x

Nicholas Green

1045 Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Nicholas's Recent Activity

That's one side to the argument. Now let's ask the same top experts how they will ensure no drop in rental supply due to unaffordability, no mass evictions before the deadline and enough labour to get the work done. "Aaaaaaaah, I seeeeee". Exactly. Think again.

From: Nicholas Green 27 October 2023 06:48 AM

Despite the clickbaity title, this appears to suggest that rental properties are on average smaller / less desirable than the wider housing stock, and therefore - logically - sell for less than the average national sale price. It does not mean they are sold under market value. Somewhat misleading, and pretty much unnewsworthy.

From: Nicholas Green 06 September 2023 07:54 AM

He sounds like a nice chap, uses empathetic language towards landlords and appreciates our hard work. Sure, I'll collaborate! [Facepalm]

From: Nicholas Green 05 July 2023 07:47 AM

Remove this article. EPC C is NOT law, and this will only add more confusion. How this was written by an 'award-winning journalist', let alone published, is astounding.

From: Nicholas Green 18 April 2023 07:29 AM

My LA (Lewisham) made a consultation recently. Zero information about the LA's quality commitments or success criteria of the scheme, and they even asked respondents if they thought the LL charges were fair. How can anyone judge that if there's no commitment in exchange for the millions raised? If schemes are allowed to go ahead, LAs should be clearly accountable for measurable quality / improvement goals and the funds must be ring-fenced.

From: Nicholas Green 30 November 2022 20:44 PM

Same here, although twice the investment and major disruption required. All for a 100-year pay-off. Which isn't a pay off.

From: Nicholas Green 24 October 2022 12:29 PM

Green mortgages are often 0.0X% cheaper than the non-free equivalents. It's hardly worth the lenders' bother.

From: Nicholas Green 24 October 2022 12:28 PM

Are PRS tenants less law-abiding than any other type of resident? If this is anything like the Lewisham proposal it will be based on biased presumptions and shoddy data. Oh, and a penchant for tax by stealth. I'd wager there's no 5-year success criteria for the scheme, so it will simply rumble on forever.

From: Nicholas Green 21 September 2022 06:31 AM

I'm 84.6% more likely to believe stats when they're given in context. If the value of a specific amount of solar panels is somewhere near 25% of a property's value, I'd pay 25% more for that property. No surprise there. And people pay '24% more' for EP.C C properties? Maybe when comparing with a carboard hut.

From: Nicholas Green 16 September 2022 07:49 AM

£9,000 for short-let high-end corporate properties which happen to be furnished, maybe. Throwing £2,000-worth of furniture in my London 2-bed is not going to gross me another £90k per year :D Brainless PR by a company I will remember never to use.

From: Nicholas Green 24 June 2022 10:47 AM

For many of us the proposed upgrades will never pay for themselves, even at today's energy prices. Add in the government's British Energy Security Strategy which looks to bring forward renewable / non-carbon energy sources by decades, and the whole scheme is wasteful and will cause huge disruption. The idea of extending the scheme to the whole of the UK's housing stock is a non-starter. Landlords, as the guinea pigs in a failed experiment will end up with marginally more efficient homes, and huge bills which will need to be recouped. Tenants will face evictions and a severe tightening of supply = higher rents. Hold on tight.

From: Nicholas Green 13 April 2022 08:18 AM

What happens to those landlords who can't afford the bill, and therefore need to sell a property that is effectively unsellable? The remedial works will be paralysed in so many cases. Not only unfair, but also another non-sensical policy.

From: Nicholas Green 22 February 2022 06:53 AM

EPC certs not fit for purpose? Really!?! If these regs come in for landlords, we'll see tens of thousands of tenants lose their homes at the same time, and a huge shortage of contractors to make the necessary energy efficiency changes. Great result for build-to-rent, terrible for everyone else. Then the scheme will be scrapped before it's due to apply to the rest of the housing market.

From: Nicholas Green 08 February 2022 10:40 AM

This is becoming widespread. So, we'll have to pay to be on the national register, pay to be on the local register and pay an agent because the previous two will be tenant-focused. Why can't these schemes be funded by fines levied to the bad eggs?

From: Nicholas Green 03 February 2022 07:46 AM

My rental flat is a period build with solid walls in a conservation area. It was a C, recently recategorised as a D due to 'the changes in how an EPC is calculated'. The eye-watering sums required to get it to a C would take a minimum of 150 years to pay off in cheaper energy costs according to the EPC report, and would take several m2 of interior space. The near-identical flat next door has recently been awarded a C. Moving goalposts, inconsistent certification standards, huge upheaval for tenants and negative returns on investment mean that any sanity check would rule out a blanket requirement to get properties to a C. If the government doesn't see sense, we can assume they are trying to purge private landlords from the market. In my case, this is the only property I own.

From: Nicholas Green 12 January 2022 08:19 AM

Lewisham next up. Consultation on line now.

From: Nicholas Green 06 December 2021 08:12 AM

No. According to my latest EPC I would have to apply insulation to interior walls (and lose space as well) and possibly also suspend floors. Thousands and thousands which would take 80 years to pay back in lower energy costs - long, long before which greener energy will be readily available, meaning most of the cost would effectively have to be written off. It's a crazy idea, a total waste of money and would lead to a dramatic fall in general property maintenance.

From: Nicholas Green 04 December 2021 13:03 PM

I bought a property rated C (69) in 2011, to which I have made some small improvements like energy efficient bulbs, draught exclusion. and carpets, and it has just been reassessed as a D (61). Yes the boiler is ten years older, but its replacement isn't even recommended as a 'point-scoring' improvement. Do the goalposts shift, or do thousands of pounds of required improvements rest on a flick of the EPC Assessor's pen? In addition, the flat was listed as 100m2 in 2011 and 67m2 in 2021, and it is not close to either (around 80m2). It's a bit of a joke.

From: Nicholas Green 01 December 2021 09:03 AM

The basic premise that there is 'no reason landlords should not allow pets into properties so long as there is a tightly-written contract' is simply wrong. Leasehold properties often have pet clauses, and these supersede rental contract terms.

From: Nicholas Green 13 October 2021 07:27 AM

Linking moving costs to rental costs is like Diane Abbott wanting to cap rents at 50% of annual council tax bills - the two costs are largely unrelated (council tax in a wealthy area can be lower than in less prosperous areas and a move only marginally more expensive). This apparent economic illiteracy makes a mockery of the policies before they're even properly debated. Hard to take it seriously.

From: Nicholas Green 31 August 2021 07:26 AM

"I'd like to buy a flat to live in please, but I don't want the share of freehold offered with it."

From: Nicholas Green 11 May 2021 10:06 AM

In the case of flats, leasehold agreements often restrict or prohibit the keeping of pets. Has anyone seen any comment amongst rental experts or pro-pet lobbyists recognising this 'hurdle', or have they simply not thought this through? Any new law will surely not take precedent over millions of existing leasehold contracts.

From: Nicholas Green 30 April 2021 10:08 AM

Oh dear, that's one angry man. I'd love to see him try to level any of his 'observations' at me. Ignore, walk on by...

From: Nicholas Green 27 March 2021 10:11 AM

Normally £2k for tenant find!? Surely that's wrong.

From: Nicholas Green 23 December 2020 09:37 AM

Are banks discriminating with mortgage terms that stipulate properties must not be let to those on benefits? What about rental guarantee providers, which will only cover missed payments by tenants who have passed a credit-worthiness test (i.e. exclude those on benefits)? I recently let a property with a sizeable mortgage and would not have done so without a rental guarantee product, in such uncertain times. Who's discriminating here - me, or the multinational insurance company?

From: Nicholas Green 18 December 2020 09:41 AM

David - firstly sorry for reporting your post when I simply meant to reply! I am one of those who commented above, and have a tenanted property with pets since I recognise their value. Your suggestions make sense, although landlords are often under-compensated under the TDS when it comes to damages, and have to swallow void periods on top. However, leasehold agreements, especially in flats, often have clauses limiting the type of pets occupants can keep. It's not always the LL decision, especially in London.

From: Nicholas Green 17 December 2020 10:51 AM

Once again, all comments levelled at landlords, with apparently no understanding that most restrictions on keeping pets stem from leasehold agreements. She'll never win the battle, because she's fighting the wrong people.

From: Nicholas Green 17 December 2020 09:48 AM

"Set up a dartboard"..in a rented property. That'll be popular with landlords!

From: Nicholas Green 02 December 2020 10:01 AM

Is all this data from 'Room-sharing service SpareRoom'? From the figures it looks like it, and the drop in attractiveness of flatshares during COVID-19 is hardly surprising. That it most affected two capital cities with young, mobile populations, equally predictable. The headline of this piece should be 'flat-sharers' not 'tenants' - the two can be very different things. Another sloppy corporate press release rewarded with free advertising.

From: Nicholas Green 21 October 2020 10:40 AM

This petition is short-sighted and will serve to demonise landlords who are simply complying with their properties' leasehold contract conditions / limitations on keeping domestic animals. Given that so many rented properties are flats, the petition would be better aimed at 'improving' standard leasehold terms.

From: Nicholas Green 16 October 2020 10:32 AM

I imagine rental payment default rates are also higher in those areas where crime is higher. Would be interesting to see the impact on the bottom line.

From: Nicholas Green 23 July 2019 12:15 PM

I imagine rental payment default rates are also higher in those areas where crime is higher. Would be interesting to see the impact on the bottom line.

From: Nicholas Green 23 July 2019 12:14 PM

If landlords lose financial freedom to unlock cash as required, certain tenant types will bear the brunt. Families, the retired... those who look like they want to set up home for the long term will find it harder to get a tenancy. Or are we going to be obliged to accept the first offer at a rental price set by the government?

From: Nicholas Green 02 July 2019 10:23 AM

Breaking News