By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Nick King
3444  Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Nick's Recent Activity

Nick King
This article doesn't make clear just who, exactly, has been fined. If [as I assume] it's the Landlords/Agents (for not undertaking checks, irrespective of the Tenant's status), then it just goes to show how despicable this Legislation is in, effectively, merely 'criminalising' those (as 'soft' targets) unilaterally imposed upon to undertake a responsibility that more fittingly should be undertaken by Immigration Officers. I wonder how many Immigration Officers get fined each year for missing an 'illegal' through their own inadequate checks ? Moreover, for a scheme that costs £4.7m to administer, it is clearly an absurdity that it managed to raise a paltry £265k. If these iniquitous fines are indeed applied to Landlords/Agents ... I also wonder just what percentage of those, heinous, 'missed' checks resulted in a person without a 'Right to Rent' being indicted ? In the [unlikely] event that the figure refers to Tenant Applicants reported to the authorities consequential of those checks, then it seems to be a significantly small number, when considered as a percentage of 'illegals' [undocumented migrants] in the country. Figures are impossible to come by, but the Home Office readily admits to about 150,000 to 250,000 per year not complying with their Visa requirements and continue to live in Britain beyond the time formally permitted ... and anywhere from 650,000 to one million undocumented migrants living in the UK under the radar. What utter madness this makes these 405 fines !

From: Nick King 29 May 2018 08:26 AM

Nick King

From: Nick King 27 February 2018 10:07 AM

Nick King
@John Peters - Whilst it might be fair to suggest that a small number of Agents take advantage of applying higher than could be reasoned charges, the VAST MAJORITY do not. Moreover, and more importantly, prospective Tenants do not have any obligation to use such 'over-priced' Agents (no different to you getting quotes from any number of contractors - and using your judgement to select which one suits you). What this paradigm shift in policy will actually do is take away a significant number of both good Agents and good Landlords from a marketplace that currently finds its own equilibrium - even a cap on fees could be arguably palatable to all parties (although, I don't see any customer caps placed on, for example, Banks' mortgage loan fees ... and/or any other industries for that matter) ... so it is difficult to see what a complete Government-imposed prohibition of such charges does within the context of the UK's economic principles. Since this proposed ban is not a stand-alone move, all other attacks on the PRS have to be seen in the wider picture - and, thus, the realisation of a desire to destroy the sector is an obvious unavoidable conclusion. In the short term (as Mark, above, points out) losing property quicker than the "Build-to-Rent" developers will be able to re-supply [thus creating rental increases - even if just for a few transitional years ?], and eventually bringing to Tenants a blandly homogenised version of high-density-only rental accommodation, lacking the variances currently enjoyed from a variety of private Landlords' differing circumstances. And if anyone could try to convince me that this will remove 'rogue' Landlords from the horizon ... I suggest they take a critical look at just how much exploitation goes on by the Corporates who now have virtual monopolies in certain service/retail sectors. You are certainly right about it being a conspiracy - the whole farce is an appalling example of antidemocratic social liberalism at its worst - in reality, being an underhand capitalistic con-trick, designed to enrich the few as opposed to allowing a truly mixed economy to thrive as it has been for a number of recent years. Few outside the industry will mourn the loss of Estate Agents' jobs - but, irrespective of such unfounded prejudices, my belief is that everyone should be able to work as they wish in a free environment, merely with sensibly workable legal constraints preventing crime.

From: Nick King 08 September 2017 03:45 AM

MovePal MovePal MovePal