x
By using this website, you agree to our
use of cookies
to enhance your experience.
SEARCH
Search
STAY
CONNECTED!
Sign in
Sign in
New here? Sign up
Feedback
My Account
Feedback
Sign out
×
Make Today's Website as home page
Menu
Estate agent today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Letting agent today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Landlord today
News
Features
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Property Investor today
News
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Introducer today
News
Guides & Tips
NEW
Trade Directory
Archive
Advertise with us
Property Jobs Today
Home
Find a Job
Search Recruiters
Recruiters
New
Peter's
Personal Profile
View my company profile
Peter Merrick
2293
Profile Views
About Me
Send message
View company profile
Follow all comments made
my expertise in the industry
Peter's wall
Peter's
Recent Activity
And still still they relentless accuse landlords of squeezing the pips out of tenants! Truth is that people are desperate and beginning to offer more than ever. I had sometime the other day offering £100 per week for each of two rooms that I expected to get £75 and £85 for. And I turned down several other people, all in a very subdued area where I usually have at least one or two vacancies.
From:
Peter Merrick
28 March 2024 09:50 AM
As Karl Marx reputedly said, "Property is theft". So don't expect any sympathy, as that is essentially how your hard-earned investment is really seen.
From:
Peter Merrick
28 March 2024 08:04 AM
A pet is for life, not just for Christmas. The government see renting in the same way. They want all rental housing to be permanently dedicated to tenants, hence the relatively favourable regime for company buy to let structures.
From:
Peter Merrick
11 March 2024 06:38 AM
Renters are already retiring into HMOs. I have had a retired gentleman renting a room off of me for about 8 years now. He can't get anything else like sheltered accommodation as he's still fit enough to use the stairs, at least for now.
From:
Peter Merrick
08 March 2024 17:23 PM
Hopefully a good set of solar panels would be enough to power the aircon in the summer?
From:
Peter Merrick
24 February 2024 10:50 AM
But how will the new incumbent's efforts compare to Gove's? All indications point to them turbocharging the war on landlords and property ownership beyond a single dwelling for one's own use.
From:
Peter Merrick
19 February 2024 07:19 AM
Whoever thought that making it more expensive to supply a property for rent would make life better for renters? Obviously they didn't, it was all intentional but now the damage has been done, they can't reverse the anti landlord juggernaut as it's too politically sensitive. So renters will suffer the higher costs for years to come until it becomes a crisis that has to be dealt with by radical means, either a massive increase in supply of council houses, a level playing field for private landlords, or both.
From:
Peter Merrick
12 February 2024 09:18 AM
So much better when people work together rather than constantly pitting one party against the other. But that's how politics works these days, to the benefit of no-one. Surely other councils could save everyone a lot of stress and money doing something eminently sensible like that? But that would be too obvious, of course!
From:
Peter Merrick
12 February 2024 09:09 AM
I wish I made anywhere near that amount of money for all the sacrifices I have made over the years to house other people and work on top of that, no luxuries or perks of any kind, all whilst suffering from at times crippling disability. And they seem to take the view that we should not be allowed to make any money for our efforts or have any say over our possessions, if the rhetoric is anything to go by. Incidentally, the upcoming ban on section 21, ostensibly to help younger renters, just means that nobody will touch them with a bargepole in future or will hike up the rent to compensate.
From:
Peter Merrick
12 February 2024 09:00 AM
What would be really interesting would be if someone could quantify the almost certainly negative effects on the rental market availability and prices as a result of the section 24 punishment tax for those arrogant and exploitative individuals that dare to rent out property under their own name rather than as a "proper" business, I.e. a company; and the effect of SDLT surcharge on both.
From:
Peter Merrick
20 January 2024 12:02 PM
Catherine, the issue nowadays is that housing is increasingly being promoted as a human right, provided at cost or subsidised to make it affordable and available to all citizens. This is actually the responsibility of governments to fulfil, not private citizens using their own resources to provide a service for a time. But because the nature of renting has changed so much with people increasingly expecting to rent privately long-term, and with alternatives becoming ever scarcer, people are being relentlessly encouraged to expect landlords to provide for that right instead of government, which has largely offloaded that responsibility. At the same time, government and pressure groups are trying to tax landlords into oblivion whilst making them feel obliged to accommodate all seekers without any discretion. Obviously, this is only going to end in tears because with an excess of prospective tenants, landlords will be able to pick whoever they please from the ever growing pool of people in desperate need of a home
From:
Peter Merrick
27 December 2023 08:22 AM
It's inevitable in a supply crisis that landlords are going to want to protect their interests, and pure wishful thinking that they should take on unnecessary risk. The only way these people are going to get equal access to housing is by having a means to equalise the risk by having a dedicated service or charity such as the one that William Williams mentions. Trouble is, there is likely to be limited funding for this kind of work. Housing charities can do their part by investing their money in these charities and by lobbying the government for more money for those that successfully manage the transition for the homeless and care leavers. Local government should also have a vested interest as it is surely cheaper than temporary accommodation?
From:
Peter Merrick
18 December 2023 13:14 PM
Jahan, a lot of people are already providing houses to rent at less than cost. For example, I have a £100K house rented at £650pcm. That just about covers the interest on £100K if you include the tenant tax, as I could have sold the property and paid off the mortgage at another place, and not had the maintenance and other costs to pay for either, or the hassle of dealing with tenants who wait two days until Monday to report a broken boiler and then demand that I call out an emergency engineer at horrendous cost to fix it there and then at 4:30pm, reject an offer to have it fixed the next morning so it has to be looked at on Wednesday at 4:30, part ordered and fitted on Thursday 4pm, in the meanwhile complaining that I am failing in my legal duty as a landlord t to have it all fixed within 24 hours and threatening to take the matter to the CAB. So I'm probably losing about £200pcm compared to if I had sold it and dealing with all this hassle, but still can do nothing right. I think I will definitely sell this one when the current mortgage runs out.
From:
Peter Merrick
11 December 2023 09:43 AM
The effect of any kind of price control on a limited commodity is always the same: people end up charging the maximum that they possibly can as the feeling is that it would be unwise to do anything else. So if bidding wars were indeed banned, landlords would just put up the asking price to the maximum they thought that anyone would bid. If after that they still had a surfeit of applicants, they would then choose the one that is best for them, who can add the most value to the deal. This could even include carrying out routine maintenance like tenants do in Germany. If an actual cap on prices were to be implemented, then we would likely lose supply as landlords switch their money into more beneficial areas, such as selling properties to pay down existing mortgages or investing in other types of business instead of buying new properties.
From:
Peter Merrick
06 December 2023 13:45 PM
At least my benefits-supported tenants will get a bit of relief. The gap between LHA and actual rents is getting ridiculous. I have someone renting a 1 bed bungalow for £550 which is the least I can do with the current interest rates and he gets just £325 towards that. And £65 or so a week for a shared room is also a sick joke when it is usually £80-£90 for anything half decent. It doesn't help that large HMOs are not allowed to let anything less than 6.5m^2, which in most cases would just about allow for a double bed. But landlords will have to continue pricing in the cost of section 24 et al, one of the many reasons that rents have risen recently.
From:
Peter Merrick
22 November 2023 15:12 PM
The tenant is effectively borrowing the value of the house from the owner. So if the house is worth, say, £100K, then that is what they are borrowing. It's irrelevant where the finance originated from, whether direct from the landlord's own equity or from the bank, or a mixture of the two, as the price to the consumer is determined by the market value. Treating the landlord's equity stake in the property as "free" money for the use of the tenant is morally wrong and only applies to the social sector, which is, I presume (correct me if I am wrong), effectively subsidised by only charging for the running costs, if that. The reality is that most private rentals, even mortgaged BTL, are well below what should be charged. For example, I have a £100K house I charge £650 pcm for, which the tenant barely manages to pay. But with current interest rates at about 6%, plus tenant tax adding 33% (realistically on up to 75% loan) plus maintenance, insurance, etc and management fees of, say £200 pcm, the total cost should be £9900 per year, or £825pcm. Likewise, a £200K house should be about £1500pcm. For an owner occupier, the monthly cost would be a lot higher as they are also paying down capital. The only realistic solutions are to bring down the cost of borrowing instead of inflating it with section 24, a significant lowering of interest rates generally, sensible levels of HB, plus lowering taxes back to what they used to be to encourage investment. And building more houses/giving incentives to bring empty houses back into use.
From:
Peter Merrick
20 November 2023 08:44 AM
Oh well, I guess selling or "moving in relatives" will become the de facto method of getting back properties. Say hello to rent rises, tenants vetted to the nines, preferably ones with a goal of moving on to permanent accommodation such as buying their own place, and the very much intended effect of discouraging any new investment whilst existing landlords leave.
From:
Peter Merrick
20 November 2023 08:12 AM
In the lead up to 2016, the UK government decided to make it a long-term aim to decimate the PRS by making it unviable for many, with an all-out assault on profitability and liability. The main prongs were section 24, SDLT, wear and tear allowance, the threat of punitive fines for falling foul of ever-increasing regulation and demonising landlords as uncaring and motivated primarily by greed. Since it is a political and ideologically driven policy, they are not going to lose face or change course even when the ship is well and truly sinking and there is outright rebellion by the populace. The only thing for landlords to do when under siege is to look to their options and do whatever is needed to survive. Sadly, there can be no room for squeamishness or conscience when faced with such an assault on our very purpose of providing a roof over other people's heads.
From:
Peter Merrick
18 November 2023 22:25 PM
"Landlords ... have the final say on who they let their property to". So I will continue to consider each person on their merits and rent to whoever I think is best for me. The government "War on landlords" means that even in the sleepiest areas I am now turning away people I would have been very happy to rent to because I simply don't have the capacity to take anybody else, which I think is a first.
From:
Peter Merrick
15 November 2023 13:35 PM
I wrote to my MP about the difficulties for landlords and tenants, particularly in relation to the Section 24 tenant tax. I pointed out that whilst I could just sell up and would be fine for the rest of my life (I'm 55 and still work as self-employed, am due a modest work pension when I'm 60 from when I was employed before I became ill, and then state pension at 67), it would be a different story for my tenants. I never received any reply to that.
From:
Peter Merrick
13 November 2023 21:56 PM
A couple of my buy to lets are in a very sleepy town where the market is very slow and I often have a room or two to let. But this year I've recently found myself turning a stream of people away who are desperate for somewhere to live, and that's even after I've gradually raised rents to cover increasing costs.
From:
Peter Merrick
06 November 2023 08:16 AM
This is precisely the problem Michael. The PRS was never envisaged as being primarily a provider of long-term (aka social) housing, but due to the dire shortage of suitable council accommodation over the years and the increasing unaffordability of houses generally, large numbers of people have come to rely on it for their permanent housing needs. So when they found out that it didn't work like that and landlords exercised their rights to terminate tenancies for whatever reason, there was discontent and complaints reached the ears of government. So landlords became evil people who just liked making innocent people homeless and disrupting their ordered lives on a whim and had to be brought to heel and either forced out of business to make way for homeowners or made to provide housing effectively "for life". When I got married back in 1991 I first rented a flat locally as I was unable to afford to buy anything in my home town in the south east, but then the flexibility enabled me to move up north with a month's notice to another rented property. When the landlord decided to sell, we then bought our first house, which was affordable at the time, but I'm not sure that would be the case now, so we might well have been homeless if that happened these days. I think in reality most landlords are pleased that tenants are staying longer as it means a steady stream of income instead of having to relet and remarket every year or two, balanced by not increasing rents regularly, which is probably one reason why rents stayed fairly static for a long while until recently.
From:
Peter Merrick
02 November 2023 08:36 AM
Everybody knows that landlords are there to house people, so effectively demonising them as an evil entity for doing this has obviously spooked a lot of people. The big problem for landlords is going to be the potentially increased sense of entitlement of some tenants, the fact that they may find it easier than before to play the system against their landlord, and the undeniable fact that justice is only for those that can afford it or have it provided for them. And there will be a LOT of homelessness if tenants are evicted for fault rather than via section 21 (get out of jail free as no fault recorded against the tenant). At the moment the attitude seems to be that landlords are people swimming in money from "unearned" income and therefore can take a few punches to their wealth, whilst tenants are the innocent oppressed. Robin Hood anyone? As I see it, the only solution for anybody who wants to continue in the business is to look after number one first and foremost, be ultra-careful who you rent to (whilst being careful to consider potential tenants without falling foul of discrimination laws), and sell up if the ride gets too scary. I'm 55 and disabled with chronic fatigue, so am in a position that I am quite tempted to cash out and pay off my residential mortgage when the current deal expires. I can then carry on my part time work, keep one or two select properties or just keep my lodgers that more than cover my bills, draw my partial teacher's pension when I'm 60 and get my state pension as well when I'm 67. I would then have more time time spend with my gf, time to visit children and relatives, buy some nice things and have a holiday. What's not to like?
From:
Peter Merrick
30 October 2023 13:07 PM
It's all ideologically driven, so the only way forward is constant pressure until they see the damage it is doing. Section 24 inflates the cost of a mortgage by 33%, so this just has to be factored in to the level of rent and whether or not it is worthwhile for the landlord to continue to invest. I'm sure a in a future where sense prevails (if ever), somebody in authority is finally going to recognise that it contributes to lower supply and higher levels of rent. I wrote to my MP to point out that a modest mortgage of £300pm translates to an extra £100 of rent and she seemed to get it, but clearly Gove still doesn't.
From:
Peter Merrick
24 October 2023 09:08 AM
If they do actually sort the courts out, there will be mass homelessness over time. Many of those section 21 "no reason given" notices will change to "at fault" notices, leaving thousands unable to access council support when they would have done so previously. I guess it might make some tenants sit up and take notice of the consequences of breaching their contract when previously there were none.
From:
Peter Merrick
22 October 2023 18:42 PM
@Henry S Look up up "Shelter workers announce two weeks of strike action in pay dispute", from last November.
From:
Peter Merrick
19 October 2023 19:04 PM
Clearly government policy to stamp out the scourge of greedy private landlords is finally working as intended.
From:
Peter Merrick
19 October 2023 01:01 AM
Get rid of section 24 anti-tenant discrimination ASAP! And the stamp duty punishment, at the very least for those who actually let out properties to house people.
From:
Peter Merrick
11 October 2023 23:06 PM
People will only provide a service if it is worth their while. If you make it too difficult to carry out business, then people will shift their money elsewhere. Populist Government knows exactly what it is doing and has turned its ire on an easy target that struggles to hit back. Eventually when it all goes to pot, somebody will write a report detailing all the mistakes that were made and try to find a solution to the mess. Unfortunately this will likely involve huge amounts of taxpayer money that they don't have. I'm 55 and I wrote to my MP a while ago pointing out that I could just sell up all my property and would be fine for the rest of my life with zero hassle, but it would be a different story for all my tenants. I never got a reply.
From:
Peter Merrick
09 October 2023 06:18 AM
I'm not sure why you single out London? Of course rents are going to be higher there, since property prices are also much higher, so much so that the gross yield can be as little as 3% for a large HMO as I calculated from my daughter's rent, and that is before any costs have been deducted. Why would anybody in their right mind invest in something that is so risky and gives such meagre returns? Even in a cheap area like mine in the Humber area, it's looking to become barely worthwhile with interest rates and inflation and the tenant tax, falling house prices and limits to what tenants can pay.
From:
Peter Merrick
06 October 2023 08:42 AM
Absolutely right - the rent pressure groups seem to be fixated on making private renting indistinguishable from social housing, as if one size fits all. It is probably the result of ever larger numbers of people who would have been in social housing for years on end finding themselves relying on the PRS which in its current form was designed around flexibility for both landlords and tenants and never intended for guaranteed long term tenure. Whether the PRS can make this transition without massive upheaval remains to be seen, but what is certain is that landlords will have to be very ruthless about who they take in order to protect themselves in a hostile environment, and rents will keep going up as investment dries up and rentals become harder and harder to come by. Tenants who are evicted for fault via section 8 will have next to no chance of getting accommodation of any kind other than temporary housing, so it will be an absolute nightmare for them. And tenants will no longer be able to ask landlords for a section 21 so that they can get a council house.
From:
Peter Merrick
02 October 2023 15:23 PM
7% fee adds 1.4% to the annual cost, so 6.44% overall for a D or E rated property, which is sadly quite competitive these days. It also helps with cashflow if you add the fees to the loan, but nobody in their right mind would pay it off in the first year, as they would lose the entire 7% fee!
From:
Peter Merrick
01 October 2023 13:56 PM
The government under George Osborne decided that the PRS needed to be taught a lesson and brought to heel to appease the complaints of renters' pressure groups who bemoaned that landlords were buying properties and renting them out to their members. Current policy remains to kick the PRS into the long grass. There's no way that they are going to backtrack until the damage is so great that sufficient people demand that they do something about the mess they have created by their hostile and unjustified attacks on a group of largely innocent people just trying to run a business to fill a need in society that the government decided not to satisfy. So take the hint and get out of the business, or buckle up and weather the storm if you want. Either way, it's going to be very difficult for both landlords and tenants, but probably more for the tenants as landlords will have the power that comes with owning a scarce commodity that people can't afford to lose, regardless of any Renters' Reform Bill.
From:
Peter Merrick
23 September 2023 22:01 PM
Well, as if we didn't all see that coming. The only way to make it work is to make it worth people's while and target money where it is going to be effective at bringing about change. Can we afford to change so rapidly? Can we afford not to? I suspect we as a country are basically going to go bankrupt whichever way we play this, but at least the money saved on reducing fuel use and emissions should ultimately make it a wiser investment.
From:
Peter Merrick
20 September 2023 18:44 PM
Some landlords will decide that it is not worth their while continuing under the prevailing conditions and being a political and social football at the mercy of hostile politicians and tenants. Others will adapt by doing everything possible to protect themselves and their business by being ultra-cautious and risk-averse. With rents rising and housing support stagnant, large swathes of the population will be effectively priced out of renting. Increasingly, getting a plane to rent privately will be a matter of being well off enough or knowing the right people. Good luck to all you tenants out there!
From:
Peter Merrick
20 September 2023 08:23 AM
It's a free country, if they want to buy up property at a fair market price to rent out like any other landlord, or build some houses of their own, then let them do so. Whether or not that's a good idea is another matter.
From:
Peter Merrick
15 September 2023 21:56 PM
I'm not an expert, just a mathematician by trade, so anybody feel free to correct me on this. As I see it, the problems with incorporation, aside from the extra bureaucracy and associated costs, are the higher interest rates and the higher levels of taxation. The tenant tax effectively increases your personal BTL rate by 33% if you are on higher rate tax (e.g. 6% interest costs the same as 8% without section 24). But this is eroded by corporate BTL rates often being not far off this anyway. On top of that, for a basic rate taxpayer paying 20% personal tax, 19% corporation tax in most cases plus 7.5% dividend tax means approximately 25% tax overall if paying yourself via dividends, and is hardly mitigated with the dividend allowance being slashed nearly to zero. So overall, the benefit of incorporation may be hardly worth it or even negative. One of the main advantages of incorporation therefore is that you can instantly "sell" the house just by transferring or selling the shares in the company, which would be free of legal fees, most stamp duty, CGT, etc, probably also free of inheritance tax if done right. For a higher rate taxpayer, 19% tax plus 37.5% dividend tax equates to approximately 50% tax vs 40% personal tax, less the tiny tax-free allowance, so again potentially more than wipes out any advantage of incorporation except as explained above. Of course if you are unencumbered, incorporation makes even less sense, unless you are investing jointly with another person who is not your partner/spouse, as the corporate section 24 advantage does not apply. As with all things, individual circumstances will determine the best path to follow.
From:
Peter Merrick
12 September 2023 12:02 PM
I can't believe he was not immediately reported to the police and asked to leave, or how the other housemates allowed him to stay. A live-in landlord should in any case be able to remove the person with zero notice, as it will be an excluded tenancy. Even if it was a regular HMO, he could be reported to the police and asked to leave immediately for the safety of other residents.
From:
Peter Merrick
30 August 2023 09:36 AM
People like Gove mostly grew up with a massive sense of entitlement and probably despise scruffy tenants even more than us scruffy landlords. Remember it was Gove who wanted to model the state school sector on Marlborough College (his alma mater) and started a campaign against the state system at the time. So politicians love-bomb the tenant pressure groups and agree to their demands, knowing full well how they are being massacred as they are cutting off the branch that supports them, whilst paving the way for "professional" outfits like BTR to take over and leave no provision for the sort of people that tenant groups represent. When the PRS is gone, along with all the tenants, then GR et al will of course have no reason to exist.
From:
Peter Merrick
25 August 2023 12:44 PM
The only way forward is to be utterly risk averse and not take any chances like in the olden days. Credit check, at least 3 months bank statements with rent consistently paid, referees, guarantors, rent up front. I've just rented a property to the sister of somebody that I know. She has a long track record of paying the rent and looking after her previous place, and it would come back to him if there were any problems. I think getting a rental property will increasingly be a case of who you know as much as anything else. Or you could just sell up.
From:
Peter Merrick
25 August 2023 12:29 PM
Exactly, they should be campaigning vigorously against all the anti-tenant legislation that they wanted in the first place. 80% mortgage equates to 107% of the rent if you factor in the section 24 tenant tax. So either the landlord sells up (exactly as intended by our political overlords) or goes bankrupt and is repossessed (GR and other landlord haters no longer rubbing their hands with glee now they finally realise the consequences of that). Or puts up the rent so that he/she can still cover the mortgage and essential maintenance and maybe get a return on their evil investment. On a more positive note I recently wrote to the MP where I own most of my property and pointed out the absurdity of Section 24 adding significantly to the rent charged to tenants. I was quite surprised to get a reply say that "you have raised some valid and interesting points on this matter", and promising to raise my concerns with the treasury and get back to me with any reply.
From:
Peter Merrick
25 August 2023 12:13 PM
And the people that hire these things out are very careful about who they lend them to as they want to be sure that the person is going to keep their end of the bargain, pay for the hire and return it in good condition. The big problem is going to be how to house all those who are not fit to be trusted with our property as nobody will touch them with a barge pole in future, and the council will not put up with them any more either, even if they could.
From:
Peter Merrick
19 August 2023 21:11 PM
Self-managed should be the same price or higher than agent-managed, as the service is personal and much more responsive, available outside office hours and respond to texts immediately any time of day, also act as counsellor, advisor, help making UC and residency claims, you name it that the agent would just leave the tenant to their own devices to deal with as best they could. Only last night I had a conversation with a tenant who is behind with his room rent because of difficulty with his UC claim and struggling to verify his identity after his job folded (he does not even have a phone contract because he just uses WhatsApp on wifi). I was able to suggest ways to deal with that problem which he hadn't thought of, also talked about taking contract jobs and getting himself set up to take advantage of self-employment opportunities. How many agents would do that? I naively and mistakenly tried leaving a property with an agent and ended up organising everything myself after they quoted me £70 to replace a pull cord switch on a light/fan fitting, which I bought for £4 on eBay and replaced myself in about 30 minutes, then used a couple of builders to sort out all the other problems in the house which the agent had failed to get the previous landlord to do.
From:
Peter Merrick
19 August 2023 10:43 AM
Landlord: I can upgrade you to a C, but you will have to move out or suffer massive disruption for quite a while, and the rent will have to go up to pay for the improvements, whilst you will save a couple of hundred a year on bills. Actually, I probably can't afford to do the improvements as I'm not rolling in it and the government is taxing me to oblivion because making money out of providing a roof over your head which you haven't done for yourself is greedy and and evil, so I will just sell the property. Or you could refuse the works and ask for an exemption. Tenant: Exemption please.
From:
Peter Merrick
19 August 2023 10:16 AM
It's really sad that nearly all tenants really appreciate what I and most other landlords do for them in putting a roof over their heads and giving them a place to call home, whilst nearly all the rhetoric is about greedy, almost evil, landlords exploiting them. Anyone with half a brain knows perfectly well it's just a business transaction to the benefit of both parties, apart from those who think that they are entitled to housing on terms of their own choosing. I'm pretty sure government know this as well, as most of them have a background in business and some of them are also landlords.
From:
Peter Merrick
12 August 2023 13:09 PM
Didn't Gove do enormous damage to the education profession in one of his previous incarnations?
From:
Peter Merrick
12 August 2023 13:00 PM
It's purely to do with risk ... the banks that normally lend on residential owner-occupied property understand that if you have a regular income from steady employment, then you are a very safe bet in terms of keeping up to date with payments. By contrast, rental income is not certain, so they see each property as a potential liability. So the more properties you have, the greater the potential for trouble, ignoring statistical effects like the law of large numbers and central tendency that they really should understand. You would expect the underwriters to have some exposure to the relevant mathematics. This was really brought home to me when I applied for a larger mortgage from my bank so I could move house. I was shocked at how little they would lend me and queried it. It turned out that my unincorporated BTLs reduced the size of the available loan by about 50% because they considered them a risk. I pointed out that my tax returns have shown a profit every year from renting out property, to which the assistant replied: "There might be voids". I asked if she had any idea how ridiculous that sounded given the current demand for rental property? She didn't disagree but said that was the policy and if I just had my work income or if they were in a limited company structure then they would have been happy to lend me the money I needed to buy the property.
From:
Peter Merrick
12 August 2023 01:36 AM
I'm all for fairness in how we deal with people, but going forward, landlords will do whatever it takes to protect themselves. If that means investing their money in a less hostile environment, then that's what will happen. For my part, these days I insist on tenants proving that they are responsible and are unlikely to cause any problems. Good luck to all the ones we used to take a gamble on!
From:
Peter Merrick
31 July 2023 07:08 AM
Didn't the great BJ say "F**k business" before he came to power? Clearly little has changed.
From:
Peter Merrick
24 June 2023 17:25 PM
1 basis point = 0.01% So 157 bps increase is 1.57% increase.
From:
Peter Merrick
13 June 2023 06:43 AM
If it takes the council's legal services team 5 years to get a property back, what hope do the rest of us have?
From:
Peter Merrick
31 May 2023 08:44 AM
4.7% rent increase vs 10.2% inflation = almost exactly 5% reduction in real terms adjusted for inflation. Based on core consumer inflation rate of 6.8% makes for a 2% drop in real terms.
From:
Peter Merrick
25 May 2023 08:51 AM
Michael, write to the email address provided: council.tax@levellingup.gov.uk. There are 4 questions as well as basic personal details. But I agree, it would be much better just to provide a web form.
From:
Peter Merrick
31 March 2023 12:53 PM
Am I right in thinking that this idea of taxing each individual is essentially a reintroduction of the hated Poll Tax, by stealth?
From:
Peter Merrick
31 March 2023 12:51 PM
I'm busy doing what I can as and when like upgrading loft insulation whenever I'm doing other work in order to minimise disruption. But If and when the legislation comes in, I will sell any properties that can't be reasonably upgraded. I suspect in several years' time government will realise at the 11th hour that they will have to step in with massive support so that landlords don't have to sell up and evict en masse. Except it will probably be too late for many.
From:
Peter Merrick
30 March 2023 08:58 AM
I have a number of properties because since I got divorced I worked very hard and saved every penny i have to better myself and the lives of others (my ex only cared about herself and dragged me down). I gave up what most people would take for granted like privacy and nice things, and invested and reinvested any money I made. These days I consider renting to be a hostile environment. Although somehow I still don't want to sell yet, I won't rent to anybody I don't have complete confidence in to pay the rent and behave in a reasonable manner. So credit checks, references, 3 months'bank statements, employment contract if appropriate, conversations to get a good feel for the tenant, all before they have a chance of getting through the door.
From:
Peter Merrick
30 March 2023 08:46 AM
Isn't that precisely what the government wants to happen?
From:
Peter Merrick
27 February 2023 23:48 PM
I wonder if the last few years of totally unfair and uncalled-for landlord bashing where we are ghettoised as a lower form of humanity by the government, politicians and tenant organisations, can be classed as discrimination, harassment, or a disinformation campaign just like Hitler did to devastating effect with "The Jewish problem"? Instead of "The Jewish problem", we now have "The landlord problem", with the end goal quite openly stated to get rid of all those greedy landlords running businesses, providing services, and taking houses away from ordinary decent folk, just like the "greedy" Jews were accused of setting up businesses and enriching themselves at the expense of ordinary hard working Germans. The parallels are so clear they are unavoidable. There is even talk of dispossession from public figures and thinktanks, just like the Nazis actually did, and there have been cases of landlords being harassed for what they do as a result of all the rhetoric. Hopefully it will not turn violent like it did in Germany and occasionally does in America. We may not be far behind if people start thinking that we really are the reason behind their housing problems. Perhaps we should get together in a class action to get this stopped? The findings of the recent select committee that contradict most of the things that have been said about landlords should surely count as evidence? As a disclaimer in case anyone finds the comparison distasteful, I come from a part-Jewish background on my father's side. My grandmother fled to England to escape the Nazis and met my grandfather, so here I am!
From:
Peter Merrick
18 February 2023 12:19 PM
Hopefully this is just pie in the sky thinking, but the fact that serious people in the labour party are saying it is worrying. I have sacrificed everything to build up a BTL portfolio business that I manage during the day whilst working in the evenings and weekends as a self-employed tutor and dealing with serious disability in the form of chronic fatigue syndrome. I deal with the whole gamut of people from lovely tenants to vicious narcissists. I have to ask myself if I will be looking back one day and realise that I should have just claimed benefits and social housing and spent my time and money on myself instead of providing many other people with a roof over their heads for as long as they needed in return for notionally making a living
From:
Peter Merrick
16 February 2023 09:33 AM
BTL will become a niche market where only those who can a) afford the cost and b) guarantee not to cause problems, will have a chance of finding somewhere to stay. For those landlords that are able to stay in the game it could actually make life easier in the long run as everybody will be vetted into oblivion and have to have guarantors. We will avoid anybody like the plague if there are any issues whatsoever in their past record instead of having to deal with issues from those with a less than perfect record that we took a chance on. And if govt want to make housing in the PRS a human right and decide who we have to rent to, then we will vote with our feet and cash in, instead of continuing to work hard to provide the decent homes that govt has given up on providing. I for one will not miss spending all day and a good deal of my money improving my properties and then all evening working instead of putting my feet up and relaxing with my other half. Even more so when my partial teachers' pension comes up in just over 5 years' time.
From:
Peter Merrick
06 February 2023 22:35 PM
Don't be fooled, they know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it. They are quite open about the fact that they want to reduce the private rental sector and that is one of the biggest tools for doing so. I have kept rents the same for the five years of my fixed rate mortgages but am basically having to tell tenants that either the rent goes up substantially or I have to sell and they find somewhere else. From a purely financial point of view, I should definitely sell but it's not as simple as that and in the end the tenants suffer either way. But the government are happy as they don't want people renting from private landlords because we are stopping people from owning their own homes apparently.
From:
Peter Merrick
19 January 2023 08:37 AM
All my properties and rooms are let (apart from one small room left in a state by a tenant who never ventilated it). But now I'm just going to focus my resources on cutting costs and raising rents where necessary to cover higher mortgage and fuel costs, rather than buying any more properties for the time being.
From:
Peter Merrick
30 December 2022 06:45 AM
It sounds like he terminated the tenancy on an investment property without issuing the proper notice and giving the tenant time to find somewhere else, and that there were some quite serious consequences for the tenant who was also his friend, though presumably not any longer!
From:
Peter Merrick
05 August 2022 17:17 PM
I'm not so sure periodic tenancies should be a problem for most landlords if handled properly and there is proper means for landlords to repossess if needed. All my tenants are periodic. I just give them a contract for the statutory 6 months and tell them that they can stay as long as they like as long as they don't cause me any problems. I even allow them to give me 1 month notice at any time as I appreciate that circumstances can change and people may need to move on. That is half the point of renting, is it not?
From:
Peter Merrick
10 July 2022 19:22 PM
Government are not that stupid, they know exactly what they are doing. They behave as though all landlords are like deep-pocketed businesses and millionaires because they think that these are the only people that should be renting out property, not silly little landlords.
From:
Peter Merrick
22 June 2022 07:43 AM
Modern gas boilers are designed to create lower air pressure inside the boiler housing, so it's all but impossible for them to leak CO. Presumably govt haven't bothered to find that out!
From:
Peter Merrick
23 May 2022 08:52 AM
Michael, you can edit posts to correct autocorrect and other fails.
From:
Peter Merrick
06 May 2022 09:14 AM
I have always thought that BTR was the preserve of the premium market. A search for 1 bed flats in Newbury on Rightmove shows that most properties are between £650 and £850, with the top 3 out of 20 being £925, £1100 and £1125. No prizes for guessing which one is owned by Grainger. No wonder they want to offer 3 year tenancies - at that price, you are only going to get gold-plated and gold encrusted tenants!
From:
Peter Merrick
06 May 2022 09:13 AM
Government are not ignorant of the fact that raising costs for landlords will make it harder for tenants as well. It's obvious that the ultimate goal is to push everyone into home ownership by making renting as hard as possible for all sides, with particular hatred for small landlords.
From:
Peter Merrick
23 April 2022 14:10 PM
I started a while ago getting my tenants to sign on the tenancy agreement that they have received all these things, just in case of any future dispute. Not that I have actually got as far as ever serving a S21 so far, but maybe that day will come before it's abolished.
From:
Peter Merrick
19 April 2022 22:46 PM
I don't think that is a mistake Tricia, it's the end goal of all this. But ironically, most landlords already effectively fulfill all of those demands anyway, as long as the tenant is reliable and trustworthy.
From:
Peter Merrick
23 March 2022 08:24 AM
I think when I decide to divest, I will pay off my mortgages one by one and give my properties as a gift to my children or grandchildren. No CGT and no IHT provided it's done at least 7 years before I die. They can then sell them with little or no CGT. I'm pretty sure the rules allow this.
From:
Peter Merrick
15 March 2022 08:53 AM
I too don't know the background to this story, but I know that more and more desperate and unsuitable people are are trying to get through the door. Until the law starts to take seriously the issue of dealing swiftly and effectively with problematic tenants, Landlords are simply going to become ever more risk averse and wary of who they allow into their properties in the first place.
From:
Peter Merrick
20 January 2022 08:51 AM
Surely the council just needs to build 12,000 units of housing which they can then subsidise or price how they want? Build a few more and supply will exceed demand and rents and property prices will come down generally.
From:
Peter Merrick
17 November 2021 08:22 AM
I'm surprised that it takes only 12 minutes on average for them to answer a call. In the past I always assumed that I would need to plan to have the phone on hold for at least an hour, so I always make sure that I have something else to do whilst waiting. Thank goodness for cheap unlimited call allowances!
From:
Peter Merrick
16 November 2021 08:00 AM
Stephen, that is very well put and I expect almost all landlords would agree wholeheartedly with you. But as with all human activity, there are going to be those on either side that spoil the game by their antisocial behaviour and the law is about protecting innocent parties. At the moment the law tends to favour tenants over landlords and the direction of travel is to see housing as a human right rather than as a service, and renting as a permanent lifestyle when in fact rental needs come in all shapes and sizes from temporary accommodation for a contractor working a job during the week or someone needing a place until they have somewhere permanent, to those who choose to settle down permanently in their accommodation rather than buying their own home as one family did recently. Personally I think that for most people, unless they are moving around regularly, renting should be a short to medium term option until they are ready to get their own place. Sadly, with the way house prices have rocketed in recent years, this option is becoming more and more difficult to achieve for people on lower incomes.
From:
Peter Merrick
04 November 2021 08:01 AM
It will just gradually kill off the private landlord and concentrate the rental sector in the hands of the BTR sector with higher rents and no stamp duty or mortgage interest penalty, whilst making a killing from those who do choose to invest or stay in the market. There's no way anyone can make a sensible return on their investment unless they have spare money to invest in future capital growth. Oh, but then that benefit will also be largely wiped out by all the taxes too! Simple fact: government want to force everyone to live at home, own their own home, or rent from large company landlords - anything but the small private landlord.
From:
Peter Merrick
20 September 2021 07:36 AM
So 32% of landlords reported an increase in arrears and 14% actually reported a decrease. So that's an overall decrease?? Somebody seems to be lacking basic maths skills methinks!
From:
Peter Merrick
14 September 2021 06:50 AM
Landlords will make sure that tenants are safe and secure by only taking tenants when they are absolutely certain that they will not cause any problems in the future. Anyone else will have to look elsewhere. If GR want a safe and secure home that they can afford to be a basic human right then they are looking in the wrong place. They should be asking why government is not fulfilling its duty to its citizens to provide for their basic needs.
From:
Peter Merrick
14 September 2021 06:43 AM
In my area of the East Midlands, property is relatively cheap but has still gone up by 50% in the last 4 years and 3-4 times in the last 20. Rents are barely changed these last 4 years. Hardly out of control! But homeowners and landlords are having to pay much more to buy a house, not to mention the stamp duty penalty that wipes out the first year's profit even on a modest 3 bed semi, section 24 and hostile councils and licensing (thankfully not so much in my area). It must be far worse in places like Hastings. I have no idea why landlords even bother renting out property down there.
From:
Peter Merrick
10 September 2021 08:31 AM
Sadly there's no actual detail on what sort of mortgage is being referred to here. Renting should be compared to a 100% mortgage (if you could get one) plus maintenance costs, risks such as potential boiler replacement roof repairs, insurance, stamp duty, buying and selling costs and associated inconvenience and stress, etc. Compared to a 3-year lease, you might be lucky to break even, even with some capital appreciation.
From:
Peter Merrick
01 September 2021 07:15 AM
Landlords will of course respond to any legislation that affects them as per the law of unintended consequences, i.e. ill-thought out changes But just wait until the legislation arrives and landlords are forced to reduce the rent rather than turn down a prospective tenant just because their income isn't high enough!
From:
Peter Merrick
23 August 2021 18:28 PM
Buying back houses for a fair price may seem very worthy but is it actually housing any more people or just shifting the balance of who gets housed?
From:
Peter Merrick
15 July 2021 07:58 AM
What they seem to be implying is that being a landlord of any kind, even letting out a spare room to someone who presumably would otherwise have to look elsewhere, is an offence that should be dealt with severely if such abhorrent behaviour is not immediately corrected.
From:
Peter Merrick
11 May 2021 09:26 AM
I've just got rid of a tenant in a shared house who came with a hard luck story and proceeded to take the mick, being extremely unhygienic, leaving the place a mess for others to tidy up and keeping virtually all the kitchen utensils in his room, leaving nothing for the others to use. The room is going to take a fair bit of time and expense to clean. I intend to claim for the rent he omitted to pay, and the cleaning if I can. GR et all will always regard these tenants at best as an irrelevant distraction from the narrative of greedy, exploitative landlords, if they acknowledge them at all. No doubt they think that landlords deserve every bit of abuse they get for doing horrid things like giving people somewhere decent to live.
From:
Peter Merrick
30 April 2021 10:33 AM
I must agree, it just totally beggars belief that they are accusing landlords of all people of being a cause of homelessness when the entire raison d'etre of being a landlord is to provide a roof over people's heads, in return for payment for the service. Next they will be accusing supermarkets of making people hungry and demand that people be allowed to have whatever food they want from the shop!
From:
Peter Merrick
15 April 2021 18:30 PM
Absolutely, since the changes came into force, I have to pay a substantial penalty by way of extra stamp duty just to make a property available to the rental market, even though every one has been empty prior to purchase. At the same time as massively increasing costs and reducing availability, tenant demand has gone up, so I have raised my rents whenever I have a change of tenant. I would have been quite happy to leave them towards the lower end but the government's desire to screw us all means I have to give a higher priority to my own interests than I used to do.
From:
Peter Merrick
15 March 2021 12:09 PM
After the pandemic is over, any landlord in their right mind is going to avoid by a mile any tenant that they have the slightest doubt about, that they might have "given a chance" and taken a risk on in the past. The government will then have to do something about the ensuing crisis, like building enough state-sponsored homes to give everybody the right to a place of their own. I wonder if they will then be keen to have terms and conditions that make it nigh on impossible to remove tenants who cause problems of all kinds, and those in arrears that they are never going to recover?
From:
Peter Merrick
11 March 2021 12:22 PM
Agreed, I can't imagine how anybody could get into that market these days unless they see substantial capital gains and/or extortionate rent opportunities, or buy the land and build to rent.
From:
Peter Merrick
03 March 2021 16:56 PM
I always thought incorporation could be dodgy as you have to pay tax on dividends as well as profits, so double taxation already higher than for unincorporated LL and nothing to stop them increasing the relatively low CT rates, making the effective tax rate even higher.
From:
Peter Merrick
03 March 2021 16:53 PM
Good question ... govt would be bankrupt if they had to bring everything up to standard. Or social renters can't expect to be treated with the same respect as normal people!
From:
Peter Merrick
19 February 2021 10:10 AM
Does anybody check these articles for accuracy and usefulness? As previously said, most times the tenant is responsible for bills so energy costs are entirely their problem. If it's an HMO where the landlord is paying the bills then either the tenants will be responsible enough to want to not waste energy, or they won't care until the landlord tries to cover the extra cost with higher rent. The main purpose of smart meters is to enable utility companies to monitor and predict usage. It's also useful not to have to read multiple meters every month if you have several HMOs.
From:
Peter Merrick
20 January 2021 10:12 AM
These people need to be dealt with severely for taking advantage of vulnerable clients and basically coercing them into a form of prostitution. And the government need to acknowledge its part in allowing the conditions to thrive where this becomes possible, because we all know that you only need to create an opportunity and someone is bound to take advantage of the situation.
From:
Peter Merrick
20 January 2021 09:59 AM
Robert, that is a good point! You could certainly sell the shares and buy them back again shortly afterwards, although i don't know if HMRC could object to it as a form of tax avoidance. I doubt the govt will want a level playing field with private landlords because they seem to be intent on getting rid of them, albeit without any plan to replace the lost capacity with social housing, just BTR and professional companies (run by their mates no doubt). For those that want to try out the corporate route I have heard that it is possible to run a private rental property under the aegis of a trust as if it were a property company/SPV. I'm not planning on selling my properties any time soon unless the rental market goes belly up or I lose interest but even then I could farm them out to agents to create a largely passive income. I think if I just give them to my children in my will and maybe some to charity, they will have to pay just the IHT, rather than CGT on the sale and then IHT upon death. Another possibility is to transfer a property to joint ownership and then full ownership after a while. I'm not sure if that stealth method can avoid CGT or not? Also, selling my main residence (nill-rated) and then establishing residence in a previously rented property before selling that in turn may help.
From:
Peter Merrick
19 January 2021 13:44 PM
I am a mathematician by trade and unless the author can justify these figures, they look like they have just been plucked from thin air by an extremely irresponsible person. I have never been able to see that much benefit for myself in incorporation, so maybe someone can write a serious article with some proper figures in it? 1) In terms of interest relief, this has NOT been phased out as so many are so fond of claiming. Rather, it has been gradually restricted to a 20% limit, the same as basic rate tax. So it only affects those lucky enough to be higher or additional rate taxpayers with a mortgaged BTL property. Higher rate tax can be avoided in a number of ways such as by making a gift aid donation, paying into a private pension or refurbishing a property. 2) The effect on higher rate tax payers is equivalent to increasing the interest rate by a factor of ⅓. This is because you now have to pay 80% of the interest after 20% relief instead instead of 60% after 40% relief, an increase of ⅓ in the overall cost of the interest. My last mortgage deal was 2.4% so would be equivalent to 3.2% with 40% relief (1.92% net in each case). Commercial mortgages are still significantly higher than private BTL so unless things change you will probably be better off with the lower rate than the higher level of relief. 3) Overall tax is higher with incorporation. This is because you pay 19% tax on any profits, plus tax on dividends. For a lower rate taxpayers dividends tax is 7.5%, so the total liability is 19% + 7.5% × 81% = 25.075%, vs 20% for unincorporated landlords. For higher rate payers it is 19% + 37.5% × 81% = 49.375%, vs 40% for unincorporated landlords. So unless you are just building up the business and not taking dividends then you could be worse off. 4) Businesses have to register and prepare accounts for publishing which private individuals do not have to do. The main advantages for a business seem to be: 1) You can deduct capital costs which private landlords cannot, which is useful if you are running a professionalised business where everything is bought brand new. I have an 8 year old car and buy most of my stuff from auction (pandemic willing) which means in the rare case that something gets broken it really doesn't matter. It's often better quality than new stuff as well. 2) As the property is owned by the business, you can sell the business instead of the house, thus avoiding the punitive stamp duty regime in future, or create joint ownership by issuing shares in the business 3) I think you can pass the business on to heirs and descendants as a going concern which may avoid inheritance tax. I'm sure there are plenty of people out who can add to the discussion!
From:
Peter Merrick
19 January 2021 11:04 AM
I must admit I'm definitely going to be very restrictive in who I let to in the future with the way things are going, especially the problems caused by the pandemic and the commitment to scrap section 21 which is the landlord's sure way to deal with problems when all else fails. If necessary I will sell property when my mortgages come to and end and cash in the gains in the most tax-efficient way.
From:
Peter Merrick
23 December 2020 14:59 PM
Labour says: “Shelter is the most basic human need and nobody should be without it". Actually food/water is the most basic human need, but I don't see supermarkets being forced to continue to provide for me if I don't pay for it, or to allow me onto their premises if I don't behave in an acceptable manner, on the basis that their customers need to eat. On the basis of their statement, government and Labour should commit to massive amounts of social housing projects so that nobody goes without, regardless of how they behave or whether or not they can pay. Landlords should then be allowed to run their businesses on a proper financial basis, taking money in return for providing people with accommodation as long as the arrangement works for both parties.
From:
Peter Merrick
23 December 2020 12:53 PM
One can only hope that one day maybe, just maybe, organisations like Shelter and the like will wake up and smell the coffee and realise that landlords have nothing against doing business with anybody, but it is about the overall behaviour of the tenant and not just about the rent. The reality is that whilst most tenants are fine, DSS or otherwise, the proportion of problem tenants is much greater in the DSS sector. Nobody in their right mind puts themselves or their business in harm's way deliberately, just like insurers turn down business that they deem to be too risky based on agreed criteria, or they charge a higher premium to cover extra costs. A good DSS tenant is actually an asset in many ways because their income is guaranteed and they have time to look after the house. Ironically. the worst tenant I ever had was actually a doctor from abroad in a shared house who was not only very, very unhygienic and sexist but turned really nasty and started to threaten me because of something he disagreed with which I was entitled to do. No problem ever paying the rent, but I would forgo some rent and wait to get someone without the arrogance and vindictiveness that he showed.
From:
Peter Merrick
21 December 2020 13:14 PM
I've not read the material but as I understand it mould is primarily caused by condensation settling on cold surfaces, especially in winter, rather than rising or penetrating damp which are of course serious structural issues that should be fixed asap, if you can actually get someone to do the work these days. It is very noticeable that some tenants seem to be mould-free and others seem to generate a lot of it. It is the tenant's responsibility to consult the landlord if mould starts to develop, and both should work together to keep it at bay.
From:
Peter Merrick
17 December 2020 10:50 AM
Transparency and fairness should be a given in all walks of life. Landlords should consider it part off their duty of care to encourage tenants get best value. I would not dream of telling my tenants which utilities or other services to make use of except to save them money. Win win there I would say as they are then more able to pay the rent. It's more frustrating to see a tenant struggling to make ends meet and not accepting or making use of the help available to make the most of their money.
From:
Peter Merrick
19 November 2020 09:46 AM
Surely they just need to create a mandatory self-service database of landlords as part of the council web presence, with an information sheet of expectations, which would cost very little to run once set up. Then they could randomly inspect a certain number of properties each year to keep both landlords and tenants on their toes, and fund it from penalties given out. Any landlords failing with one property could have others scrutinised, and anyone found not to be on the list within a reasonable time could also be fined. Tenants not keeping the property in a fit state could be dealt with similarly as that is often a bigger issue than landlord neglect.
From:
Peter Merrick
29 October 2020 09:50 AM
It sounds like the council is effectively asking landlords to see themselves as a social service. Which is fine if they want to be, but private landlords have their own financial arrangements and should not be expected to provide free accommodation without compensation.
From:
Peter Merrick
16 October 2020 09:29 AM
Just think what labour would have done if they had got into power. Who knows what the latest leader would do? Hopefully he would be less extreme than the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell!
From:
Peter Merrick
07 October 2020 09:06 AM
Too true, it works both ways and there are far more rogue tenants than rogue landlords, although the proportion of each is still small.
From:
Peter Merrick
06 October 2020 10:24 AM
Put simply: the best form of rent control is an adequate supply of housing in the first place. But that would now be a disaster as it would mean that house prices would come down as well and we would have another housing crash. But if landlords exit en masse then the extra properties for sale would bring down prices anyway and leave potential renters homeless, assuming most won't be able to afford to buy somewhere instead. So the only good solution is a gradual rebalancing between supply and demand, with adequate support for renters in the short term.
From:
Peter Merrick
17 September 2020 10:33 AM
In the article it specifically mentioned that he misused his position as a landlord to carry out criminal activities. By the sounds of it he was using his tenants to produce the drugs and then profited off of them. So there is an issue here of tenancy exploitation.
From:
Peter Merrick
11 September 2020 10:13 AM
As loads of people have observed, government think of us as worthless parasites that society would be better off without, so anything that makes life harder is welcome, especially when they can at the same time offload their costly duty to protect the vulnerable onto other people for free. This constant narrative of landlords wilfully making people homeless totally ignores the blindingly obvious question, namely who took the trouble to house these people in the first place, in good faith that they would honour their obligation to pay for the service they have procured? The only support that is required is for government to step up and make sure that everyone has sufficient means to pay for the basic necessities of life, something which they have been increasingly failing to do as time has gone on.
From:
Peter Merrick
04 September 2020 09:33 AM
Simple fact, it is the government's legal responsibility to look after the financial and housing needs of of the population when needed. This can be either by direct provision of council-owned/run property or by using benefits to ensure that people have the means to afford to stay in their private rented accommodation. It is the landlord's responsibility to provide safe and habitable accommodation in exchange for the payment of a fair market rent. It is NOT the landlord's responsibility to provide free or subsidised accommodation at their own expense. The whole eviction ban debacle is purely and simply a result of deliberate government policy that pays way below what is needed to provide a viable safety net, forces landlords to cover any losses whilst evictions are banned, and demonises "greedy" landlords for investing in providing a roof over people's heads as a much needed service. It is akin to forcing any other service providers to provide their services free of charge, such as water, gas, electricity or internet. In the absence of payment, businesses will simply withdraw, as some are already doing in the housing sector. Those that remain will have to find ways to make the business worthwhile.
From:
Peter Merrick
21 August 2020 12:53 PM
High LTVs are gradually coming back which will encourages prices to stay resilient and thereby justify offering these mortgages which are premised on the assumption that prices will increase. The stamp duty holiday will also encourage some to make a move in higher value areas where SDLT is a hefty drag on top of the deposit. Those whose employment prospects have significantly deteriorated will have no choice and many others will opt for renting for a while to see where things are going before making any long-term decision. And then there is the ever-increasing trend for mobility that the rental sector enables, where you can make a career move and just move house after a couple of years with no hassle.
From:
Peter Merrick
28 July 2020 09:27 AM
It isn't a bung to investors in BTL and second home owners. The 3% penalty charge still applies and indeed will now be funding the entire stamp duty take for properties up to £500,000. Most first time buyers will not benefit unless low-deposit mortgages are reinstated. I suspect many will want to wait and see which way property prices are going to go anyway in case they get stung by a dip in prices, which may not be of so much concern for a long-term investor who can ride out any temporary falls..
From:
Peter Merrick
13 July 2020 09:37 AM
Simple solution to the problem ... if government are concerned about the plight of renters not being able to afford market rents then they should give housing benefit to furloughed workers if needed, set housing allowance to cover rent and automatically allow direct payments. Problem solved!
From:
Peter Merrick
01 July 2020 13:26 PM
For most LLs, income is still taxed less overall than PAYE. Mortgage payments can be set against tax at a maximum of 20%, so if you are a lower rate taxpayer for your income (excluding mortgage deductions) then it makes no difference. However, tax on property income has a hidden 12% advantage over "earned" income up to the higher rate due to the lack of NI, as long as you have other employed or self-employed earnings. Once you get into higher rate tax, NI is only 2% and interest relief is restricted to 20%, increasing the marginal rate well above PAYE, so the overall advantage starts to dwindle. My guess is is that they could start charging NI on private landlord income to level the playing field at the lower rate, creating a big disadvantage for higher rate tax payers. Fortunately, interest rates are currently so low that mortgaged LLs on higher rate tax may still be slightly better off overall than they were 5 years ago.
From:
Peter Merrick
30 June 2020 10:52 AM
No point in handing over the cash when it could be earning interest or otherwise be invested to make a return, unless you are going to be tempted to just spend the money.
From:
Peter Merrick
29 June 2020 10:45 AM
Government and pressure groups continue to suffer from tunnel vision when it comes to evictions, thinking that they are carried out almost exclusively for financial reasons by greedy and unreasonable landlords whose only consideration is money.
From:
Peter Merrick
16 June 2020 09:05 AM
Keep the money and invest it profitably until it needs to be paid.
From:
Peter Merrick
12 June 2020 10:55 AM
They do eventually answer (at least I know they did before the virus), but make sure you have unlimited calls, plenty of other things to do whilst waiting, and leave your phone on speaker for when they do eventually answer.
From:
Peter Merrick
12 June 2020 10:54 AM
David, people like you worry me and give landlords in general a bad name for the perception that they are purely in it for the money. Yes, any business has to make a reasonable amount of money or it would not be viable. No, business is not an amoral undertaking. Those businesses that take care of their clients instead of screwing them for every penny they can get are the ones that win in the end through the loyalty of those they have acted fairly and equitably towards. If you are only interested in money, then invest in stocks and shares including housing providers if you will, and you will probably make as much money for far less hassle if you have a good nose for this business and a good fund manager.
From:
Peter Merrick
09 June 2020 23:05 PM
Is there any other industry where providers are being effectively forced to provide a free service at their own expense, to be paid at the whim of the consumer? If the government were prepared to underwrite the potentially crippling costs like they have done with the furlough scheme, then I'm sure most landlords would not have a problem with renters not paying during the crisis.
From:
Peter Merrick
08 June 2020 10:05 AM
There is nothing in that letter that goes beyond what has already been instigated, namely that tenants can request a rent suspension (not cancellation) for up to three months if there is a significant deterioration in circumstances, and that landlords can do the same with their mortgages. I'm sure most landlords will be happy with rent cancellation if the government are prepared to fund this, as is being actively proposed by some US democrats. Otherwise, it's a bit like going to the the supermarket for your weekly shop and then walking out without paying for it. Normally that is called theft, but if it is a landlord you are defrauding then apparently it is called social justice.
From:
Peter Merrick
29 May 2020 09:46 AM
Michael, mandatory licensing for 5 or more people HMOs came in in 2018.
From:
Peter Merrick
18 May 2020 23:45 PM
Good luck with the alternative payment arrangements. These are only being allowed as a last resort for renters who are vulnerable or at least a couple of months in arrears, even though a lot of tenants prefer direct payments to the landlord.
From:
Peter Merrick
03 April 2020 09:15 AM
“The latest advice is that people stay put, and as long as the Government helps tenants pay their rent, there will not be a large build-up of debt from rent arrears, meaning there will be no logical reason why a landlord would start eviction proceedings.” Are these people totally naive or what? Do they not realise that there are many legitimate reasons to evict a tenant, not just rent arrears, such as antisocial behaviour, illegal or dangerous behaviour, damage to the property for example. So any tenant in those categories now has carte blanche to create merry hell for an extra three months whilst the landlord has to just sit and watch their property being trashed and neighbours lives blighted whilst having to accommodate the tenant at their own expense. And what about tenants who set up cannabis factories in rented properties? Are they also exempt from eviction? Perhaps ARLA and the government could advise landlords on what to do in such situations?
From:
Peter Merrick
30 March 2020 10:44 AM
Labour's proposal is perfectly fine - as long as they include proposals to compensate landlords for the potentially crippling loss of income. Otherwise they are saying that we should essentially act as an ersatz welfare state at our own expense through no fault of our own, purely because we happen to have one or more tenants who have lost their job and income. But surely that is precisely what the welfare state is there for in the first place!!! So essentially they are saying that the welfare state has failed and a certain group of private citizens should be forced to pay instead, regardless of whether or not they can afford to do so.
From:
Peter Merrick
30 March 2020 10:31 AM
I feel sorry for anyone who has a malicious tenant who will be able to play merry hell and deliberately not pay "because I can" and/or trash everything thinking they can do it with impunity for the next three months. Of course, to add injury to injury, the eviction process will take twice as long to deal with the flood of applications once the emergency rules have ended, so a lot of landlords are going to go bankrupt or just decide that enough is enough.
From:
Peter Merrick
27 March 2020 09:14 AM
No doubt landlords with take some pain (with govt rubbing its hands in glee at the thought). However, it will obviously not be as much as £15bn: A certain proportion of rents are direct payments from UC even if fewer than used to be the case. It is likely that most tenants will continue to be paid once the government have sorted out a suitable support package, so they will have no reason to need a payment holiday. In any case, the rent is just deferred rather than cancelled. As they won't be spending a substantial chunk of their income on non-essentials like eating out and other entertainment like most people do, a fair few may actually find themselves better off until things return to normal. So when it comes to it, this is yet more irresponsible scaremongering.
From:
Peter Merrick
24 March 2020 11:13 AM
Be prepared, keep plenty of cash ready just in case. A bit late too say that now, of course, but if you can fit in a judicious remortgage, go interest-only (if you are not already) or have some funds that could be re-purposed, any of those could do the trick to hold you over until tenants can catch up with payments.
From:
Peter Merrick
16 March 2020 09:50 AM
Thank you, this is the most useful thing so far on LT. I have recently taken on a couple of UC tenants who are nice enough but hopeless with managing their finances. Hopefully the UC47 form will do the trick!
From:
Peter Merrick
06 March 2020 11:47 AM
Duh, the whole point of all the tax changes and regulations was to shrink the supply of ordinary letting properties in favour of company BTL and anything else that wasn't being targetted by tenants' organisations. And at the same time to fill the depleted tax coffers at the expense of landlords and tenants. There is a scientific rule called Le Chatelier's Principle which basically says that if you exert pressure on one side of an equilibrium, then the equilibrium will shift to compensate. The same applies to any kind of economic activity, including the rental industry.
From:
Peter Merrick
24 February 2020 11:04 AM
First GR complains that landlords are renting out properties to them, so the govt cripples our ability to make a return by unfairly hiking taxes, then they complain that some of us turn to other ways of making a return. Perhaps it will give govt pause to rethink, but probably not, they will just start trying to squash the FHL sector as well, except it helps tourism which adds to the economy. And the FHL cat is well and truly out of the bag anyway. Personally I don't think I will bother with that but I do find that HMOs are still worthwhile on the whole.
From:
Peter Merrick
07 February 2020 10:25 AM
Is anybody going to borrow from these people when you can get 5 year 75% rates at around 2.5%? Add to that the tax restrictions, the effective rate for higher rate taxpayers amounts to about 6%, all but wiping out any return from their investment.
From:
Peter Merrick
15 January 2020 10:40 AM
Another factor that I have noticed recently is the sheer amount of time it seems to take for Universal Credit payments to come through. I have a couple of tenants who have had to wait 2-3 months for their money to come through after their work dried up, so I have likewise had to wait for them to be able to pay me. I even had to lend one some money for food so that he didn't starve whilst he was waiting, and the other was looking at the same issue when her first payment finally came through. Add to that that they only pay LHA in arrears (as if that is true of the real world) and I am certainly very cautious about the whole thing.
From:
Peter Merrick
15 January 2020 10:36 AM
Tenants will all have to refuse consent, otherwise thousands of properties will simply be removed from the rental market as they will be uneconomical to upgrade, especially if they make C the minimum allowable rating. In any case, few tenants in situ will be happy to have major disruptive work carried on around them when they already have enough to deal with in everyday life.
From:
Peter Merrick
09 January 2020 10:29 AM
A very good set of points there Robert. I too am very sceptical of these deposit replacement products as they always involve a non-returnable charge to the tenant. At least with Landbay you only pay once, but then you are limited to landlords that are on their books and the landlord will be having to pay their service charges as they are presumably acting as the letting agent as well (I self-manage all my properties). The whole point of a deposit is that is is fully refundable (for a good tenant). Unfortunately there are cases a-plenty of unfair deductions taking place for hapless tenants who can lose tens or even hundreds of pounds at a time. I think as landlords we need to be sympathetic to tenants who don't have the money upfront, for example after a relationship breakup where the person having to leave may be left with little more than the clothes they are wearing even though they are in long term employment. Or someone who has just got a job and is therefore still building up their finances.
From:
Peter Merrick
30 December 2019 12:53 PM
"I am establishing use as a Residential property before I sell each one" You can only claim CGT exemption for the time you used the property as your primary residence (minus any allowances). So if you rented a property for 9 years and lived in it for 1 year as your primary residence, then you pay CGT on 90% of the gain. If you have more than one lodger then you only get partial CGT relief on your residence as it is classed as commercial use.
From:
Peter Merrick
09 December 2019 10:49 AM
Long term tenancy models and the concomitant abolition of section 21 are a contradiction when government policy is to drastically reduce the "out of control" PRS by making it unprofitable. Clearly the intention here is to give further discouragement to landlords by reducing the amount of control they have over their already less profitable investments, which will leave the slack to be picked up by institutional landlords. Social landlords are for the few and not the many, whilst most private sector organisations have higher administration costs than sole trader landlords plus shareholders and offices to pay for and therefore have to charge higher rents. So yet again your everyday renter is the one who pays for all this.
From:
Peter Merrick
25 November 2019 10:27 AM
"All they are achieving is driving landlords to leave the market" Isn't that precisely what the changes introduced by the last government and continued by the current government were intended to do? As well as to collect a bit of extra tax in the meanwhile.
From:
Peter Merrick
21 November 2019 09:58 AM
The reason for the apparent flattening out of rental demand is at least in part due to the fact that EU nationals, who are more likely to rent, are abandoning the UK due to Brexit. Otherwise, the demand would likely be increasing.
From:
Peter Merrick
07 November 2019 22:23 PM
This is a good way of increasing the overall cost of renting by charging a non-refundable extra week rent on top of the usual costs. No doubt for agents they will get some commission which will make up for some of the fees lost as a result of the letting fees ban. Anyone who has to move with any kind of regularity would be advised to steer well clear of this scheme.
From:
Peter Merrick
02 August 2019 13:03 PM
Incorporation means you have to pay 20% tax on profits plus 37.5% tax on dividends if you are a higher rate tax payer, not to mention all the extra obligations that come with running a company. Is that really worth it vs being a private landlord, even under the current regime?
From:
Peter Merrick
28 June 2019 10:09 AM
The deposit replacement schemes work by making the tenant pay for an insurance in lieu of a deposit, usually at a cost of about one week's rent. This is effectively a tax on the tenancy agreement or indeed a tax on poverty for those with so little money that they can't pay upfront. If the tenant is staying several years, then it may be worthwhile For a tenant who is on a fairly short let or moving frequently, the cost of insuring each new tenancy is soon going to mount up and even exceed a traditional deposit, and this money will stay in the pockets of the scheme providers rather than being returned to the tenant at the end of each tenancy at nil or very little cost to the tenant. The only tenants who would benefit in the long term are going to be those bad tenants who would have had significant deductions at the end of the tenancy. A better and more equitable arrangement would be for the agent or landlord to have a blanket or bulk insurance scheme, the cost of which is then split between the tenants either via a small fee (if legally permitted) or paid for by the agent/landlord and recouped via a slightly higher rent. As a small landlord I have often taken a different approach. I sometimes find myself with a perfectly decent person who has been kicked out of a relationship and through no fault of they own their clothes and a few pounds in the bank are their only possessions. In this situation I can take advantage of the flexibility my position affords to allow them to pay what they can afford up front and they agree to catch up over the first few weeks, enabling me to gain a good tenant, and the tenant to have a place to stay, with no extra costs incurred other than taking a temporary risk on the tenant.
From:
Peter Merrick
28 May 2019 09:31 AM
Please could someone write an article on this that does not make vague, contradictory and utterly useless statements? To quote the return on BTL for the last 10 years as evidence that it is still lucrative shows how completely ignorant the author is since tax changes only started in 2016 via SDLT for new purchases. The reduction in tax relief on finance costs only began last tax year so will have barely been noticed as yet. The full force of this is not going to be seen until the 2020-21 tax year, by which time many landlords on a mortgage in low yield areas will be facing negative cash flows in return for their time and money and risk. BTL is a completely different investment from shares and classic cars as it is about people's lives as well as making money out of what is normally a very non-volatile asset. In actual fact many landlords buy properties at below market value, often improving them prior to making them available to live in (for which they have to pay a penalty SDLT rate). By the time they have mortgaged the property at 75% of full market value, the return on capital investment may actually be incredibly high since the mortgage returns much of the capital investment back to the landlord whilst they keep the balance of rent minus running costs and tax, although this equation does not factor in the personal time costs. It would be incredibly unwise for the ordinary person to use such leverage in the volatile world of stocks and shares, as shares can rapidly fall below the value of the loan used to buy them, whereas a BTL house will normally cover the mortgage costs from the rental income and will be unlikely to drop 25% and thus go into negative equity. In short, there are many ways of handling a BTL investment. Unlike stocks and shares and other tradeable assets, the returns on BTL vary enormously depending on where and how you buy and manage the property. What is absolutely certain is that costs have gone up and tax relief has gone down, so landlords will need to be creative in how they respond rather than just seeing BTL as a traditional fairly passive income investment.
From:
Peter Merrick
20 March 2019 10:08 AM
Thus is potentially a bonus for those landlords that charge fees. Fees are usually one-off, whereas the higher rent will no doubt apply for the duration of the tenancy. Potentially the cost will be recouped several times over by the time the tenant leaves. I saw that as soon as it was announced, although it makes no difference to me as I have never charged fees anyway.
From:
Peter Merrick
17 January 2019 09:00 AM
That's sounds very interesting! Unfortunately I own and run mine in my sole name and my partner does not have anything directly to do with it.
From:
Peter Merrick
07 January 2019 00:24 AM
It depends on the area ... I am in the Humber Area where the yields are still ok if you play it right. I have four small HMOs and three whole property lets, hopefully getting the next one soon. I usually look for something undervalued and get most of my investment back remortgaging it later. However, I notice that the amount I can get for a room has gone up considerably if I wanted to take advantage of that. Obviously it's different in other places as most of the return is via capital growth and the rent just about covers running costs, so if there is a property downturn then these people could be in serious trouble with negative yields and negative capital growth! I think in my case I would just carry on as usual, maybe charge a little more rent, unless demand for rental property fell through the floor or the tax regime became impossibly hostile. The reduction in interest rates is quite noticeable. When I started in 2015, it was 3.6% for a 2 year fee free fix and 4% for a five year, but now it's about 3% for a 5 year which is about 25% less. If you are on higher rate tax, the effective rate for this is still only 3.6% and only one lot of agent fees in 5 years. I'm still a bit sceptical of setting up an Ltd SPV as the extra work and bureaucracy, higher interest rates and other costs of running a business may not be worth it. You may get full tax relief but you have to pay for business banking, file trading reports, and pay both corporation tax and dividend tax if you take any of the profits out. One big advantage is that if you want to sell the property as a going concern, then you just sell the (shares in the) company rather than the actual property, which continues to be owned by the company. This is vastly quicker and cheaper than transferring property, and presumably avoids future SDLT.
From:
Peter Merrick
06 January 2019 21:30 PM
Yes, I read read an article in the Guardian complaining about availability going down and rents going up saying that landlords we ripping off councils who had no choice but to give temporary according to more and more homeless people. It turns out that landlords are evicting them so that they can sell up as it was no longer worth their while to provide rental accommodation, or were trying to raise rents to compensate.
From:
Peter Merrick
04 January 2019 00:10 AM
Surely someone has noticed the quite inaccurate statement about mortgage relief? It is simply being reduced to 20%, not removed altogether! This makes no difference if you are still on basic rate tax (and the threshold is going up to £50000 next year from £45000 last year). If you do end up paying higher rate then it basically adds 20% to the effective rate of interest. Given that rates are so much lower now then even three years ago, finance is still cheaper than it was then ... and rents have gone up in the meanwhile. There are downsides if you are looking for income generation, since property prices and stamp duty have also gone up, meaning that it is more expensive than it was to start up and to run a new buy to let, and for those that have furnished properties, the 10% allowance is sadly missed.
From:
Peter Merrick
03 January 2019 19:49 PM
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Breaking News
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Video Archieve
Today 14:58
Portal Discussions
Joined Group From: Your Community
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Industry View
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Viewed From: Industry View
Today 14:58
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet
Conversation Comment in: Interior Design
Today 14:58
×
Send a message
Message
×
Write on Wall
Message
×
Send a message
Reply to:
Message
Breaking News
Call for “sentencing guidelines” to punish landlords over licensing
Politicians propose State Control of private rents in Scotland
Lawyers ask: Why is Gove delaying ground rent reform?
Rents soar by almost half since 2014 - deposit service’s latest claim
Build To Rent deal emphasises eco-efficiency and wellbeing
Jail for landlord who put lives of tenants at fire risk
Councils set to grab over half a billion from higher tax
Renters Reform Bill shock for Generation Rent and Shelter
Energy costs could vary according to time of day
HMO clampdown after worry over bins, parking and loss of housing
Peter's Recent Activity
From: Peter Merrick
28 March 2024 09:50 AM
From: Peter Merrick
28 March 2024 08:04 AM
From: Peter Merrick
11 March 2024 06:38 AM
From: Peter Merrick
08 March 2024 17:23 PM
From: Peter Merrick
24 February 2024 10:50 AM
From: Peter Merrick
19 February 2024 07:19 AM
From: Peter Merrick
12 February 2024 09:18 AM
From: Peter Merrick
12 February 2024 09:09 AM
From: Peter Merrick
12 February 2024 09:00 AM
From: Peter Merrick
20 January 2024 12:02 PM
From: Peter Merrick
27 December 2023 08:22 AM
From: Peter Merrick
18 December 2023 13:14 PM
From: Peter Merrick
11 December 2023 09:43 AM
From: Peter Merrick
06 December 2023 13:45 PM
From: Peter Merrick
22 November 2023 15:12 PM
From: Peter Merrick
20 November 2023 08:44 AM
From: Peter Merrick
20 November 2023 08:12 AM
From: Peter Merrick
18 November 2023 22:25 PM
From: Peter Merrick
15 November 2023 13:35 PM
From: Peter Merrick
13 November 2023 21:56 PM
From: Peter Merrick
06 November 2023 08:16 AM
From: Peter Merrick
02 November 2023 08:36 AM
From: Peter Merrick
30 October 2023 13:07 PM
From: Peter Merrick
24 October 2023 09:08 AM
From: Peter Merrick
22 October 2023 18:42 PM
From: Peter Merrick
19 October 2023 19:04 PM
From: Peter Merrick
19 October 2023 01:01 AM
From: Peter Merrick
11 October 2023 23:06 PM
From: Peter Merrick
09 October 2023 06:18 AM
From: Peter Merrick
06 October 2023 08:42 AM
From: Peter Merrick
02 October 2023 15:23 PM
From: Peter Merrick
01 October 2023 13:56 PM
From: Peter Merrick
23 September 2023 22:01 PM
From: Peter Merrick
20 September 2023 18:44 PM
From: Peter Merrick
20 September 2023 08:23 AM
From: Peter Merrick
15 September 2023 21:56 PM
From: Peter Merrick
12 September 2023 12:02 PM
From: Peter Merrick
30 August 2023 09:36 AM
From: Peter Merrick
25 August 2023 12:44 PM
From: Peter Merrick
25 August 2023 12:29 PM
From: Peter Merrick
25 August 2023 12:13 PM
From: Peter Merrick
19 August 2023 21:11 PM
From: Peter Merrick
19 August 2023 10:43 AM
From: Peter Merrick
19 August 2023 10:16 AM
From: Peter Merrick
12 August 2023 13:09 PM
From: Peter Merrick
12 August 2023 13:00 PM
From: Peter Merrick
12 August 2023 01:36 AM
From: Peter Merrick
31 July 2023 07:08 AM
From: Peter Merrick
24 June 2023 17:25 PM
From: Peter Merrick
13 June 2023 06:43 AM
From: Peter Merrick
31 May 2023 08:44 AM
From: Peter Merrick
25 May 2023 08:51 AM
From: Peter Merrick
31 March 2023 12:53 PM
From: Peter Merrick
31 March 2023 12:51 PM
From: Peter Merrick
30 March 2023 08:58 AM
From: Peter Merrick
30 March 2023 08:46 AM
From: Peter Merrick
27 February 2023 23:48 PM
From: Peter Merrick
18 February 2023 12:19 PM
From: Peter Merrick
16 February 2023 09:33 AM
From: Peter Merrick
06 February 2023 22:35 PM
From: Peter Merrick
19 January 2023 08:37 AM
From: Peter Merrick
30 December 2022 06:45 AM
From: Peter Merrick
05 August 2022 17:17 PM
From: Peter Merrick
10 July 2022 19:22 PM
From: Peter Merrick
22 June 2022 07:43 AM
From: Peter Merrick
23 May 2022 08:52 AM
From: Peter Merrick
06 May 2022 09:14 AM
From: Peter Merrick
06 May 2022 09:13 AM
From: Peter Merrick
23 April 2022 14:10 PM
From: Peter Merrick
19 April 2022 22:46 PM
From: Peter Merrick
23 March 2022 08:24 AM
From: Peter Merrick
15 March 2022 08:53 AM
From: Peter Merrick
20 January 2022 08:51 AM
From: Peter Merrick
17 November 2021 08:22 AM
From: Peter Merrick
16 November 2021 08:00 AM
From: Peter Merrick
04 November 2021 08:01 AM
From: Peter Merrick
20 September 2021 07:36 AM
From: Peter Merrick
14 September 2021 06:50 AM
From: Peter Merrick
14 September 2021 06:43 AM
From: Peter Merrick
10 September 2021 08:31 AM
From: Peter Merrick
01 September 2021 07:15 AM
From: Peter Merrick
23 August 2021 18:28 PM
From: Peter Merrick
15 July 2021 07:58 AM
From: Peter Merrick
11 May 2021 09:26 AM
From: Peter Merrick
30 April 2021 10:33 AM
From: Peter Merrick
15 April 2021 18:30 PM
From: Peter Merrick
15 March 2021 12:09 PM
From: Peter Merrick
11 March 2021 12:22 PM
From: Peter Merrick
03 March 2021 16:56 PM
From: Peter Merrick
03 March 2021 16:53 PM
From: Peter Merrick
19 February 2021 10:10 AM
From: Peter Merrick
20 January 2021 10:12 AM
From: Peter Merrick
20 January 2021 09:59 AM
From: Peter Merrick
19 January 2021 13:44 PM
From: Peter Merrick
19 January 2021 11:04 AM
From: Peter Merrick
23 December 2020 14:59 PM
From: Peter Merrick
23 December 2020 12:53 PM
From: Peter Merrick
21 December 2020 13:14 PM
From: Peter Merrick
17 December 2020 10:50 AM
From: Peter Merrick
19 November 2020 09:46 AM
From: Peter Merrick
29 October 2020 09:50 AM
From: Peter Merrick
16 October 2020 09:29 AM
From: Peter Merrick
07 October 2020 09:06 AM
From: Peter Merrick
06 October 2020 10:24 AM
From: Peter Merrick
17 September 2020 10:33 AM
From: Peter Merrick
11 September 2020 10:13 AM
From: Peter Merrick
04 September 2020 09:33 AM
From: Peter Merrick
21 August 2020 12:53 PM
From: Peter Merrick
28 July 2020 09:27 AM
From: Peter Merrick
13 July 2020 09:37 AM
From: Peter Merrick
01 July 2020 13:26 PM
From: Peter Merrick
30 June 2020 10:52 AM
From: Peter Merrick
29 June 2020 10:45 AM
From: Peter Merrick
16 June 2020 09:05 AM
From: Peter Merrick
12 June 2020 10:55 AM
From: Peter Merrick
12 June 2020 10:54 AM
From: Peter Merrick
09 June 2020 23:05 PM
From: Peter Merrick
08 June 2020 10:05 AM
From: Peter Merrick
29 May 2020 09:46 AM
From: Peter Merrick
18 May 2020 23:45 PM
From: Peter Merrick
03 April 2020 09:15 AM
From: Peter Merrick
30 March 2020 10:44 AM
From: Peter Merrick
30 March 2020 10:31 AM
From: Peter Merrick
27 March 2020 09:14 AM
From: Peter Merrick
24 March 2020 11:13 AM
From: Peter Merrick
16 March 2020 09:50 AM
From: Peter Merrick
06 March 2020 11:47 AM
From: Peter Merrick
24 February 2020 11:04 AM
From: Peter Merrick
07 February 2020 10:25 AM
From: Peter Merrick
15 January 2020 10:40 AM
From: Peter Merrick
15 January 2020 10:36 AM
From: Peter Merrick
09 January 2020 10:29 AM
From: Peter Merrick
30 December 2019 12:53 PM
From: Peter Merrick
09 December 2019 10:49 AM
From: Peter Merrick
25 November 2019 10:27 AM
From: Peter Merrick
21 November 2019 09:58 AM
From: Peter Merrick
07 November 2019 22:23 PM
From: Peter Merrick
02 August 2019 13:03 PM
From: Peter Merrick
28 June 2019 10:09 AM
From: Peter Merrick
28 May 2019 09:31 AM
From: Peter Merrick
20 March 2019 10:08 AM
From: Peter Merrick
17 January 2019 09:00 AM
From: Peter Merrick
07 January 2019 00:24 AM
From: Peter Merrick
06 January 2019 21:30 PM
From: Peter Merrick
04 January 2019 00:10 AM
From: Peter Merrick
03 January 2019 19:49 PM