charge immediately.

From: Steve buttery 18 April 2016 09:27 AM

Adrian, I agree that the actions of this rogue franchisee tarnished the Belvoir brand in that area and the new franchisee will need to work hard to repair this. However, do you really think Belvoir just "allowed it to happen?". Unless you are a sole trader or a small independent you cannot possibly monitor everything that goes on in your company's name. All you can do is put systems and processes in place to minimise the risk of malpractice, carry out due diligence checks, and act if and when you discover something is amiss, which is what Belvoir appear to have done. I also hope and expect that Belvoir have been in contact with those clients affected by their former franchisees actions, but I don't see why should they be expected to make a "very public apology to the landlords and tenants of Northamptonshire". I should add that I'm a Martin & Co franchisee, so Belvoir are "the competition", but I'm sticking up for them out of a sense of fair play.

From: Steve buttery 05 February 2016 15:58 PM

Sorry Adrian but that's a very ill-informed comment. No franchisor can ever guarantee that they won't have a rogue franchisee, in the same way that a corporate cannot guarantee that they'll never have a rogue branch manager. Belvoir (it appears) took decisive action against the franchisee when wrongdoing was uncovered. It's nonsense to say that a new business owner shouldn't be able to trade under the Belvoir brand in Kettering or that Belvoir directors should resign. To draw an analogy, imagine if a Ford franchise was found to be overcharging customers and had its franchise withdrawn. By your reasoning Ford shouldn't be allowed to sell cars in that town in future.

From: Steve buttery 05 February 2016 10:40 AM

I looked at putting my properties into a limited company. Took me less than five minutes to work out that the costs (higher mortgage rate and CGT) outweighed the potential saving by a mile. Remember that under the new rules you can still off-set mortgage interest, its just that its going to be restricted to 20%, and even this is being phased in over a number of years. One observation about transferring properties to a lower tax rate spouse - remember that you have legally given your property away and your spouse, not you, is now the legal owner of the properties. If you get divorced at a later date you can probably kiss goodbye to them, even if you owned the properties before the marriage.

From: Steve buttery 31 July 2015 09:03 AM

This from a company which charges 34.9% interest on their credit card.

From: Steve buttery 12 June 2015 08:22 AM

Breaking News