x

Andrew McCausland

Managing Director

8210 Profile Views

About Me

Buying, selling, investing, building and enjoying all aspects of the property business since 1994.

my expertise in the industry

Specialist in retrofit insulation, helping clients reduce their energy costs.

Andrew's Recent Activity

I like and respect Paul, but I fail to see the issue here. All the quoted cases are examples of fraud or other criminal conduct. There is already a procedure for dealing with this (the police) and it doesn't need yet another database of people or list of people to avoid. If LL want security then they need to do their due diligence and use agents with a good online reputation and membership of an appropriate trade body. If they just chase the lowest fee and don't do any checks then they leave themselves open to fraud - just as we all do in other walks of life.

From: Andrew McCausland 05 October 2020 13:18 PM

Seems more to do with re-positioning the Conservative Party to win votes from Generation Rent than anything to do with economics. The whole of government policy toward housing is disjointed. You can't try an encourage more home ownership on one side whilst also asking the BOE to make it substantially harder to get a mortgage on the other. Even with Help to Buy etc, the majority of renters cannot get the deposit together or can't meet the lending criteria to access a mortgage. So step forward the "scum" landlord to steal the property away to actually house these people. It might be different if local authorities or central government actually dipped their hands into their own pockets and built the housing required. Until they do this the country needs the private landlords to provide the housing required.

From: Andrew McCausland 26 June 2018 08:58 AM

We were lead sponsors of the Wirral Council Private Landlords Forum yesterday, where we had around 100 local landlords gather to hear speakers talking on a range of subjects effecting the PRS. I spoke about Section 24 as I felt there was still a lack of knowledge or understanding of the implications of this appalling legislation on landlords. My estimate was that about 20% of landlords in the room had not even heard of S24 and a further 40% were unaware of the implications for their business. People who read these type of blogs, us property nerds, have been discussing this for over 12 months. However, despite the great work of Steve and Chris et al the message has not filtered down to smaller scale landlords, particularly those who self manage. Most striking of all was the sense of unfairness of the plans. The very rich (supposedly those targeted by the measure), companies and RSL's are unaffected. The middle earning investors who planned for their future now find these plans in ruins through no fault of their own. After the budget all the discussion was on the change to SDLT and S24 seemed to get lost in the background. There is the referendum later this month and it is rightly dominating the airwaves and no doubt will do for months afterwards. Getting the mainstream press to discuss anything else at the moment is very difficult. I am sorry to say that I think the NLA are correct in their assessment of the chances of a judicial review. However, I believe Chris and Steve are right to try and push the matter more to the fore of landlords minds. The more publicity the better. If we are to get any change it has to be by working together to influence politicians (particularly Conservative ones - if only because the next election is planned for after implementation of S24). The Government is not listening so I suggest targeting specific MP's (and Councillors) in their constituencies. Let them feel the anger this generates. Make sure they are aware of the damage this will do to individuals and businesses, often built up over many years. Explain to them in person how this will not achieve the intended results for the housing market. Tell them you will have to raise rents to offset the obvious losses. I don't suggest we take to the streets (we are not the French, after all). However, The Conservatives championed localism as an ideal. Organise locally and show our politicians the strength of feeling about this. Lets all support the judicial review process. But also start agitating for change at the local level. There are enough private landlords out there who can flex their political muscle if we act together. Agencies like the NLA, ARLA etc. can then play a vital role in bringing the diverse groups together to try and stop this before it destroys the plans and dreams of many ordinary men and women.

From: Andrew McCausland 10 June 2016 11:46 AM

Interesting article. My only complaint is with whoever drew up the mapping and their reasons for drawing the boundaries as they did. My area of interest is Merseyside and North Wales and so took particular note of this part of the map. Three points to note are: 1. Wirral is part of Merseyside and should have been included within their boundary, not Clwyd. Wirral currently has some of the highest yields of anywhere in the country, even higher than Liverpool. Inclusion of Wirral within the Liverpool map would have pushed Merseyside to the very top of the returns table. Prices in Wirral are some 10- 15% lower across the range than comparables in Liverpool, but rents are almost identical for all property types outside the immediate Liverpool city centre area. 2. Wirral will be included within the area of the Merseyside metropolitan area under control of the new Metro Mayor from next year. So far, so dull. However, Wirral will then be subject to the policies of new Mayor, with devolved powers that affect housing, transport and inward investment. The Mayor is likely to be Joe Anderson, the current Labour party Mayor of Liverpool. You may or may not like some of his policies but he has a good track record of leveraging in funds for the city region. His policies for housing and transport in particular look credible, and he has a very good track record of representing the Liverpool region on the international stage, bring in more investment. 3. There are huge programmes of infrastructure improvements and inward investment on both sides of the Mersey that should push values on at pace equally in Liverpool and Wirral. These are being instigated by Peel Group (owners of pretty much the whole of both banks of the River Mersey) under the banners of Liverpool Waters and Wirral Waters. House prices do not yet reflect these major upcoming changes and so yields will remain high in the medium term until prices reflect these improvements to the Mersey basin area.

From: Andrew McCausland 09 May 2016 10:55 AM

This whole raft of policy towards the PRS shows signs of poor design by people with no experience of the industry or, more importantly, no concept of the effects of its implementation. Barring the limited uptake in gross tax income (which will no doubt be more than offset by the additional costs of social housing) for the government there are no redeeming features for any of the recent policy announcements: 1. Encouraging more new build - no, see above. 2. Encouraging renovation and reuse of older housing stock - no, private investors now discouraged from buying more stock. 3. Helping people on to the housing ladder - no, bank of mum and dad not pay higher SDLT. 4. Helping renters save deposits to buy their own home - no, higher rents by landlords to cover additional costs. 5. Reducing the general tax burden - no. 6. Encouraging people to take responsibility and save for retirement - no, higher costs of owning investment property. 7. Encouraging families to look after older relatives in "granny flats" thereby releasing the state from this cost - no, higher STDT and additional Council Tax. All these problems were predicted but George failed to listen. I believe this budget will go down as one of the major cock up's of the parliament. What happened to the overarching Conservative strategic aims of encouraging entrepnourship, self reliance and a smaller state?

From: Andrew McCausland 06 April 2016 00:24 AM

Forget changes to SDLT - it is Section 24 that will destroy the PRS. Well done Steve and Chris for trying to raise the profile of this appalling piece of legislation and get it removed from the books. I am fully in support of the event on June 10 and will book my train ticket today. I live in a marginal parliamentary seat where I am organising landlords to make their views heard. The Conservative's need to know that we will not have our businesses destroyed by a poorly thought through tax change without a fight. If we can show that we have the power to deny them a number of seats at the next election they may take our legitimate concerns more seriously. May I suggest that other landlords also take the fight to their local Conservative Party constituencies. The national fight organised by Steve and Chris is important. Local, grass roots pressure should also be brought to bear on vulnerable Conservative MP's.

From: Andrew McCausland 31 March 2016 07:33 AM

What a good idea! I would be keen to get involved in a scheme that helps the many good tenants we have. Is there a way to also lodge missed rent payments and damage caused by the dodgy tenants onto the scheme? What the PRS lacks is a coordinated database of the poor tenants who consistently and deliberately rip off landlords. Could the 2 objectives be combined within this proposal?

From: Andrew McCausland 24 March 2016 09:00 AM

Likewise, Mr Bayley, they are too canny to fall for a bit of marketing and PR from your company masquerading as a public information broadcast (although I do agree with the sentiment!).

From: Andrew McCausland 19 January 2016 06:53 AM

As a landlord, lettings and estate agent I am all in favour of these measures. My only concern is what would happen where the landlord provides a perfectly decent home but the tenant, through their own actions, wrecks the place. We, like many agents, take photo inventories on initial handover. Will the Councils and Courts accept that the landlord has complied with their statutory duty to provide a decent and safe home if the tenant then either makes it unsafe by their own actions or lives like a pig. For example, twice last year I responded to complaints from tenants about mice in properties. When I called to inspect I found half empty pizza boxes and dirty plates throughout the houses. The tenants seemed surprised when I told them their lack of dish washing and the presence of mice were probably linked. I still ended up paying for vermin control. On another occasion I was called by a Council enforcement officer following a complaint from a tenant about damp. It turned out the "damp" was caused by her forgetting to turn off the bath tap and flooding the place. The legislation requires us to remedy these situations. Whilst I fully support the efforts to drive out rogue landlords from this business I would want to see some measures within the legislation to protect landlords from rogue tenants.

From: Andrew McCausland 04 January 2016 18:11 PM

As a landlord, lettings and estate agent I am all in favour of these measures. My only concern is what would happen where the landlord provides a perfectly decent home but the tenant, through their own actions, wrecks the place. We, like many agents, take photo inventories on initial handover. Will the Councils and Courts accept that the landlord has complied with their statutory duty to provide a decent and safe home if the tenant then either makes it unsafe by their own actions or lives like a pig. For example, twice last year I responded to complaints from tenants about mice in properties. When I called to inspect I found half empty pizza boxes and dirty plates throughout the houses. The tenants seemed surprised when I told them their lack of dish washing and the presence of mice were probably linked. I still ended up paying for vermin control. On another occasion I was called by a Council enforcement officer following a complaint from a tenant about damp. It turned out the "damp" was caused by her forgetting to turn off the bath tap and flooding the place. The legislation requires us to remedy these situations. Whilst I fully support the efforts to drive out rogue landlords from this business I would want to see some measures within the legislation to protect landlords from rogue tenants.

From: Andrew McCausland 04 January 2016 17:44 PM

Is this news? We have been doing the same thing for over 2 years - and we only charge 8%.

From: Andrew McCausland 24 November 2015 07:10 AM

I agree that agency fees in UK are too high. However, I have experience of the Spanish market where estate agency fees of 15% are common. Maybe we are not the only country where sellers, buyers and renters need to exercise their consumer power.

From: Andrew McCausland 22 June 2015 10:00 AM

These are not "tax breaks for landlords", but normal expenses associated with running any business. If GSK borrow money to build a new factory they would off-set the cost of the interest against their annual profits, as any business would do. The same applies for any of their other normal business expenditure. Why should you consider landlords to be different from any other business people simply because the asset they invest in happens to be a house for someone else to live in? Is this idea being floated simply because the small landlord is an easy target for government, whereas a company like GSK would have the ability to take HMRC to task if they even suggested these new rules applied to them? The government and local authorities need the PRS to invest in more housing to meet current and future needs. If you change the normal accounting rules for BTL and make it a special case, different from any other business, you will destroy the industry. How can you disallow certain expenses from private landlords without also changing the rules for RSL's, REITS and the multitude of PLC's which also invest in housing? What about the build to let industry which is in its infancy? Do you suddenly disallow most of their expenditure from their operating costs? If so, you would kill it stone dead - and goodbye to the government's target of an extra 200,000 homes we need each year. There has been a lot of recent talk about the interest landlords claim back from the taxman. We need to move way from this idle chatter and see landlords as operators of businesses - nothing more, nothing less. Only then will we have a proper discussion about the PRS and its place in both the business world and the wider community.

From: Andrew McCausland 22 June 2015 09:44 AM

Well done Tessa Shepperson for articulating so well the feeling of many others of us in the industry. I have been blogging about this for some time myself and wholeheartedly support any action against the rogues and rip off merchants. I am an agent, developer and landlord and I am weary of trying to defend my businesses against the charges that are constantly being touted by some politicians and the media. We charge less than £100 to set up a tenancy and no further fees for the duration of the tenants stay in the property - be that 6 months or 6 years. We charge landlords a small one off fee as well, and add no charges, mark ups, "administration costs" or anything else to their agreed bill for the services we provide. Our profit margins are comparable to any other service industry. And we are not alone - there are many other agents doing a good job for a fair price. Landlords and even tenants are in the positions of power. The agents will only survive if landlords place their properties with them and tenants use their services. Placing a property with an agent should be considered as important as any other financial transaction for investors in the BTL business. You don't have to use the well known names with the shiny offices to get great service. The cost of those offices and all those branded cars is coming straight off your bottom line. Most landlords are financially astute people. They worked hard to get the capital together to make their investment in property. Why some of them then switch off their brains before they make their final decision, where to place their property for on-going management, still surprises me. So come on landlords - exercise your financial muscle and place your properties with management companies who will look after your best interests. Making that decision requires thought and effort. Getting it wrong, as we see from the Foxton's storey, can seriously eat into your BTL profits.

From: Andrew McCausland 19 June 2015 07:18 AM

I agree with the sentiment but this is the wrong man from the wrong organisation to be delivering the message. Too many lettings agents charge too much for too little work. Landlords have a responsibility as well. They should realise that if the agent charges very high fees the pool of prospective tenants for them is diminished. Excessive and unfair fees can also create friction between the tenant and landlord, undermining their relationship. I am an estate agent, lettings agent and landlord. The increase in government regulation I have seen over my 20 years in this business is phenomenal and agents need to be paid for the work they do managing the tenancy. They also need to make a profit for their businesses. However, I am very keen to see the rogues and rip off merchants named and shamed. Landlords and tenants can then make a better informed decision on who to place their business with.

From: Andrew McCausland 12 June 2015 12:34 PM

Breaking News