x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button
Paul Barrett
Paul Barrett
4953  Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Paul's Recent Activity

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 14 October 2019 10:11 AM

Paul Barrett
I was thinking more about private corporate providers. I don't include social housing providers as they are always allowed to get away with murder when as you intimate if we did the same as them we would be crucified. So because of that paradigm I don't even consider them. My competition is the BTR operator who is allowed to offset the finance costs against income to produce a taxable profit. I see NOTHING wrong in that as the BTR operators have GAAP applied to their business like any other business in the UK. Of course the only business in the UK not allowed to offset the costs of finance for their business is the mortgaged sole trader LL!! I see no reason why size should matter. Business taxes should operate the same way for those engaged in that business. That surely is a fair level playing field!? Perhaps I am being a little politically naive as S24 is clearly a political tax Is that fair!? Personally I think NOT. Yet it seems in society at large nobody has any problems with mortgaged sole traders being persecuted and discriminated against. S24 is a bonkers penal tax policy. But surely if it is to remain in force for proper fairness it should apply to all the finance costs etc for all of those operating as LL!! Of course we all know that us mortgaged sole trader LL are on a hiding to nothing. So our response is to sell up. That is what I am doing. Call it a tactical retreat. I intend to exit with at least some resources and escape a possible Corbyn Govt. An EA I was chatting to in B Stortford yesterday stated last year he sold 3 LL properties. This year he has sold 23!!! BrExit concerns seem to have been the main reasons for them selling which surprised me as I would have thought S24 was a major reason. But anyway it seems the LL rot has set in. What have been perfectly viable businesses are now being made unviable by bonkers taxes etc like S24. I'm afraid the PTB have no concern at all that mortgaged sole trader LL are being discriminated against. Once they have achieved their objectives of eradicating mortgaged sole trader LL they will come for the small corporate LL. The big corporates will obviously be left alone as they contribute to Tory Party coffers. I accept my fate as I know there is nothing I can do about it. I contributed to the S24 JR. That went well!!!!??? It is naturally disappointing that I am being unfairly taxed out of business after all my efforts and substantial losses these past 10 years. But we are where we are and so like many LL regretfully I am having to sell up. This is a shame for the good tenants I will be making homeless as I will only sell with vacant possession to achieve the best market price. I will go off into the sunset taking my previously hard working capital and deposit it with savings accounts where it will remain largely socially useless and losing value daily. Far better that than risk expropriation of that capital by an evil Labour Govt. All in all a very sorry state of affairs.😢

From: Paul Barrett 12 October 2019 04:03 AM

Paul Barrett
Yep your contentions are correct. But we have exactly the same situation with S24. LL with properties made unviable cannot sell as they have no resources to pay the CGT bill because they have borrowed the increased equity over the years. They did this on the basis that they would have years for properties to increase in value. S24 somewhat compromised that business projection to say the least!! and many LL now do indeed face bankruptcy. To avoid such they will be forced to subsidise these properties if they have the resources in the hope that in the coming years equity will increase so that they can sell and pay the CGT bill. Not exactly a guaranteed situation!! Which is why retrospective tax legislation is so unfair. But Govt doesn't care about bankrupting mortgaged sole trader LL. Who'd be such a LL!?...........................Well many AREN'T they are selling up!!! Had a very interesting conversation with an EA yesterday. This year he has sold 23 former LL properties for good prices Neither FTB nor tenants bought these ex-LL properties. They were all bought by upsizers or downsizers. Lots of them exiting the London property market and bringing the spoils of the London property market to the hinterlands. They know they will not be returning to the London market and so they can afford to pay top prices. This leaves me quite satisfied as I intend to get out of the PRS for all the obvious reasons and I will be selling to these upsizers and downsizers who are after the sorts of properties I have to sell. I will escape nutty Corbyn and his property expropriating fellow Labour Marxists. Plus escaping from the ridiculous Tory S24 policy.

From: Paul Barrett 10 October 2019 05:46 AM

Paul Barrett
All other EVICTION circumstances apart from rent defaulting should be moved to S8. Automatically then S21 becomes a fault based Eviction process as it could only be used in cases of rent defaulting. Then the possession process needs to be sped up. So I would suggest no Court Action should be required. A LL should be able to remove a tenant the day after the 2nd rent default with Police assistance if necessary. Very few rent defaulting tenants would leave willingly. This would mean that a LL could remove the tenant very quickly. Essentially it would be after 1 month and 1 day as that would be 2 month's rent default if rent paid in advance. The tenant would need to prove that rent defaulting had been reduced to 1 month of arrears. Tenant could literally do this by handing cash to the LL to pay the 2nd month of rent arrears. So for a practical purposes a tenant would know they could only risk being 1 month in rent arrears. The fear of being booted out by the LL the day after the 2nd month rent default will prevent tenants taking the p###! To avoid a 2nd month rent default payment would have to have been cleared funds. A cheque on the day wouldn't be sufficient. S21 is mostly used for rent defaulting tenants in the PRS. Of course any LL who evicts because of alleged rent defaulting and it is then discovered the LL had been paid would require immediate readmittance to the property by the LL. This would rarely occur. Indeed most LL would wait a couple of days to confirm rent hadn't been paid. So I have no problems with an enhanced S8 but leave S21 for rent default cases only.

From: Paul Barrett 07 October 2019 17:57 PM

Paul Barrett
It comes to a point when tenants won't or can't pay the rent increases required to maintain a property viability. Tenants are not able to meet these increased rents and therefore have to vacate. This leaves the LL with an effectively unviable rental property. Unless a LL is able to increase rents to cover the increased cost burdens then it is pretty pointless the LL retaining the affected property. Previously LL may have subsidised such properties on the basis of hoped for CG. This prospect is now extremely unlikely for at least the next 10 years. So with even the prospect of CG removed it is pretty pointless a LL retaining such an unviable property. This unviability is based on how things are now. There is the very likely prospect of even more cost burdens being imposed on LL which makes properties even less viable.. In such circumstances it makes no business sense for LL to retain such properties. Selling therefore makes eminent business sense. At some point there won't be sufficient available rental properties for tenants to go to as those LL will have sold up due to unviability. I am experiencing this scenario and will be selling a such a property. It seems a tipping point has been reached beyond which tenants are not prepared to pay increased rents to cover increased costs and that doesn't even include an annual RTI. We haven't even factored in potential IR increases. For those LL with mortgages at about 75% LTV such properties are becoming unviable as the additional cost burdens are imposed. Reducing gearing is an option to retain viability but not every LL is in a position to do this. There are so many good reasons to sell up now and very few to remain a normal mortgaged AST LL.

From: Paul Barrett 02 October 2019 18:41 PM

Paul Barrett
Unfortunately for Govt the HB bill is bound to increase when exposed to market pressures. Social housing is essentially a nationalised private rental market where rents can be controlled. But where the supply and maintenance of social housing stock is down to Govt to fund. Govt thought it could effectively privatise the massive costs of Social Housing. What they didn't reckon on is if there wasn't sufficient profit in it for LL they would stop letting to them leaving massive TA costs. The PRS is simply not fit for the purpose of being Social rented housing The PRS has to produce profits to survive social housing DOESN'T! Social Housing is just one of those massive Govt expenditures that they cannot avoid. RTB of any type should be banned unless for full market value. Like it or not Social Housing is required for the lower orders. A society is judged by how it treats the less than capable. Yes it means supporting the feckless. But even the feckless have to live somewhere! Putting them in shipping containers cannot be a correct response to a shortage of social housing. Govt should go onto the open market and buy up existing properties for social housing as well as building millions of new Social homes. Personally I hate the idea of assisting the feckless with my taxes but what alternative is there!? Certainly not the PRS. Ideology obviously infects the whole housing proposition on the basis that social housing tenants produce Labour voters. I suggest that tenants who should not be private tenants also vote Labour. By Govt action they are reducing the capacity of the PRS to let to DSS tenants. LL increasingly don't want them and can't(currently) be forced to take them.. That leaves the taxpayer to fund social housing no matter how expensive. It is just one of those bottomless pits like the NHS that Govt simply has to fund. Just get on with it!

From: Paul Barrett 01 October 2019 09:45 AM

Paul Barrett
Govt fails to understand that LL are so precisely because the S21 process is available. If S8 doesn't effectively mirror the S21 process then LL will give up. They are not prepared to be held hostage by their tenants. Make no mistake by removing the power from LL to control their business will cause them to give up AST lettings. There can be little point in replacing S21 with an enhanced S8 process. Without a process that is almost identical to the current S21 process then LL will feel vulnerable and justifiably so! S21 ISN'T a non-fault process. Most S21 were issued because of rent defaulting tenants and therefore entirely fault based. Very few LL issue S21 without just cause. But it must be remembered that even if S21 is used it can still take over 10 months to achieve Eviction. So all the propaganda that LL can evict after a 2 month S21 is a complete fallacy. Not one of my rent defaulting tenants that I issued S21 to vacated at the expiry of the 2 month S21 notice. I had to go through a lengthy and costly eviction process. Costly for the reasons of court fees and defaulted rent. S21 though being far from perfect was always more reliable than S8. Without a robust and workable possession process LL simply will stop letting to AST tenants. Or they may let to unrelated sharers as it would be highly unlikely that they would all default on rent at the same time. But without S21 it becomes very risky letting to single household tenants. RGI is probably the only way LL would risk it. This is very hard for tenants to qualify for. Lots of tenants will struggle to source LL prepared to take them on. For those reliant on HB well they can simply forget any idea of LL wanting to let to them!!!

From: Paul Barrett 30 September 2019 07:56 AM

Paul Barrett
What we have here is the effective return of Regulated Tenancies. With S21 abolished and a tenant continuing to pay a controlled rent level with an Assured Tenancy a LL would be hard pushed to use a revised S8 process to remove a tenant. There would be little rent defaulting with controlled rents. Perhaps LL will have to persuade family members to move into rental properties though that would be a breach of most mortgage conditions unless the LL converted to a regulated mortgage product of which there are few providers. Whichever way you look at it selling up is a very sensible solution to these issues. LL are effectively in a corner escapable only by selling properties. No LL would be stupid enough to buy rental property if Labour look like attaining power. I doubt that many lenders would bother even offering mortgages if there is the possibility that the loan might be forced to be paid off early by a Tenant RTB demand. Even if Labour don't attain power this time there is always the next GE possibility. It is impossible to be in the PRS when your business model could be destroyed every 5 years with a bonkers Labour Govt. So even with Labour NOT in power the mere threat of them makes the PRS unviable. This refers to the AST PRS. There are of course many other ways of attaining rental income other than via an AST or AT. It would seem that the single household tenancy is now a defunct business model. Great as long as Labour doesn't attain power. Most LL take a long term view of their business to the tune of 30 years and more. How many LL would be prepared to gamble that for the next 30 years there would be no bonkers Labour Govt!!?? Just the mere threat of a Labour Govt is enough to cause the terminal decline of the PRS. Those LL who stay in the market will be made of very strong stuff. That stuff I do NOT have!! Selling up remains the only viable business strategy for me. Accidental LL would do well to sell up now any properties they have previously lived in to avoid the additional CGT due after April 2020 plus they get rid of a property with no risk of RTB or rent controls. By all accounts that amounts to about 300000 properties which currently house about 1.5 million tenants. Where are they all going to live when all these properties are sold off!?

From: Paul Barrett 24 September 2019 15:21 PM

Paul Barrett
If or I suppose when S21 is abolished surely LL will be able to recover possession of their property by citing relevant grounds!? Rent arrears will still be mandatory grounds for eviction. I accept that the S8 process even with alleged Govt changes coming to it will still be a costly and protracted affair. My last RGI EVICTION was carried out by the RGI solicitors using S8. Yep still took 10 months but that was only because I gave the tenant 85 days to pay the arrears. Which she never did so I submitted the RGI claim the following day. So it might have taken 7 months. Still a long time to go without rent and would have bankrupted me but for credit cards! This as it still takes time for RGI to pay out. With a new S8 process and courts being overloaded with cases I reckon S8 until bailiff eviction could take 1 year. So LL need to factor this into their business model. I certainly can't afford to risk taking on tenants without RGI and because so few tenants qualify I am getting out of AST letting. I am not prepared to risk bankruptcy because of 1 rent defaulting tenant. It is rare that LL can source tenants who could qualify for RGI. With such poor tenant circumstances it is just too risky letting to tenants without RGI in place. I am not prepared to be held a hostage to fortune by some rent defaulting tenant so I have little alternative than to withdraw from the AST lettings market. LL can escape the PRS but it would be better to do so while S21 exists. This probably accounts for why some LL are selling up. Without the confidence of being able to repossess a property at anytime which S21 currently facilitates then many LL will throw in the towel as I am doing. Unencumbered LL can get by but those with mortgages need RGI on their tenants or face massive financial risks

From: Paul Barrett 20 September 2019 16:15 PM

Paul Barrett
I believe it is more that the AST market is a busted flush.. Where properties formerly let on an AST can be changed they will or another method is not to let to single households. Letting to multiple unrelated occupants will prevent RTB. If LL start to do this there will be substantially less demand for purpose built HMO. Just a normal 4 bed house is all that is required. No adjustments needed compared to letting to a single household. About the only thing is a notice on a wall giving LL details. So I would imagine HMO will be dumped especially as Councils try on the old Individual Council Tax Banding malarkey. Having 4 unrelated sharers makes for more rental I come than a single household. Though I would imagine that to enhance the amenity value of a standard residential property LL will try to squeeze in additional bathroom facilities. This would be worth doing as it would be a selling point when sold as a family house. Very few Lenders will allow 4 unrelated sharers on individual ASTs. So it will have to be no more than 4 sharers on one AST. It would seem that this may cause issues if the property is in an Article 4 area. That being the case don't buy in an Article 4 area!! Perversely I believe single households will struggle source suitable rental property as LL move to mult-occupancy to avoid the bonkers Labour RTB plans. 5 bed properties will not be sought after by LL UNLESS they could easily comply with Mandatory HMO Licensing requirements. To me the perfect property is a 4 bed house where all the rooms if required would meet the current Mandatory HMO Licensing requirements. Not needed yet but useful to future- proof.

From: Paul Barrett 18 September 2019 14:13 PM

Paul Barrett
I have previously voted LibDem. I won't vote for them on the basis that they have an anti-democratic policy of cancelling the result of the BrExit vote. The mere affrontery that these idiots display in denying the result of a democratic vote to leave by the UK electorate is simply breathtaking. No wonder people despise the political classes! ISN'T denying the result of a democratic vote what happens in dictatorships!? Can just see Jo Swinson with her swastika armband! Let us say that the LibDems form a Govt can we have a peoples' vote because we didn't like the result of the GE. Then I guess if the LibDems lose they will want a peoples' vote and so on ad infinitum!! ISN'T the whole point of democracy that the losers accept the result!? The LibDems will lose as many votes as they might gain due to their bonkers stance on leaving the EU. Boris all the way it has to be. I am just disappointed that the Tories are not prepared to have an electoral pact with the BrExit Party. This is the height of arrogance and could well be the undoing of the Tories resulting in a Labour Govt. It is pointless Tories fighting seats where they stand no chance of winning. Let the BrExit Party have a go at defeating Labour. Though I would prefer the very few leaver Labour MP s to have uncontested seats. Leave Frank Field alone for a start to see if he can win as an independent. He deserves to remain an MP. I sincerely hope the GE is based on the EU leave vote as that should see Labour and the LibDems trounced. As for abolishing S21 unless it is replaced with a more cost effective and simpler process..............................HIGHLY UNLIKELY then this will simply hasten the process of LL abandoning the AST market. Great for tenants........................................ NOT!!!!

From: Paul Barrett 18 September 2019 10:46 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 12 September 2019 19:01 PM

Paul Barrett
I believe it will be found that it is the richer SE tenant has become so due to wishing to avoid having assets that can be robbed from them by Councils to pay for care home fees. Essentially they are doing a Ronnie Corbett. He sold his home which had lots of equity in it. He then dispersed his tax free income from the sale proceeds amongst his family. He then rented for the rest of his life leaving no significant assets behind. Had he needed a care home the Council would not have been able to rob the asset value of his former Residential property. There will be many homeowners that will be doing this and they need to sell their home well before there might be any inkling of a need for a care home otherwise the Council will maintain that 'intentional deprivation' of assets has occurred and won't pay care home fees that they have to pay for all the feckless layabouts who have been council tenants etc and have no assets. Why should those who have striven be forced to support the feckless? It is mostly self-funders who are forced to subsidise SE care homes where council payments are insufficient to keep the care home viable. So when you think about the feckless are supported all their lives by homeowners. It really pays not to have assets in later years in your name. Becoming a tenant is a great way to avoid having asset value robbed from you by the Council. The awkward thing is timing the sale of assets to ensure the Council cannot accuse you of 'intentional deprivation'. I believe selling at least 5 years before any care home situation might be identified is sufficient to avoid such intentional deprivation accusations. So it could well be that demand by these senior citizen tenants becomes more so as they seek to avoid being robbed by the Council for care home fees. As has been mentioned such tenants usually make for excellent tenants. Rarely will they wish to move so potentially such tenants could be with you until they are carted off to a care home! I would suggest such tenants would be far superior to other sorts of tenants. Most of these tenants will have sold their PPR and 'spent' all their assets. I'm sure as well as funding the rent from their alleged income there will be payments that might be made directly to the LL in cash from relatives to fund the total rent!! Where those relatives obtained the monies from who knows and there will be no record of cash payments made by relatives etc to LL!! Of course there is the current Labour risk of RTB so not sure how LL will behave with that risk taking into account that RTB will only work with single households. Would a senior citizen be able to obtain a mortgage!? Would their potential heirs fund a RTB proposition?

From: Paul Barrett 12 September 2019 09:59 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 09 September 2019 10:01 AM

Paul Barrett
I have further considered this RTB issue and have come to an assessment which I believe other LL have concluded as well. My understanding is that RTB could only be for single households on one AST. You could hardly have 4 unrelated sharers on one AST each with a RTB of a 4th of the property!!! Therefore I believe that such a bonkers Labour RTB policy will only apply to where there is one household on the AST. This must surely impact those LL with existing HMO which have been adjusted to fully comply with Mandatory HMO licensing. The reason!? Well lots of LL wishing to remove the risk of RTB will remove single households on one AST who would qualify for RTB in the event the ridiculous Labour RTB policy becomes law to be replaced by multi-occupancy tenants who presumably could not qualify for RTB if on one AST with say 4 other unrelated tenants in a 4 bed house. This must mean that with LL getting rid of single AST households that more of those properties will become available for unrelated sharers. If LL keep to no more than 4 unrelated sharers they also avoid the new Mandatory HMO Licensing though of course with more than 2 unrelated sharers they would not be able to avoid Additional Licensing where in force. But even taking these additional costs into account moving to an unrelated sharers AST would remove the possibility of RTB by those 4 unrelated sharers in a 4 bed house. There would potentially be a reduction in rent that could be charged for HMO Mandatory or otherwise as there will be far more multi-occupancy circumstances available. Of course this begs the question as to where all the evicted single family households are supposed to live!!!? Personally I couldn't care the less; not my problem. Clearly those LL with 4 bed properties are in an excellent position to get rid of single household tenants and replace with 4 unrelated occupiers avoiding Mandatory HMO Licensing. It is highly doubtful that with BTL lender conditions that in such sharing situations that LL could have individual room AST as most lenders specify only one AST is permitted. So I cannot see how apart from single household tenants that RTB could apply to any other tenants. So for safety I can see lots of LL getting rid of single household tenants and replacing with unrelated sharers. 4 bed properties will increase in price as they hit the sweet spot of no HMO licensing apart from possible Additional Licensing maximising the potential of such 4 bed properties. It makes little investment sense in investing in a 5 bed property as they would mostly be subject to Mandatory HMO Licensing. Of course any form of multi-occupancy letting involves more work than a single household letting mostly because of the turnover of the individual tenant sharers. But that has to be worth it if the risk of RTB is removed.

From: Paul Barrett 09 September 2019 08:49 AM

Paul Barrett
@andrew Townshend I hope for all our sakes that you are proven to be correct. Never in the past 50 years has such an attack on property rights occurred. Property rights are the fundamental underpinning of the UK economy. Property provides valuable security on which lenders of all sorts are able to advance credit. Without credit the UK will suffer a depression far worse than happened in the USA in the 20's. What the looney Labour Party proposes is nothing short of a mass expropriation of property equity and title. This usually only happens when there has been a revolution. Doesn't usually occur with an elected Govt!!! The mere fact that this threat has been made along with rent control proposals means that remaining an AST LL is a very risky prospect. Had this threat existed 12 years ago when I first became an AST landlord there is NO way I would have bothered. If I wouldn't have bothered then with the situation not changing I certainly don't intend to bother now. So as an incumbent LL I have little alternative that to end letting to tenants on AST. AST tenants are now a serious threat to a LL wealth. There are of course many other ways of being a LL that don't involve letting to tenants on AST's. There is simply no way I can cope with the future with the threat of rent controls and expropriation by tenants of my rental properties. So by default to avoid that risk I need to leave the AST market. This will require considerable adjustment to my business model. I am persuaded by the efficacy of the lodger strategy but there are many others that are worth exploring. FHL being a significant one. But AST lettings are now a busted flush as far as I am concerned for as long as there are the looney Labour proposals. The mere fact of these looney proposals mean it would be extremely foolish to invest in the AST lettings market. Somehow I have to extricate myself from the AST market and achieve the same income levels with other forms of property investment. As long as Labour has these proposals then it just ISN'T worth investing in the AST lettings market. For the past 19 years no Labour Party has ever suggested this and many other lunatic policies. There is NO guarantee that a Tory Govt will remain in power to prevent the most looney housing policies being instituted. It is bad enough with the ridiculous policies the Tories have imposed. Labour policies would be absolute destruction of my business. This I am simply not prepared to risk which means I have to leave the AST lettings market. So while you are hopefully correct for the short term of Labour not attaining power this DOESN'T put off that risk permanently. Such a risk is something I CAN'T risk. Investment timelines in the PRS are usually long. The threat of even more bonkers property policies than the Tories makes such AST investment strategies as pointless.

From: Paul Barrett 05 September 2019 23:38 PM

Paul Barrett
Correct But there is no legal requirement that forces a homeowner to reside permanently at a particular home they own. So of course a lodger would only be taken on while the homeowner is in occupation. Two days later the homeowner can go off to another home they own or anywhere they choose to go. Providing all bills etc for that home are in the name of the homeowner then it matters not how many lodgers the homeowner has in his various resi properties. Lodgers are easy to get rid of. If they refuse to vacate after the relevant agreed notice then you just wait for them to go out and then change the locks. Any attempt by the lodger to gain illegal entry is breaking and entering. Police may be called to stop this if the lodger attempts to gain illegal entry. Lodgers have NO tenure rights beyond that which was agreed in the lodger agreement. All lodgers should be given a Lodger Agreement which will detail the LL requirements especially the notice to vacate period. Usually this is 1 month by either party as usually 1 month's deposit is taken. The home would be a fully furnished property with the lodger only needing to provide their own food and laundry requirements. The homeowner provides all other normal domestic facilities. There is nothing to prevent a LL selling up his BTL properties and replacing them with residential properties possibly purchased with Residential mortgages. Providing the income is there then a LL can have as many Residential properties as he can afford. Obviously this means very few LL can afford more than one resi property. But the lodger strategy would be quite attractive to LL who have a lot of equity spread across multiple BTL properties. Some LL might even convert BTL mortgages to residential ones. Also solves the problem of Labour forcing LL to sell to tenants. Lodgers aren't tenants!! A Lodger agreement is the correct document whether the homeowner is there a lot or not. 1 day per tax year is sufficient. Providing all aspects of the home are in the homeowners name then no lodger can claim a Lodger Agreement is a tenancy agreement. It is perfectly possibly to take on a Lodger and not see them for 355 days. On the 356th day the homeowners arrives and stays overnight and then goes off for another 355 days!! The only slight issue is regards buildings insurance. Most resi insurance policies require no more than 31 days absence at any one time. Though of course there must be insurers who will insure multiple homes where clearly the owner may be absent for longer than 31 days at a time. Probably would require a higher premium!!

From: Paul Barrett 05 September 2019 09:53 AM

Paul Barrett
Just curious as to what was preventing your FTB from buying BEFORE you put your property on the market!? One presumes as is in fact the case that there are plenty of properties for FTB to purchase well before LL sell their properties forced to do so by the stupid S24 etc. Which essentially proves that the alleged reason for S24 was a lie. There were and are plenty of properties to buy before any LL properties are put up for sale. Very few tenants will buy their rental properties at full market price. It is highly unlikely that those who wish to be FTB can't do so due to not having sufficient deposit. If Govt genuinely wished to ensure there were FTB it would allow HTB to be used for pre-owned properties. Now with similar conditions that really would set the property market alight. LL would be able to sell all their dud properties which won't be EPC compliant in 10 years time. Get rid of all that dross to mug FTB. Little will those FTB realise that they will only be able to sell to other homeowners. No LL will want to buy a dud property which would require extensive and costly works to make it EPC C status. But Govt DOESN'T seem minded to offer this. I fail to see the obsession with new-build properties which are invariably of poor quality when compared to properties over 100 years old. I have a traditional 2 bed terrace property and no way would I want a new-build version. I do wonder at what point there will be insufficient rental accommodation. It seems that despite LL selling up there is still a surplus of rental accommodation. Until this surplus is used up I don't see there being a shortage of rental accommodation. Of course LL need there to be a shortage so that rents may be increased. But it would seem we haven't reached that stage yet. I would suggest that there are still far too many properties seeking tenants which is very bad news for the PRS. We do need reduced supply so we can jack up rents to realistic levels.

From: Paul Barrett 04 September 2019 22:28 PM

Paul Barrett
You forget that RFR is meant for where the LL is Residential at the property. Therefore there s NO unfair competition with AST lettings. There are very few LL that would choose to have Lodgers in their home. Of course where there are more than 4 unrelated occupiers in a home then Mandatory HMO licensing is required unless the occupiers are guests. There are a few other exclusions as well. But in no way can a live-in LL be considered unfair competition because they are allowed a tax free allowance. You are comparing apples with pears. As I have mentioned before it would be far better for all concerned if there was NO RFRA and that ALL lodger income was tax free. This would send a very simple message out to all homeowners that there would be no paperwork etc beyond that of RTR regulations and gas certificates. Encouraging homeowners to take in LODGERS would greatly assist the pressures on the housing market for rental circumstances. I don't know why the Govt DOESN'T abolish the RFRA as very few lodger LL would ever declare anymore than the current £7500 allowance. HMRC should just accept that the the RFRA is routinely EVADED. SO why bother trying to even detect those lodger LL that evade the RFRA!? It would okay well electorally if Govt announced the end of the RFRA with ALL lodger income being tax free. Such a situation would greatly assist those who gave large houses but don't wish to sell but now have vacant spare rooms. Such homeowners could take on lodgers and then go and rent in sunnier climes returning on a monthly basis to retain compliance with residential insurance conditions. Plus to collect mail and address any issues at the property or with the lodgers. There are about 19 million spare rooms along with about 800000 empty properties. Encouraging usage of these existing assets should be done. The RFRA makes little difference to tax receipts as most LL evade it. So Govt should just accept this and make a big statement that all taxation has been removed from homeowners who take in lodgers. If this means there are fewer tenants for the PRS then so be it. It should be Govt policy to encourage it usage of existing assets especially Residential properties. Govt wi never achieve taxation of lodger income in excess of the current £7500 RFRA so why bother!? Spare rooms need to be actively encouraged to be used. Completely tax free lodger income would be a start.

From: Paul Barrett 03 September 2019 22:00 PM

Paul Barrett
@Paul Robinson Are you some sort of looney!!!!?? Never have I heard any description of deporting HB tenants to cheaper areas more in accordance with their HB affordability as RACIST!! WHAT has racism got to do with inability of HB tenants to meet their rental commitments As far as I am aware UK welfare policy is not based on race; colour or creed!! If it was then indeed it would be incorrectly racist and would be a breach of the Race Relations Act HB policy ignore the ethnicity of any claimant. So no idea what you are on about. Any HB tenant should be subject to the same financial pressures as anyone not in receipt of HB. HB tenants certainly shouldn't be receiving what a working person receives in wages otherwise there is no incentive to work. The welfare classes should never be receiving sufficient welfare to make it not worth working. If I had my way I would reduce the OBC to £15000 which is still equivalent to a £20000 gross wage far more than many full time workers earn annually. I would also ensure 25 hrs of work was required to avoid the OBC. It is irrelevant what the ethnic makeup is if any HB tenants forced to move to cheaper areas. Affordability is a dynamic continually changing and it is just tough s### if this causes domestic upheaval. It is something that any of those not on welfare experience all the time. Perhaps you were referring to which part of the community sell the BI. It is simply a fact that 90% of the sellers are Romanian gypsies. That is not any commentary on that ethnic group. Just that they are savvy enough to know how to work the system. I commend them for their ability to abuse the welfare system. I would do exactly as they do if I needed to. It is not racist pointing out such expertise shown by certain community members.

From: Paul Barrett 02 September 2019 12:06 PM

Paul Barrett
It is all complete and utter twaddle People choose to be homeless. They could easily move to cheaper areas but refuse to do so. Mostly these cheaper areas are up North so that is where HB tenants should go. There is no shortage of affordable rental properties up North. It is just TOUGH if HB tenants have to change their domestic circumstances to move to affordable properties. There is no way that property building will cope with MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION until the borders are closed. There is no way that HB should be increased to match market rents in the SE. There should be a massive decanting of HB in the SE to the North. These tenants can't be bothered to work as if they did they could avoid the OBC by just doing 16 hrs of alleged work. Selling the Big Issue counts as work. Do just 16 hrs of selling the BI and all the benefits you want await you!! Which is why 90% of BI sellers are now Romanian gypsies. They know how to work the system!! The feckless who can't be bothered to work should move up North to solve their homelessness in the SE. Once they have been up North for 6 months they will have lost their Local Connection and can be prevented from receiving HB in the SE. Which would be excellent news. The UK economy can really do without the feckless welfare scroungers receiving expensive HB in the SE. There is no need for them to be in the SE as they AREN'T going to bother trying to work FULL-TIME. FAR fewer LL are now prepared to accept HB tenants The hassle of taking them on irrespective of the fact that they can't afford market rents is a massive disincentive for LL to take on HB tenants There is no way that Govt will ever be able to force LL to take on HB tenants.

From: Paul Barrett 02 September 2019 09:34 AM

Paul Barrett
Perhaps in light of the continual bashing that the PRS is receiving LL need to react in such a way so as to protect themselves. It would seem as has been intimated that this can only really be achieved by a flight to quality. It seems there is no real point in having lots of mortgaged property in the hope of CG on all of them. That prospect looks highly doubtful. Therefore it would seem to make sense to get rid of any dud properties that cannot achieve quality tenants for who qualify for RGI and downsize portfolios buying far fewer more expensive properties in better areas. At least that way LL have a very good chance of achieving yield and removing their exposure to the average wrongun tenant. We all know who they are and they are best avoided if at all possible. It certainly makes little sense if mortgaged to even consider the wrongun tenant demographic. They are just so much hassle for very little if any reward and of course leave the mortgaged LL extremely vulnerable. Unmortgaged LL can take all the risks they like with any sort of tenant demographic as they have no mortgage commitments. OK when they get a wrongun tenant is reduces their income for awhile. That is no big deal compared to a mortgaged LL who could easily face bankruptcy if mortgages aren't paid. For that reason alone it must make business sense to move away from the risky tenant demographic. I am choosing to do this. I will be reducing from 5 to 1 property which won't have much mortgage on it. I will buy where I am confident of achieving tenants who can qualify for RGI. Or I may choose to buy as a homeowner and take in lodgers. Not decided yet but no way will I retain properties where in the past 12 years only one of my tenants qualified for RGI. That means that during these years I have been running a massive business risk. It has cost me dear when it has gone wrong. WITHOUT RGI a LL is pretty much defenceless. With it going to be made even more difficult than it already is to get rid of wronguns a flight to quality seems to be the only way to preserve your yield and necessary income. If LL do respond this way then that will leave millions of tenants homeless and a big headache for the Govt. I see no reason why LL especially mortgaged ones should risk so much when Govt actively operates against the PRS to prevent it managing it's business effectively. I say enough is enough. Time to dump the wrongun tenants and the dud properties they occupy and invest in better quality properties and tenants. Leave the dross for the Govt to sort out. LL need to consider only ONE thing and that is PROFITABILITY!! Retaining the dross tenants and properties just exposes LL to too much business risk. It just ISN'T worth it anymore.

From: Paul Barrett 25 August 2019 00:21 AM

Paul Barrett
All very commonsense stuff. None of which will occur. Indeed it is going to get a lot worse! There is simply no way that Govt will make it easier to evict rent defaulting tenants who refuse to vacate at the expiry of 2 months notice to quit. With S21 which was already massively dysfunctional to now just have a supp ok supposedly enhanced S8 eviction process just won't happen. No way does Govt wish to give LL quicker eviction processes compared to S21. Even is enhanced to effectively duplicate S21 that somewhat defeats the object of the exercise. S21 might as we be retained. No the allegedly enhanced S8 eviction process will be far more awkward and will take far longer and cost a lot more. Just the eviction process will be so problematic that LL will stop letting apart from to tenants who qualify for RGI. This will millions of tenants will be booted out unless they qualify for RGI. Indeed every LL should try and obtain RGI on all their existing tenants..Any who don't qualify should be booted out. RGI is the only defence against what will be an even more arduous eviction process under a new S8 process. It makes no business sense to retain tenants who can't qualify for RGI or source a guarantor that can qualify for RGI. Inevitably LL will gravitate towards quality tenants as they will have little choice as RGI will be fundamental for business guarantee s. Hardly any of my tenants over the past 12 years were capable of qualifying for RGI and I took massive risks which didn't work out in my favour. It wi become impossible to evict rent defaulting tenants within a reasonable timeframe to survive as a business. Without RGI being a mortgaged LL is just too risky.

From: Paul Barrett 20 August 2019 01:45 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 16 August 2019 22:29 PM

Paul Barrett
It may well be 5 weeks deposit now but it is perfectly possible to beat the system legally. So a 6 month AST is issued with rent set at a level which includes 3 weeks deposit paid over 6 months. When the AST converts to a SPT or a CPT the LL attaches an appendix to the AST reducing the monthly rent to that which it would have been without the 3 weeks additional deposit. Then 6 months later a S13 rent increase may be issued if desired this as it is only fair to increase rent annually though of course it is possible with every new AST. But I consider that very sharp practice and have only ever increased rent annually. When the tenants leave should everything be OK they receive their 5 weeks deposit plus as a 'gooodwill gesture' the LL GIFTS them an amount that might be remarkably similar to 3 weeks deposit. This is perfectly legal as there is NO law that prevents LL making goodwill gestures to tenants or soon to be ex-tenants. The AST rent wasn't anymore in the first month compared to the remaining months of the AST which is specifically banned. At the expiry of a FTT a LL is permitted to do what they like. They could issue a new AST which reduces or increases rent or they can add an appendix to the expired AST now a SPT or CPT. No barrister could ever prove that when the tenancy ended and the deposit plus a 'goodwill gesture' was anything other than that. What the stupid Govt should have done was restrict deposits to no more than 2 month's deposit because if the dopey Govt knew anything about tenancy law they would know that taking more than 2 month's deposit created a Premium Tenancy which no sane LL would EVER wish to occur. So defacto LL for years have only been accepting no more 2 month's rent as deposit for fear of creating that Premium Tenancy But this is all basic stuff which any LL should be aware of. But 5 weeks deposit maximum is easily beaten legally.

From: Paul Barrett 15 August 2019 13:45 PM

Paul Barrett
The BBC refused to correct it's reporting describing S24 as withdrawing generous tax reliefs. Such vile propaganda disseminated by the vile BBC was an outrageous attack on the only part of business in the UK; namely mortgaged sole trader LL that were to be restricted in offsetting debit loan interest against income to arrive at a hoped for taxable profit. This is a fundamental business concept going back at least 200 years!! It is accepted by all those in the business community that GAAP apply. Govt has decided that mortgaged sole trader LL are to be the only business group that will not be subject to GAAP. This is clearly bonkers but then we are talking venal political policy rather than logical business practice. As such mortgaged sole trader LL are to be the only group that will be taxed on gross income while ignoring costs than any other business would be able to offset against income to produce a hoped for taxable profit. When you have such a clearly political policy the only way it will change is for the politics that generated the policy to be changed by those who disagree with the avowedly political policy. I suggest that currently the politics simply aren't there for abolishment. That means for the forseeable future LL investing in their own name using mortgages will have to factor the bonkers S24 into their business plans. I know if S24 was around when I first started out 12 years ago I would have invested via a company or I would have bought just one property with cash. S24 is now a massive business impediment for sole trader LL. I believe as evidenced by how many corporate BTL mortgages are being taken out that we are seeing a transfer of investment from LL own name to corporate entities. The logic of this is at some stage all mortgaged LL will have invested as corporate entities. That logic must surely leave the PRS in exactly the same position as before S24 was imposed. The whole alleged reason for S24 was to drive small LL out of business. If all the sole trader LL new and old become corporate entities then how will Govt achieve it's objective of eradicating private LL!? The logic must surely be that once all LL are corporates then Govt will need to impose a similar S24 policy on corporates or at least some sort of policy that will have the same effect as the currentt S24 policy is having on mortgaged sole trader LL. Those LL who believe they have escaped the S24 turnover tax are deluding themselves. The logic of the S24 tax policy must be that the Govt will visit on corporate LL a tax policy which will have very similar effects as S24. LL need to be cognisant of this very likely reality and adjust their business models accordingly. I know if I was a corporate LL I would arrange my business model to include no more than 50% LTV gearing............................just to be safe!! So my suggestion is that they have come for the mortgaged sole trader LL. They will come for the corporate LL soon! Be afraid; be very afraid of what Govt can do to small LL. It is obvious that a S24 tax policy will never be imposed on large corporate LL. It would bankrupt them if Govt tried it. So all told very torrid times for small LL in the near future. I'm getting out of the AST game. The figures and risk just isn't worth it anymore for me.

From: Paul Barrett 14 August 2019 19:12 PM

Paul Barrett
So based on your experience what is your take on there being fewer East European migrants when the UK leaves the UK!? Essentially do you consider that you may have to adjust your business model and as such what might you do? Such a scenario could easily be experienced by many other LL. Do you reckon you could get by with 2 applications compared to what you receive from migrants? Personally I would conjecture that with what I believe will be substantially reduced migrant tenant demand it would make sense to rationalise portfolios by selling off the duds with any dud tenants and deleverage on the fewer remaining properties. It seems to me that as the PRS rose to the challenge of providing rental properties to the millions of migrants that have arrived here since 1997 that with the hoped for effective border closure there will be substantially reduced tenant demand. Not sure if the indigenous rental population would seek to rent such migrant properties. Trouble is most of those tenants are very low grade and few LL would want them as tenants. I believe LL should be extremely cognisant of BrExit and carefully consider a major reduction in properties especially if mortgaged. I simply don't believe there are sufficient quality tenants such as the migrant ones to keep such properties viable in the absence of what must surely be substantially reduced migrant demand. Of course I could be totally incorrect in my connjecture of how things may play out. But I believe LL should be very circumspect about leaving things as they are. The PRS will change with BrExit and I believe it will be reduced demand that causes many changes.

From: Paul Barrett 13 August 2019 17:55 PM

Paul Barrett
Affordability is the main reason for reduced homeownership. Mind you this is a mainly SE problem. Most other areas in the UK property is eminently affordable. But the majority of the whingeing GR voters are concerned with the SE. So that is the market Govt needs to address. The damage to this market has already been done by mass uncontrolled immigration. It will take at least a generation for that to be absorbed into the economy and by the very fact of this immigration a lot more homes need to be built in the SE. So the SE NIMBYS will have to accept that far more housebuilding will be required in their areas. But Govt has to come up with a big bribe for GR voters. So I suggest as a whole that MIRAS be introduced for any property up to £600000 for FTB only. Also allow IO mortgages again without the need for a repayment vehicle. HTB should also be offered for any property not just new ones. But even with this FTB still won't have sufficient deposit as they can't be bothered to save. I started when I was 15 which meant I just scraped in to buy my first home by age 23. Perhaps a saving scheme where for every £ saved Govt contributes a £ this in addition to HTB. This to be repaid interest free after say 10 years. The logjam of unaffordability needs to be removed. Only Govt can afford to do this. All monies would be secured on the property title so with Govt effectively becoming a lender of last resort they are still in a secure position. They would be effectively investing in the property market to fund homeowners while at the same time investing in a massive gerrymandering of GR votes. Throwing Govt money at GR is the only way the Tories have of remaining in power. If Labour get in they will just waste it giving it away to the feckless. So investing in property for FTB would be far better use of those monies. Either way the taxpayer money tree will be shaken. LL should be assisted to invest by abolishing all the recent bonkers regulations like S24 and the SDLT surcharge. LL bring much stock to market and especially in the case of new build facilitate building of new developments. I would much prefer there to be a smaller PRS and more homeowners. But the PRS is only so successful as it is due to demand. Reduce the demand and the PRS will shrink. So basically Govt needs to invest in millions of social housing at social rents as well FTB. The nation needs to be housed and as Govt doesn't seem to like LL I don't see that they have any alternative than to invest directly into the housing market. It would see voter approval across the board. Decent housing is the fundamental prerequisite that is the foundation of anyone to create a domestic future. Govt has to accept it will need to play a major part in achieving this. I suggest it will be money well spent or rather loaned for a relatively short period. It might even secure a few votes for the Govt!

From: Paul Barrett 12 August 2019 10:39 AM

Paul Barrett
I'll never understand why a LL has to take Court action for rent arrears. If you haven't paid for the service then out you go No need for Court action. Govt has no interest in making it easier for tenants to be booted out in rent default cases. The longer it can legally make LL retain rent defaulting tenants the better as far as it is concerned. This because it doesn't have to fund housing costs. LL lose £9 billion a year mostly caused by rent defaulting tenants. This is £9 billion the Govt DOESN'T have to resource! It is just a simple fact that the PRS suffers massive losses. I can't think of a single other industry which loses so much money to non-paying customers. It is simply not in the Govt best interests to give speedy possession to LL. If S8 remains no matter how enhanced it will take an average of 20 months to evict. That will be the end of the mortgaged PRS which is 50% of the market. Unencumbered LL are OK as they can afford to lose income as they have no mortgage to pay. It just means they might miss out on a holiday..........big deal! Mortgaged LL however are in a whole world of hurt. It just wouldn't be viable to remain a mortgaged LL. I predict that Govt will do nothing with the S8 process. So LL will have to endure even longer court processes as there simply aren't enough Courts and Judges to administer all the S8 claims It was bad enough with S21. I can see lots of LL jacking up rents via S13 to get rid of tenants using S21 before it is abolished and then going for better quality tenants. The last thing the Govt will be doing is to invest in facilities which gives LL easier eviction Just never gonna happen! LL are deluding themselves if they believe Govt will adjust the S8 process to be similar to S21.

From: Paul Barrett 09 August 2019 16:57 PM

Paul Barrett
I have no problem with S21 being abolished and to be replaced by enhanced S8 facilities EXCEPT IN CASES OF RENT DEFAULTING!!!!!! Usage of S21 for rent defaulting would clearly be a fault based eviction. At the same time as transferring all other eviction circumstances to S8 the remaining S21 facility for rent default needs to be radically improved. It should be a standard County Court process that grants a Warrant for Eviction the day after 2 month's of rent arrears have occurred. So literally on the FIRST working day after the 2nd month of rent default which would be 1 month and 1 day where rent is paid in advance the LL is given his Warrant of Eviction via email. So no need for PO etc. Go straight to Eviction Warrant. The LL may then arrange for bailiffs to enforce the Eviction. The LL could either use CC or HCEO bailiffs. As CC bailiffs aren't usually available within reasonable times the more expensive HCEO would be used a great deal more by LL. So a lot more material for the Can't Pay; Won't Pay TV series!!! Of course many LL would try to work with tenants to resolve the rent arrears rather than evicting but if a LL has a recalcitrant tenant then the S21 process would be used. In my scenario tenants could beat the S21 by reducing rent arrears to 1 month but it would be the tenant who would be liable for the cost of the Eviction Warrant. I would suggest that most LL will ascertain as to whether the tenant was going to reduce rent arrears to 1 month or more or the Eviction Warrant would be obtained. Many LL would seek to manage any arrears resolution do that in practice few Eviction Warrants would be required. All Councils would be aware that the only reason a S21 was used rather than S8 was because of RENT DEFAULT. Just having this threat remaining of S21 would wonderfully concentrate the minds of rent defaulting tenants and Councils. They would be faced with homeless tenants a lot quicker that is currently the case. Of course we all know none of this will occur. The abolished S21 process will simply leave S8. The Govt will effectively leave the S8 process as it is. Evicting even a rent defaulting tenant will become a very long and expensive process and I would suggest prohibitively long due to insufficient Court availability. The idea that S21 evictions can be achieved in 5 months is fantasy land. More like 10 months. This will go to 20 months if every LL is forced to use S8. So LL may we achieve eventual eviction but for mortgaged LL not before the lender has repossessed the property. I doubt many LL could sustain paying a mortgage for 20 months without rent being paid. Such circumstances will not go unnoticed by lenders. Their reaction must surely be to be far more robust in lending criteria. This would mean far fewer LL would be able to scale up and many aspirant LL would be rejected. Mortgages support 50% of the PRS. If such leverage ISN'T so readily available because of more stringent lending criteria and justifiably so what happens!? A ever shrinking PRS can only result.

From: Paul Barrett 05 August 2019 11:16 AM

Paul Barrett
Because he like the other Tories aren't interested in tenants or LL. They want to increase homeownership. Boris naively believes that forcing LL to sell somehow inspires and motivates FTB to buy!!! When in fact there are already more that sufficient properties to buy suitable for FTB. Increasing supply caused by LL being forced to sell up doesn't magically encourage FTB to buy! Boris won't do anything to assist the PRS. The last thing he wants is more tenants being created as most of them will vote Labour. He just wants more homeowners and he stupidly sees LL as an impediment to this being achieved. He fails to understand that even if massive house building plans were announced it would take decades for significant increases to occur. In the meantime people have to live somewhere. The PRS being the obvious solution. But Boris is now presiding over a shrinking PRS when really it should be expanding to meet the demand for accommodation that cannot be met by the existing housing supply. This situation does really affect LL that much but it definitely does the poor old tenant who is facing reduced rental supply and consequently substantially higher rents. Just leaving the PRS alone would at least allow it to get on with this vitally important job of housing those who can't or don't want to buy But as a bare minimum first Boris needs to abolish S24 and the SDLT surcharge. Cancel plans to abolish S21. Just doing that will stabilise the market. There are then plenty of things he could do to encourage PRS expansion. But first learn to walk before attempting to run!! But NONE of the will come to pass so obsessed are the Tories with the idea of garnering GR votes. The Tories just don't seem to understand that even if every GR voter could buy a house won't mean they vote Tory. Most of GR are ideologically anti-Tory. They won't vote Tory no matter what is done for them by any Tory Govt. But for ill or for worse the Tories seem to be fixated on spreading GR and in doing so I predict the Tories are electorally doomed. I reckon we won't have long to find out as this particular Govt cannot carry on much longer with a 1 seat Parliamentary majority. Even this looks like disappearing soon and then Boris will have no alternative than to go to the Country. If BrExit hasn't been achieved by the time of the next GE then the complexion of a new Govt could be vastly different to anything the UK has ever experienced since the Parliamentary democracy started working properly. Very turbulent and anxious time ahead I fear and NOT just for LL!

From: Paul Barrett 03 August 2019 06:53 AM

Paul Barrett
Indeed I was just speaking to a LA I have known for over 10 years and I conjectured how I would cover referencing costs etc. I suggested I would pitch the rent for the first 6 months at a rate sufficient to cover the fees and then 6 months later issue a new 6 month AST or add an appendix to the original 6 month AST reducing the rent to what it would have been without my having to pay for Referencing fees. The LA said why bother!. Just keep the rent the SAME!! So there you have it!! Tenants who stay beyond 6 months will now be paying more in rent than they would have done had they paid upfront fees! I guess nobody is surprised by this. Of course this situation must also increase market rents. So good news for LL not affected by the Tenant Fee Ban as they manage themselves but of course must be tempted to jack up their rents to match the new market rents caused by all the LL charging higher rents to cover tenant fees!! So basically all tenants get clobbered for rent increases even though strictly speaking some LL don't need to! I believe rents in Scotland have increased by 50% since their TFB. It seems that there are very few circumstances where tenants are able to negotiate rent reductions or stabilised rents! It does seem that rents are only going upward. How long will it be before after all the additional costs that are being piled onto LL who then jack up rents to cover these imposed costs may be subjected to rent controls by the PTB who can no longer tolerate the size of rent increases. There has to be a threshold at which tenant clamour against high rents will produce a political response to introduce rent controls. When that day occurs it will be game over for the PRS.

From: Paul Barrett 01 August 2019 11:56 AM

Paul Barrett
Hmm!! Hard working Eastern European immigrants usually do work so hard as even on the NMW they are earning more than 10 times their home country hourly wage. They can afford to rent on their own while remitting hundreds of pounds to their home countries. This situation is gradually changing with the reduction in sterling value plus increasing wages in their home countries makes the UK not such an sttractive propostion. I am in the same position as you as without EU migrants; mine are mostly Portuguese I would struggle to source tenants at the rents I charge. Reliance on migrants for tenants is a bit risky. But I have found very few English tenants that can afford my rents. Most of my EU migrants all have jobs as sharers and that is the only way they can afford my rents. The supply of migrants as tenants is far from guaranteed. Hopefully Boris will introduce an extremely HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT for illegal immigrants and EU nationals not working so that any on the streets will be deported. Personally I am very nervous about MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION coming to an end. This immigration has been very beneficial for LL. Though conversely the very fact that LL have invested in letting accommodation for the millions of EU migrants that have flooded here has resulted in S24 and abolishment of S21. So LL have by their very success caused many of them to be put out of business and being forced to adjust their business models models mostly to their detriment. If possible I am going to try and be a lodger LL. But I know I could struggle to source lodgers at the rents I require once controlled borders occur. So I believe things are far from guaranteed as regards EU tenants. I believe many of them will start returning home where domestic circumstances are improving. Lets face it the EU are moving major UK manufacturers to Eastern Europe. I believe the never ending supply of EU migrants will be coming to an end.

From: Paul Barrett 29 July 2019 22:18 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 29 July 2019 21:15 PM

Paul Barrett
Indeed you have raised a vitally important issue as regards the AST. With the 6 month FTT AST being abolished that puts Lenders in a very peculiar position. Essentially the main plank if their lending proposition was based on AST being no longer than 1 year. So what will they do when it is no longer to specify this? Lenders would surely have to remove the AST restrictions. But surely if LL are restricted from repossessing their properties it means lenders will struggle to repossess as well and invariably they will only have to do this if the LL has failed to keep up mortgage payments which will usually result from the failure of a LL to evict a rent defaulting tenant in sufficient time. I'm sure that BTL mortgage lenders will have work out what to do with existing mortgage conditions and certainly for all new ones. I can't see lenders calling in loans because LL can no longer comply with mortgage conditions. But certainly the whole BTL lending landscape will change. Potentially lenders will price for enhanced risk though there are quite a few lenders that gave abolished AST restrictions so I guess lenders are comfortable with increased AST terms. But I'm sure the wholesale changes in Tenancy law must surely change how BTL lenders go about their business. I think it is very much a case of we don't know what we don't know but I'm sure BTL underwriters are carefully considering their loan products and how they might be adjusted in light of all the new regulations. I can see them restricting loans to 50% LTV

From: Paul Barrett 27 July 2019 22:48 PM

Paul Barrett
It is a fact that the PRS has been and probably will continue to be a very fractured industry. One wonders why this is? But as long as it is the very successful propaganda campaign by Shelter and GR will continue to divide and conquer the PRS. I'm afraid there are very few LL sitting on the fence Most of them don't even appreciate there is a fence and if they did most of them wouldn't even be bothered to climb up and sit on it!!!! This was evidenced by the almost total lack of response to funding the S24 JR. I'm sure that many LL who didn't bother are now finding the effects of S24 are quite onerous. It could be said that it is their fault. They made no attempt to stop S24 and so must now accept the consequences of it on their income The lobbying efforts of the PRS have been pathetic compared to the consumate professionalism that GR and Shelter have shown Their propaganda has been par excellence. Even Goebbels would have been impressed!! Their usage of social media etc had left the old fashioned ways of doing things as done by the PRS in their wake. The PRS needs to up it's game to make tenants aware of the issues involved and to discuss them truthfully. I believe it would have made good propaganda if EVERY LL had agreed to retain a tenant for at least 1 year before a potential S13 rent increase and that if a tenant didn't wish to accept the rent increase then they could have 2 month's notice at the previous rent. But the biggest problem with this fence sitting issue is that most LL aren't even aware there is a fence let alone bother to even climb up and sit on one!! The fact is the PRS is a disjointed and fractured industry which greatly facilitates the ability of the likes of Shelter and GR to divide and rule the PRS. The PRS must learn from Shelter an GR how to propagandise successfully. Social media is something that the PRS must engage with. It has lost the propaganda war. Unless it starts attacking the likes of Shelter on social media showing them up for the lies they are disseminating then the PRS is doomed!

From: Paul Barrett 27 July 2019 11:03 AM

Paul Barrett
It doesn't seem to be appreciated by those other than LL that sourcing new tenants can be a stressful time consuming and expensive process. This now even more so with the TFA. LL will always strive to do their best to retain good rent paying tenants. The idea that LL issue S21 with gay abandon to evict tenants is for the birds. The whole point of being a LL is to achieve rental income. Why would any LL wish to evict a good rent paying tenant!? The 5 times I have been forced to use the S21 process was when my good rent paying tenants became rogue non-rent paying tenants forcing me to evict them as they did NOT comply with the S21 notice. So it was ENTIRELY the fault of the tenants that the S21 process had to be used. I would have far preferred to retain these tenants had they continued to comply with their tenancy conditions. But I was left with little alternative than to evict as I was not and never will be in a position to provide FREE accommodation to those who don't wish to pay for it. I have NEVER been able to achieve eviction using the S21 process for at least 8 months. So hardly the 2 month process that the vile negative propaganda spewed out by the like of GR and Shelter continues to falsely maintain occurs. Removing S21 will leave S8 which is even more dysfunctional that S21. The S8 court process could easily be more than a year. Mostly due to the inadequacy of the Court process due the reductions in County Courts and available appointment availability. It is bad enough with the current dysfunctional S21 process; but to make it even worse by reliance on S8 is just unbelievable. Even though the current S21 process is dysfunctional it is still better than the even more dysfunctional S8 process. Of course most of the dysfunction in possession cases is simply down to insufficient court resources. In theory the possession legislation should work effectively. But when theory meets reality that is when the system breaks down. Govt doesn't seem to have realised that if S21 is abolished then S8 must be vastly more resourced. If it ISN'T then that just makes usage of S8 for possession purposes even more protracted. At least the Scottish Govt recognised this reality and enhanced Court facilities to cope with the projected Court workload. There doesn't seem to be any recognition by the PTB that this needs to occur in England. As such the remaining S8 process becomes effectively useless. For the 50% of the PRS that comprises of mortgaged LL the S8 process is totally inadequate and will become even more so as more LL will be forced to use the S8 process as S21 is removed from usage. Very few mortgaged LL will be able to sustain even longer eviction periods where tenants are defaulting on rent. It reaches a situation where it makes business sense to leave a rental property empty if a LL cannot source tenants on whom they can obtain RGI. Many LL won't be able to achieve this and in many cases it would be worthwhile LL selling off those properties that cannot attract RGI qualifiable tenants. The business imperatives caused by removal of S21 will result in lower quality tenants being unable to source tenancies. Which I'm sure is exactly the OPPOSITE of what Govt will intend!! So what will occur is even more homelessness!! It DOESN'T seem to be appreciated by Govt that the only reasons the PRS had been so effective to date is entirely because of S21 and S8 along with the AST and BTL mortgages being available based on rental income. A 3 legged stool if you will. Remove one of those legs and the whole BTL model falls over. S21 should be retained but if Govt requires then it should be restricted to where there is rent defaulting. That then makes S21 totally based on fault by the tenant in failing to meet contractual rent payment obligations.

From: Paul Barrett 27 July 2019 01:24 AM

Paul Barrett
Agreed; but if this does occur eventually even thick LL will realise that it is a pointless exercise and that they need to adjust their business model. Of course some LL will be unable to adjust their business model and if this occurred such LL would be better off leaving the PRS. Many LL are going to have to seriously consider their positions in light of all the negative stuff that had and is likely to occur. At the end of the day the risk of financial loss is increasing and LL have to decide whether they wish to risk it. I believe things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. You only have to see what happened in the Irish PRS. The Irish S24 devastated the PRS there and still hasn't recovered even though the Irish Govt eventually realised that their S24 version was a disastrously negative policy. Their S24 lasted about 3 years before the Govt realised they had got it wrong. There is no reason to suggest that the UK Govt would behave any differently. So I suggest for the next 5 years S24 will remain and hundreds of thousands of LL will exit the PRS. In about 5 years time the UK Govt will realise that S24 had been a disaster and they will struggle to persuade LL to return when they abolish S24. For many LL looking at retirement they will be better off getting out of the game now. No point in suffering from S24 etc. That is what I am doing. No way am I prepared to suffer for the next 5 years. The PRS will have to manage without me and my capital. I'm sure it will manage OK. Pity the tenants I will be making homeless. But it won't be my problem when I'm out!

From: Paul Barrett 23 July 2019 17:54 PM

Paul Barrett
The tenant fee ban and deposit restriction is very easy to beat. This is how you do it. The additional 3 weeks deposit is included in the alleged rent. The costs of referencing are included in the rent. At the end of the 6 month tenancy the tenant surrenders their tenancy. The following day a new 6 month tenancy is issued at a lower rent. This means returning the 5 weeks deposit so deposit protection is required again. Plus all the other stuff required which includes cancelling the Council Tax account and then starting a new one with the same occupants the following day. At the end of the 2nd 6 month AST the LL issues a S13 for an increased rent if desired. When the tenants eventually vacate they will receive their 5 weeks of deposit plus if everything is OK they would also receive a very generous goodwill gesture from the LL which funnily enough will be the same amount as the 3 weeks additional deposit. There is no way that any of these circumstances can in anyway be proven to contravene the TFA or Deposit REGULATIONS Yes it involves a bit more paperwork by the LL and necessarily this process is something that will only be bothered with by self-managing LL. Of course many LL who have LA managing for them would have slightly different problems due the imperative of LA wanting to make money off of LL. As LA currently control most tenancies inevitably this will lead to a general uplift in rent. Consequently even self-managing LL will be tempted to follow those increased rents even though they are able to manage on less based on my strategy to still have 2 months rent as a deposit and for referencing fees to be built into the 1st 6 month AST. In any advert I would specifically state that for a 2nd 6 month AST the rent would reduce to a lower amount. Any tenant would be able to work out that the monthly rent reduction over 6 months funnily enough equals the referencing fees and the additional 3 weeks deposit. There is no lawyer in the UK that could prove what I would do contravenes deposit or TFB regulations. Though I can see that the temptation to keep the rent the same as at the outset of the AST. I can see how rent creep could easily occur. I would be very tempted myself! But if I give an undertaking at the outset of the first 6 month AST as to what will occur for a 2nd AST I will not go back on my word irrespective of what happens to rents in the meantime. I only every increase rents annually even though I accept I could increase every 6 months with a new AST. I have never seen this as fair. But come what may I will by circuitous legal means still have my 2 month's of deposit and reference fees paid for by the tenants. Such tenants will be pre-checked using LRS before a full RGI reference check is carried out. This will be about £40 per tenant but this will be only one fee as I will not be paying for multiple reference checks. Tenants who believe I would be prepared to do this will be sadly deluded. Inevitably this means the vast majority of tenant applicants will fail my stringent tenant checks. No tenant is ENTITLED to be offered a rental property. Tenants will be in for some tough times as LL become ever more selective due to all the recent stupid regulations. Most tenants will fail stringent pre-referencing checks. Mine will be a requirement to see all 3 full credit reports of the tenant applicant. Most tenants are too stupid to appreciate that a LL will require to see them and so such tenants will lose out to those tenants who are able to provide the LL with their full credit reports. It seems that Tenant Referencing Passports for purchase by tenants have been withdrawn from sale due to the ambiguity as to whether such a purchase by a tenant could be construed as a LL requirement which is specifically banned in the TFA. So any consumer tenant or otherwise should by now have signed up to access their free credit reports. Anyone who hadn't must be a bit of a thicko with modern life so dependent on accurate credit report info. So if a tenant prospect can't be bothered to provide their free full credit reports to you would you wish to even consider such a thicko tenant!!!!???

From: Paul Barrett 21 July 2019 18:08 PM

Paul Barrett
Of course the the ultimate logic of them not stopping is that eventually LL stop being LL!! Is it really the intention of the regulators to regulate the small LL out of business!? Surely that just creates homeless tenants!? This is the ultimate logical outcome of regulators stopping LL from effectively operating their business. It seems to me a perverted sort of ideology which causes ultimately tenant homelessness. Is tenant homelessness the price that is to be paid due to the hatred of LL!? To cause so much misery to so many while just p#####g off a few LL to the point they stop being LL seems a very strange way to behave. The likes of Shelter etc al seem to have an illogical hatred of LL. Without the private LL who is supposed to house all the tenants!? Thinking of an analogy here in an effort to understand the illogical logic of Shelter takes me to the one about the fox and the Scorpion with the fox carrying the Scorpion across the river until half way across the Scorpion stings the Fox Before they both drown the fox asks why with the Scorpion stating that he couldn't stop himself as it was just in his nature. So basically we have loads of stung LL with Shelter just causing loads of drowned tenants. It is almost like one of those religious cults like at Waco; Rev Jim Jones etc where they all commit suicide!! To have so much hatred blinds you to the point where the point of you existing ultimately causes your existence to be pointless as there are no LL to house tenants. I just don't understand the logic. Perhaps I am just too simple to understand the higher issues. But it does seem to me that at a time when private LL were never more needed that regulators want the LL gone!!! I could perhaps understand it if LL were being replaced by other very readily available housing solutions. I haven't seen any of them!! I'm just a very confused LL who not really understanding what is going on is being forced out of business while my services were never more in demand! Crazy ideology seems to have taken over from logic.

From: Paul Barrett 20 July 2019 11:11 AM

Paul Barrett
I'm sure I've stated this before but this S21 stuff could easily be resolved. Allow S21 to remain but that can only be used in rent defaulting circumstances. Enhanced S8 processes to be used for all other reasons to get rid of tenants. Retain as well the S8 rent default eviction process. By retaining S21 ONLY for rent defaulting cases it won't be known as the non-fault eviction process it will be the Rent default eviction process!!! Surely not even Shelter could object to a S21 being used in that case!!!? Yes it would be a real pain to have to use S8 for all other reasons to evict a Tenant. But of course as soon as they default on rent which most of them will the LL can use S21.!! I would enhance the S21 so that there was no need to attend Court. If the tenant pays rent 1 month in advance then when they are in rent default by two months which is one month and one day then the following day the LL should be able to remove the tenant with Police assistance if necessary. Any LL who used S21 when the tenant wasn't in rent arrears by two months would be prosecuted under the Prevention from Eviction Act Therefore before a LL used the S21 process he would make ABSOLUTELY sure that the tenant had defaulted on rent for two months. In practice a LL would leave a few days to allow any payments to be received. The tenant could always say he posted a cheque but of course if the tenant tried that scam a Certificate of Posting would be required.. Retention of S21 for rent defaulting cases only must occur

From: Paul Barrett 20 July 2019 07:51 AM

Paul Barrett
Indeed unfortunately the workers pay for the feckless. This decision was made in about 1979 when Council Housing allocation was to be based on ALLEGED need rather than where you were on the Council Housing List. From that point the feckless were in charge and have been ever since. It basically is worthwhile being feckless. Those on welfare are the undeserving poor who actually aren't as they are in the upper 25% of UK income earners. Well now the feckless are facing issues. LL don't want anything more to do with them anymore. This has come as a bit of a shock for the feckless. The feckless are no longer profitable enough and for a whole variety of well known reasons the feckless aren't wanted by LL. So now we have the left- wing media castigating LL for discriminating against feckless HB tenants in refusing to let to them when previously LL were castigated for being allegedly subsidised by HB!!!! The idiot left-wing media have never been able to work out which option they choose. Catch-22 of course for the idiotic left-wing media but they are too stupid to even realise it. The feckless are for a wide variety of reasons no longer a viable business proposition. Govt policy is directed to supporting the feckless but rather than making them a more viable business proposition for LL Govt continues to make it harder for LL. With regulations being imposed as they are there is the very distinct situation of even more LL selling up which doesn't assist tenants at all. The PRS is not the answer to housing the feckless. That should NOT be the province of the PRS which exists to make PROFIT an imperative NOT required of the SRS which should be how the feckless are housed. As it stands currently the way welfare is disbursed there is a massive incentive to remain feckless. Most workers earn effectively less net income than the feckless on welfare. Until the needs based allocation of council housing is changed to where you are on the list fecklessness provides a rather nice lifestyle.

From: Paul Barrett 18 July 2019 22:51 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 17 July 2019 11:25 AM

Paul Barrett
@possessionfriend. If or probably when S21 is abolished will S8 be adjusted so that a S21 will still work!? If there is no increase in County Court facilities then S8 action will overwhelm the system. It takes long enough as it is using S21. Using S8 I just can't see working. It could easily take 2 years to evict under S8. By then most LL would have had the property repossessed by the lender bankrupting the LL. To avoid this a LL would be forced to only take on tenants who qualify for RGI. I would imagine RGI premiums would increase as it will be about 2 years before possession is achieved. I just can't see how the revised S8 process would work effectively unless similar to S21. Personally I don't see why the S8 process couldn't be adjusted for rent default only to allow immediate removal WITHOUT any court action being required after 1 month and 1 day. So it wouldn't be a non-fault removal. It would be because of 2 months rent default. I don't see why tenants who have defaulted on rent for two months should have any recourse to the courts to prevent them being removed by the LL the following day. Police should be used if tenants refuse to vacate. Of course the tenant could prevent eviction by paying the rent arrears down to one month. That would be fair enough. Of this means that a tenant could with much hassle operate the tenancy always 1 month in arrears. It is the case that most wrongun tenants will stop paying rent as soon as the LL wants to evict. Doing this would enable the LL to get rid of the tenant quicker. But I just don't believe Govt will add any enhancements to the current S8 process. As we all know S8 is not fit for purpose. This is very worrying. S8 will not provide the required possession processes. This could result in mass rental defaulting with those defaulting tenants confident that it could take years to evict them. We are certainly venturing into the unknown!

From: Paul Barrett 16 July 2019 00:58 AM

Paul Barrett
Any LL that provides a quality service is a professional. Whether they have 500 or one property. Being a corporate does NOT make you a professional. It is how you deliver your service that make a LL professional NOT how they choose to own the title deeds of the rental property. There are criminal corporate and sole trader LL. Existing legislation should be enforced to drive the criminal LL out of business or to get them to change their ways. The vast majority of LL are professional. Govt doesn't seem to wish to accept this is the case and insists on accepting the siren calls of the likes of the venal Shelter that all LL are evil and need to be corralled in obsequiousness to their pathetic opinions. Survey after survey shows a 95% tenant satisfaction with LL. Of course that doesn't mean complacency should be allowed. The PRS should always strive to deliver an ever better product. It is the criminals that tend to deal in low quality accommodation. Licensing doesn't achieve a thing. The criminals will always avoid enforcement. It is in their nature and until they are stopped such criminal LL will continue to be a blight on the PRS. But under NO circumstances are they in any way representative of the PRS as a whole. LL generally strive to be as professional as they can within the limitations of their capabilities. A compulsory LL CPD programme would be most useful. Far more effective than the useless licencing schemes. Govt needs to accept that the PRS for all its faults is mostly very professional whether a one man band or otherwise.

From: Paul Barrett 12 July 2019 21:26 PM

Paul Barrett
I personally would have no real issue with this 6 month notice period. No real issue with S21 being abolished with two exceptions. So S21 to be retained in rent defaulting cases ONLY. That would IMMEDIATELY remove the propaganda that S21 was non-fault as it could ONLY be used in rent default cases. I would enhance the S21 process such that NO Court action was required and that rent defaulting tenants could be removed by the LL after 1 month and one day which would be 2 months rent arrears if paid monthly in advance. I would let the Welsh have their 6 month notice period EXCEPT in rent arrears cases when a S21 would be permitted to be used the day after the 1st day of the second month. Police would be used instead of bailiffs which would no longer be required. Rent defaulting shouldn't require ANY Court action at all and Police should be used to remove tenants to prevent a breach of the peace if the tenants refuse to comply with the LL requirement that they vacate. I would allow the S21 to be stopped if the rent arrears were reduced to 1 month of arrears on the second day of the second month. This would give the tenant another 28 days to find the money before a second month of rent arrears occurred and eviction could occur again. Most LL want the ability to ultimately recover their property. Waiting a few more months doesn't really make much difference. The ONLY situation where LL must absolutely have an effective immediate repossession is when rent default occurs. Tenants who rent default should be able to be removed without Court action after 2 month's of rent arrears. So at least everyone would know that any tenant defaulting on rent could be booted out the day after the 2nd month of rent arrears. The vast majority of the public would consider it perfectly acceptable that a rent defaulting tenant could be removed immediately after 2 month's of rent default. In practice few LL would exercise that right. Most LL would attempt to work with rent defaulting tenants to recover their circumstances so that the LL did not need to remove them. Having the 1 month and 1 day deadline would wonderfully concentrate the minds of Councils. No more wait until the bailiffs turn up!! Rent defaulting tenants are the biggest concern of LL. It cannot be right that tenants are legally allowed to remain rent free in a property until legally evicted which could be many months. Of course none of this will happen. S21 will be abolished and S8 will not be fit for purpose as it won't be amended effectively. This will result in more LL selling up. The PRS is now in slow decline. Just not sure how much the decline will go.

From: Paul Barrett 09 July 2019 22:06 PM

Paul Barrett
I must admit I have never given any of my lodgers anything other than a Lodger Agreement. I believe that in future in the absence of required documents I need to put together an information pack for a lodger. There are of course a few sites which give excellent lodger information but I highly doubt whether any lodgers bother searching for them. Whilst lodgers don't have the same rights as tenants I believe it would be the responsible thing to effectively mirror as near as possible the documentation that tenants are obligated to be given. I haven't given this much thought but this thread has given me pause for thought especially the paucity of information for lodgers. I believe lodgers have every right to be informed if all their rights as lodgers at the outset of the lodging. I have always verbally explained but I accept that this is not an ideal way to impart information to lodgers who have to easy way to refer to that lodger information. Not that it is of major concern to me as I am not due to take on lodgers for another 3 years. But I think it would be useful to have a template of documentation that could be given to lodgers so that they are fully aware of their rights and responsibilities. I would imagine that a site like Spareroom would be the ideal originator of such a template. They are probably more aware than most as it is their main business. I reckon they could be relied on to produce accurate information for lodgers. It would obviously be so much easier to just click a link on Spareroom and print off all relevant documentation as well as sending the link to the lodger. I think lodgers should be given the same consideration as tenants. Funnily enough I will be removing a lodger due to rent default. No S21; S8 or anything. I will be escorting him out of my home unless he pays the rent arrears and the deposit I used for one month rent default with his agreement.

From: Paul Barrett 07 July 2019 17:44 PM

Paul Barrett
@suzanne There is no telling some people. However I strongly suspect that Abi has been confused by those LL who operate HMO with alleged licences. Now we all know these are not valid. They are effectively tenancies and it is this recognition by the Council that necessitated S21 or S8 usage. The Council would be correct in the circumstances of an HMO where the LL doesn't have his home. A LL can have as many homes as he likes and have lodgers in each of them; but must attend the home at least once a month even if that is just to satisfy home insurance requirements. But he cannot have BTL mortgages on the residential properties and would need lender permission to have lodgers. Very few resi lenders allow more than two lodgers. I suspect this is the issue. It is well known that licence or lodger system is abused by those who are let us say not of traditional British stock of 80 years ago!! These are the areas where illegal immigrants tend to congregate and definitely where the licence system is abused. When Councils come across such circumstances then their contention that S21 and S8 must be used where it is obvious that the occupiers are fake lodgers and are actually tenants. Many rogue LL try to pull the wool over the eyes of innocent tenants by saying they are lodgers which means fewer rights. This is what I suspect occurs with a lot of naive tenants. It isn't their fault they don't know what their rights are and many LL take advantage of this ignorance. I can see Govt resolving to clear up any perceived ambiguity and I believe Govt will introduce compulsory paperwork for lodgers to advise them of their rights. This would be no bad thing in my book. Lodgers should be assured of their status in paperwork form. Perhaps there should be a formal Govt Lodger Agreement that must be used for each lodger. I wouldn't think this would be intrusive. After all if a homeowner takes in a lodger then a Gas Certificate is required. I wonder how many homeowners with lodgers have Gas Certificates!? Perhaps a How to Rent booklet for lodgers similar to the one required for tenants should be issued to lodgers. I believe that lodgers will become an increasingly popular form of tenure as the AST market dries up as LL exit that AST market. Lodgers deserve to have their rights explained to them with formal documentation.

From: Paul Barrett 07 July 2019 00:44 AM

Paul Barrett
I don't know how many times you need to be told. Lodgers do not need any other NTQ process other than a simple letter given to the lodger. You must STOP disseminating your INCORRECT assertions that lodgers can only be removed by S21 or S8 process. If you do not stop I shall report you to this site to have you banned. LL rely on information given on this site and you quoting incorrect information doesn't assist one iota. Now having said that your comments regarding TENANTS are perfectly correct. However I would suggest that B2R will not solve homelessness. This is because the rents charged are far more than most of those can afford. This is because they are in receipt of HB and don't bother working. B2R will not reduce rents to LHA levels unless they are near market rents. So B2R won't solve the problems. Only by building subsidised accommodation................council housing to you and me will there be sufficient affordable properties for those who are reliant on HB. Once more please STOP quoting your incorrect information about lodgers. Their legal status hasn't changed yet though I do agree with you that this and a future Govt are so bonkers that they may well enhance the rights of lodgers. I wouldn't put any such craziness past Govt. But fortunately as it stands now LODGERS do NOT have the same rights as tenants. This means that homeowners can continue to take on lodgers confident in the knowledge that all it requires to get rid of a lodger is a NTQ for the period agreed at the outset of the lodger agreement. If you still insist on contending that lodgers have the same status as tenants I will report you to the site to have you banned.

From: Paul Barrett 06 July 2019 16:41 PM

Paul Barrett
It might seem counter-intuitive to Govt but if they introduced a very fast -track eviction facility for rent defaulting tenants only it would actually encourage many more LL to take on the riskier tenants! All other eviction requirements could be transferred across to S8. Indeed S21 should be retained but only allowed to be used in rent defaulting cases. It should obviously be enhanced to allow speedy removal of a rent defaulting tenant the day after the 2nd month of rent arrears which would be after 1 month and 1 day for monthly advance rent. Retaining use of S21 for rent default only would certainly end the notion that S21 is non-fault! Rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater better to restrict S21 usage for rent default cases only. Just the knowledge that a LL could boot out a rent defaulting tenant quickly without the need to use any Court process would transform the PRS and would certainly see many more accepted as tenants. The more risky it is made for a LL to get rid of wrongun tenants especially rent defaulting ones the more LL will be extra choosy on whom they are prepared to to let to. It is a natural business response to increased business risk. Why can't Govt see this!!?? Surely it cannot support tenants to rent default with impunity!!!!?? As it stands currently LL are being forced by business. imperatives to be very cautious as to who they rent to. The main thrust behind the campaign to get rid of S21 is that it is non-fault. Well we all know that is rubbish. But enhancing S21 to be used only in rent default cases would remove the non-fault issues as a S21 could hardly be non-fault if it was only allowed for rent default cases! I don't see why all other circumstances that might cause a LL to give NTQ cannot be dealt with by enhanced grounds within S8. Yes it will be a bit of a fag for a LL to have to go to Court for all other reasons except rent default but I believe most LL would accept such changes. Tenants would also know that providing they pay the rent the LL would be forced to use the Court process to get rid of them. Of course it would be relatively easy to force the tenant into rent default by increasing rent to unaffordable levels. I would amend rent increase regulations so that only annual rent increases would be allowed even if a new 6 month AST is issued. I believe it is fair that tenants should not expect a rent increase more than once per year. Now this may then be raised to unaffordable levels but a tenant would know they have security for at least a year before their LL used a new fast track S21 facility. Very few tenants would remain in a property to be booted out by the LL after 13 months and one day. At least with this suggested enhanced process tenants who pay their rent and behave in all other circumstances would know they could remain for at least 13 months and one day before the LL could boot them out. Of course S8 grounds would overcome this if a LL wanted to sell or move into the property themselves. So Govt needs to carefully consider the total removal of S21. Just retain it for rent defaulting cases only!!!

From: Paul Barrett 06 July 2019 10:04 AM

Paul Barrett
Will never happen. The obvious response would be to first abolish S24 which is clearly a ludicrous tax policy. If Govt wants to restrict the ability of LL to use leverage to purchase then simply impose a maximum of 50% LTV on any new borrowing for new purchase properties. Though of course this will have a similar effect as S24 but perhaps in a less extreme fashion. The eviction process in cases of rent default only needs to be radically changed to facilitate LL being able to remove rent defaulting tenants once 2 months of rent arrears have occurred. This means that for those tenants that pay rent monthly in advance that after 1 month and 1 day the LL can evict with police assistance if necessary with NO requirement to use any Court action apart from issuing the relevant S8 notice and S21 while that process is available. Such a situation would encourage more to take a risk of becoming a LL. Rent defaulting is a major problem for LL and deters many from entering the PRS. This is a major problem when LL have mortgage commitments. Surely no Govt can support Tenants being able to remain in a property whilst rent defaulting. It therefore seems perfectly reasonable to allow LL to remove tenants immediately once 2 months in rent arrears. Most evictions are caused by tenants rent defaulting. There should also be encouragement for LL to take on HB tenants. So I would offer LL VAT free on all refurbishment costs for up to 10 years providing the LL let to HB tenants in that 10 period. There should also be other sorts of incentives to persuade LL to bring empty properties back into use. The SDLT surcharge should most certainly be immediately abolished. Good LL have no incentive to get rid of good tenants. It is only the ridiculous anti-private LL policies that are causing LL to sell up and not to even bother considering becoming LL. Tenants want a 'level playing field' and for that to occur they need the PRS to be expanded which is exactly the opposite of what is currently occurring. But all this conjecture is pointless. Govt will not change policy such is their hatred for all things PRS.

From: Paul Barrett 03 July 2019 17:08 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 01 July 2019 15:02 PM

Paul Barrett
Hmm!!!! Targeting known areas. Would likely be deemed a racist policy. We all know where the dodgy LL are Very few of them have traditional British names of 70 years ago. A bit like targeting areas where it is known ILLEGAL immigrants congregate!! In fact the areas very much go together. Illegal immigrants and rogue LL seem to be in the same areas................................funny that!!! It seems the RSW system has been a valiant attempt to solve things but has shown just how difficult and awkward it is to get the process correct as you so pointedly quote. It does seem bizarre that rogue LL seem to be very slippery. You would have thought that with property tending not to be very mobile that it should be a relatively simple process to ensure the RSW was totally effective. I don't understand the RSW mechanics but it must be a bit disconcerting for Govt to see RSW effectively fail. This surely was being viewed by Govt as a potential template for an English RSE. I think it is back to the drawing board or CAD or whatever they use now!!! To me the simplest is to ban any letting that doesn't have a licence no akin to the EPC requirements. You can't legally drive a car without a licence plate so why not the same for a rental property!? No licence no letting permitted. Any advert would have to show the licence no so that tenants could check in a national database that it was a proper licensed rental property. No LA would manage an unlicensed property. The major web portals wouldn't accept unlicensed rental properties. Yes of course there would be many that would let unlicensed properties outside of the usual ways but most rental property would be licensed. You have to start somewhere!!

From: Paul Barrett 01 July 2019 08:38 AM

Paul Barrett
I note that Newcastle intends to license live-in LL with more than two lodgers. Will conditions be placed on homeowners similar to tenants? NEVER before have LODGERS been required to be registered. Newcastle Council will inform resi lenders of any lodgers. The licence will be very expensive and could well result in lodger rents having to increase. This could result in the RFRA being exceeded because LL need to increase rent to cover the Licence fees. It could be that many lenders haven't given permission for lodgers; some may even prevent them entirely. Homeowners could face their mortgages being called in once lenders find out lodgers are in occupation. There is also the issue of insurance. The resi insurance must include lodgers. If not the homeowner would be breaching lender conditions which require proper insurance. This is a radical step that Newcastle Council is taking. We could well see that an official Lodger Agreement is signed where currently there is no such requirement though of course strongly advisable. There will also be the situation where more than 4 occupiers will require Mandatory HMO Licensing. Few homes will be compliant such that a lodger may have to be removed. LODGERS have been the saviour of many a homeowner and Councils meddling in these circumstances does not bode well!! Lodgers have been a very effective accommodation method for many who can't afford to be a tenant. This shot across the bows of lodger LL by Newcastle Council is very concerning. Why start interfering in a sector which has largely been very effective!!?? Nothing to do with garnering excessive licence fees is it!!!!!??

From: Paul Barrett 01 July 2019 07:18 AM

Paul Barrett
Yes indeed PROPORTIONATE Is how LL registration should be applied. ANY that cannot meet the basis requirements should be STOPPED from trading until requirements are met. So these are the following proportionate and relatively cost free measures which should be achieved to operate as a LL. So for mortgaged LL to have a CTL letter from the lender for HB tenants and other tenants. Any LL with a residential mortgage to have CTL. To have a valid EPC of at least E but increasing as per EPC regulations. To have valid PLI To have valid Gas cert as required To have a valid electric cert as may be required by new regulations To have a valid LL insurance This means in practice Accidental LL would have to cease trading as their Residential insurance won't cover letting to tenants on AST. To have insurance covering HB tenants if they have been legally taken on. Compliance with HMO regulations even resi homes. Council Tax to be paid by legal occupier Electoral Roll to be correct. Just achieving that little lot will result in about 3 million homeless tenants as many LL will fail to meet these very simple requirements. It would also cause a run on the banks as loan book values collapse with many LL unable or not prepared to adhere to such very simple and basic Licensing requirements. LL bankruptcies would be many. Mass homelessness will occur No way can Govt afford to have a PROPORTIONATE or any other type of LL Register. It would reveal the mass FRAUD occurring in the PRS! Lenders and Govt won't want to know what is going on. National Registration would reveal this very large dirty secret in the PRS. Of course most good LL will be mostly compliant with all that I have listed. It is the rogue LL that should be concerned

From: Paul Barrett 26 June 2019 13:14 PM

Paul Barrett
LL should be legally compliant with all regulations. Whether a rental property remains financially viable is a completely different facet. It is up to the LL to keep abreast of any change in financial viability. If they don't bother as is their prerogative they may face bankruptcy. You can't force LL to be effective businesses. Obviously if this occurs then invariably the result would be homeless tenants which doesn't make much sense. But it is for the LL to decide how much interest they show in their business. If LL can't be bothered then that is their lookout. I'm sure most tenants would prefer a thoroughly engaged LL or perhaps NOT. Increasing rents for my tenants have resulted as a consequence of my awareness of changes in the financial landscape. Other less engaged LL may not be increasing rents as they should because they are clueless as to the recent onerous changes in the PRS industry. That is good in the short-term for tenants who would generally find their rents remaining lower. But of course when the dopey LL eventually realises that rents need to substantially increase the amount of increase will come as a great shock to the existing tenants. Far better to increase annually by a smaller amount. Many tenants of LL who aren't aware of major issues like S24 could well find their rents increasing massively. Dopey LL will have little alternative as their investment properties become loss making. Given the choice most tenants would prefer to pay an extra £150 pcm than for the LL to sell up due to unviability. I suspect as S24 starts to affect LL even more rents will be continuously increasing to enable future viability. Few LL will be prepared to operate at a loss. Tenants won't really object to paying the S24 Tenant Tax as not doing so could well result in them being homeless as the LL is forced to sell up.

From: Paul Barrett 26 June 2019 08:11 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 25 June 2019 23:16 PM

Paul Barrett
Thing is even at it's most basic level CT being paid even if empty still ensures the Fire Brigade turnout to a fire at an empty property. So while very annoying having to pay CT for a vacant property you can kinda see why Councils have it correct that there are no charge free periods. Firemarks aren't needed anymore as CT is there to pay for the local Fire Service Same really for Police etc. A property may still consume local services even if vacant. Personally if vacant I always officially move in. No regulations prevent you living at multiple addresses. At least you get SPD. Does play merry hell with your electoral roll though. Can't vote currently due to all the addresses I have been at and am at currently. The ER and CT records are now compared which never used to occur. Just means sometimes depending on when the ER is compiled for elections your vote is removed by the ER Officer. Sometimes I have used a sort of house-sitter. From the Council perspective at least they have the vast majority of CT being paid all the time. SPD isn't of great concern and for rental property only lasts for a few weeks unless major refurbishment is occurring. I guess you can say that CT is just one of those monthly costs of doing business which is usually paid by a tenant. Managing rental property may mean that this doesn't always occur. So think on this if your empty for whatever reason rental property is burgled or set on fire you know the local services will turnout to deal with the situation. CT pays for those services!!

From: Paul Barrett 25 June 2019 21:07 PM

Paul Barrett
The vast majority of LL don't care as they will simply refuse to let to anyone that doesn't hold a British passport. There are plenty of good tenants with those. As LL we don't give a stuff about the plight of immigrants. What should happen is that every non-British passport holder should obtain a licence to rent from the HO who are the ones who should be checking RTR. Then all the tenant applicant has to do is show the LL the licence no who then verifies with the HO. Job done. Of course that would mean any LL taking on a tenant without a British passport or a HO tenant licence number should have the book thrown at them. Bad news for the over 2 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the UK. Very bad news for a LL who doesn't have a HO tenant licence or British passport. Great news for those who have arranged RTR and RTRemain with the HO. It is the HO that should decide on RTR NOT the poor dumb old LL. The HO has the database..............just use it to get rid of the illegals who should be deported when discovered Just imagine 2 million illegal immigrants being booted out! That would free up an awful lot of rental accommodation!!! There will come a time very shortly where an EU passport won't be good enough for RTR. We LL will need to see the settled status paperwork. Few of my EU nationals are even aware they need to do this despite my banging on interminably that they need to get it done! I want to keep them as tenants so I naturally want them to have all the correct RTR paperwork as EU nationals. But it is an uphill struggle to convince them to do the boring paperwork.

From: Paul Barrett 24 June 2019 09:43 AM

Paul Barrett
You may state what you state but the facts are you are wrong..Councils cannot overrule a lodger agreement. They cannot convert it to an AST or common law tenancy. Yours is a strange case and if it was as you stated the whole RFR scheme would be undermined. Perhaps you should contact the MHCLG. Explain to them that Hounslow Council have ignored statute law etc etc. It could well be that your representations bring about a change in lodger law etc. In 40 years I have never heard of a live-in LL having to use S8 to get rid of lodgers. I have used S21 and S8 to get rid of 5 rent defaulting tenants. I would never have used the process to get rid of a lodger. In your case something seems to have gone horribly wrong. You may wish to pursue this situation to achieve compensation from the council though I would imagine you are pretty fedup with the whole situation and just want to move on. We appreciate your warnings but us lodger LL are extremely confident about our understanding of lodger law and as such we can safely disregard your experience. It is obviously a great shame that you have been given all this aggro by a clearly incompetent council. My sympathies are with you but I know I and my fellow LL are supremely confident that our understanding of lodger law is correct and yours ISN'T!! I can see how you might be given to believe certain things based on your bitter experience with Hounslow Council. I would suggest that you should not be put of in the future from using the lodger strategy. It does work as evidenced by the millions of home owners who do take on lodgers safe in the knowledge that they can get rid of them if required relatively quickly. If your experience was repeated across the sector there would be millions of homeless lodgers. It would also be the case that lenders would withdraw permission from homeowners to take on lodgers. Currently a lender will usually permit 2 lodgers. If lodgers were now subject to S8 and S21 such permission would be withdrawn. Obviously if the property is mortgage free the homeowner can do as he wishes mindful of the new Mandatory HMO regulations. I think your case just shows how extremely rogue some Councils are. Any court would rule against them and award compensation. But all that would cost time and money which I doubt you have much of. As such this arrogant council might well pull the same stunt. As yet I don't have lodgers in my Ealing house so it is academic for me. But I know I will have no problems at all should I ever need to remove a lodger from my Ealing property in the borough of Hounslow Council. You with your bitter experience have a much more jaundiced view of this and I don't blame you!! But for now us lodger LL will carry on as before WITHOUT any qualms that what was visited on you won't be on us. But thanks for your warnings anyway.

From: Paul Barrett 23 June 2019 00:08 AM

Paul Barrett
ABI mate you won't give up will you!? You are simply wrong in all your contentions. However you now mention Council Tax fraud. There maybe more to this case than meets the eye. Under NO circumstances can lodgers appear on Council Tax statements. The property is the home of the live-in LL and therefore is responsible for any bills. Lodger rent is meant to include everything including toilet rolls EXCEPT food and clothes washing powder. Though I included everything except food. From what you quote there may have been some skullduggery going on here. WITHOUT the FULL facts it ISN'T really possible to assess the veracity of things. But for a normal lodger situation without frsud then what I and others have stated is correct. Hounslow Council is wrong though with fraud that might throw a different light on things. Please stop disseminating incorrect information about lodgers. Something appears to have gone very wrong in your case. But your case cannot and must not be considered as representative of the way the normal lodger process works. Under no circumstances would I allow any lodger to have a bill in their name. It is my home therefore my responsibility. I supply basic bband and of course if the lodger wanted enhanced facilities then they would have a bill for that service in their name. When you advise that fraud has occurred then that might change things. Council Tax fraud is a serious criminal offence. You can end up in prison!!! But please stop comparing lodgers with tenants as though they are the same thing. They aren't! It doesn't matter how many times you keep repeating your incorrect information you are still wrong!! I have been a victim of Council Tax fraud by a rogue tenant who I eventually evicted. I was able to beat her as she didn't pay imagine I would do as I did. She was a serial fraudster and it was my error of judgement in taking her on. So your case may not have been a normal lodger situation.

From: Paul Barrett 22 June 2019 15:32 PM

Paul Barrett
Oh dear it is very sad you have come to your very incorrect conclusions. If someone listened to you very few homeowners would take in LODGERS. They do because they KNOW the Lodger has no tenancy rights. You simply don't understand the law and yet you continue to peddle your misunderstandings. You don't need intellect to work out that what you state is simply incorrect. The law is the law and I can assure you that under NO circumstances do you need to use the S8 or S21 process to get rid of lodgers. It maybe that in your case there was some doubt as to whether they were LODGERS. A live-in LL must be able to access all areas that the lodgers occupy. Any locked doors are OK providing the LL has a key to access those locked areas. Changing locks to prevent the entry of a Lodger to a property is the only practical way that a live-in LL has of preventing a lodger from returning who has received NTQ which has expired. There can be issues if lodgers have exclusive use of a part of a home whereby the LL cannot access. That inadvertently creates a potential tenancy. But providing there is no doubt as to the status of the occupiers as lodgers then they are to be dealt with as such. You won't be told and you insist that you are correct. Nobody on here agrees with you. You are doing a disservice to your fellow LL in maintaining the rubbish that you are correct. I suggest you don't bother posting in future as you refuse to accept you are wrong and as such this confuses those who might be considering taking on lodgers. Indeed I have a 4 bed house in Ealing which potentially could become my PPR. I would intend to take 3 single and unrelated Lodgers. Note that it would be only 3 unrelated lodgers plus me. As soon as there are 5 occupiers the property is subject to Mandatory HMO licensing with all the issues that causes. Should I need them to vacate I would follow the statute law to get rid of them. There is nothing Hounslow Council could do to stop me. Indeed I would refuse to have anything to do with Hounslow Council as it is none of their business how I get rid of my lodgers providing I follow the due legal process which I understand how to manage and you DON'T. YOU bizarrely insist on sticking to your misconceptions. You believe council and police when they are both wrong. Indeed you can call Police if the lodger attempts to gain access once the locks have been changed. I suggest that you attempt to converse with Matt Hutchinson who owns Spare room. His very successful business has been founded on the flexibility of the lodger process. He probably understands more than many how the lodger process works. You need to educate yourself because if you don't you could end up giving duff advice to other lodger LL which would be unconcionable seeing as you have been given all the correct advice. I suggest you stop listening to Hounslow Council and the Police neither of whom have a clue about the correct lodger eviction process. You really do need to listen to your peers and stop believing you are correct when it is so obvious to everyone that you aren't. As your associate is very near the end of the process you are using to get rid of the lodgers you might as well let things take their final course. But ultimately a this has been unnecessary. Obviously a great shame your associates have been led up the proverbial garden path. It has cost them time and money NONE of which has been necessary. Perhaps out of this whole sorry saga everyone has learnt something. As an aside the lodger strategy is one that is to be commended to the many homeowners that have spare rooms. If these were fully utilised it would make significant inroads into the housing issues of the UK. The Spareroom website is the defacto place that lodgers visit to source lodger accommodation though it is also possible to arrange AST lettings as indeed I have done on a few occasions. A very effective site and for my particular usage FREE!! As it happens I have NEVER had to give NTQ. The lodgers have always done that. As regards my tenants taking in lodgers I always encourage my tenants to take on a lodger if they are struggling financially. Providing I know the lodger details then this process works fine. When I have evicted a tenant the lodger goes at the same time!!! In light of your experience you may wish to make representations to Govt as to how the Rent a room process is being compromised by rogue councils using law inappropriately when it comes to getting rid of lodgers who refuse to vacate when given notice to. Perhaps there needs to be more explicit Govt information disseminated to councils to ensure they do not provide erroneous advice and carry out legal processes incorrectly.

From: Paul Barrett 22 June 2019 12:29 PM

Paul Barrett
Mate you simply don't understand the lodger laws. It matters not if a lodger objects to being given NTQ subject to it being the NTQ period agreed in the Lodger Agreement. The LODGERS should have been locked out. The Council was in no legal position to stop a homeowner booting out lodger/s. If lodgers refuse to go the most expedient way to legally get rid of them AFTER the NTQ period has expired is to change the locks while they are out. They are entitled to have their goods and chattels returned to them. This maybe at the doorway. But under NO circumstances should the homeowner/live-in LL allow the lodgers readmittance. This is all basic stuff you should know. The regulations governing lodgers are completely different. To assist you in your ignorance I recollect an excellent site devoted to all things lodger.. I believe a Mandy Thompson runs it. What she doesn't know about lodgers isn't worth knowing..Trouble is I cannot for the life of me remember the site. Try a search on property 118 which I'm sure you must have heard of. I believe you must accept that your knowledge about lodgers is very poor. That is potentially not your fault as most housing issues involve TENANTS. But they are two very different species!!! Hounslow Council has managed to pull the wool over your eyes. They are obviously very adept at deceit which let's face it is their job! To convince any LL not to make lodgers or tenants homeless for obvious reasons.................basically it would cost a fortune to house the legally removed lodgers. What better way than to BS a lodger LL to prevent removal of that lodger in a timely fashion. You simply have to accept you are wrong and that Hounslow Council have done you and your associate up like a Kipper!!! What is done is done. You might be able to refer the matter to the Local Govt Ombudsman. But they are mostly useless. I suggest let bygones he bygones but only on the basis that you educate yourself about lodger regulations. This will then put you in an excellent position to proffer informed opinion. I learnt the stuff about lodgers from the likes of Mandy. I believe on property tribes the ever so clever David Smith who is part of the RLA and is vastly experienced in all things housing etc that he has info on the site about lodgers and their status. These are people that can be implicitly trusted!! Trust what they say and you won't go wrong. But as a advisor you should know all this already! It seems you DON'T. DON'T trust what Hounslow Council state. They have an agenda and will not give impartial advice!!! Councils will lie and cheat in an effort to prevent lodgers and tenants from being made homeless. The HRA has put even more financial pressure on Councils. They will do anything to prevent homelessness. That includes lying and cheating. Checkout the Spareroom website. Much very useful info on there. Think about this if lodgers had the rights that Hounslow Council maintains is the case do you honestly believe that spareroom would be as successful as it is!? The beauty of the web is that for our issues there are a few very knowledgeable professionals who are prepared to share what they know with us dummy LL. Only by keeping up to date on what they state do I know what I know. I rely on them to prevent me making costly mistakes that have occurred with your associate. Obtaining relevant knowledge to prevent issues is always the better way. But you must engage. I am on various LL fora and I read all the threads. This is a daily thing. Do it while watching the TV or in alone time in the smallest room in the house!!!! If you don't believe me check out the sites I have mentioned where you will find I speak the truth. Remember the whole point of all this engagement is to stop LL of all types being stitched up by Govt and Councils. So we all working towards the same end and would not knowingly give you duff information!! My moronic intelligence by the way is far superior to yours on this lodger issue. Indeed I have houses in Ealing which are let to TENANTS. if I chose to let to lodgers I know that I could get rid of them easily and there is nothing Hounslow Council could do about it Statute Law overrides Hounslow Council every time. Lodgers do not have tenant rights and your associate does not and did not have to use S8 to remove them. Go away and do your research and I expect an apology for calling me moronic!! There is also a very knowledgeable LL on property tribes called Gary Hodge. Lodgers are his thing and I defer to him every time. Gospel or as near as you can get is what he does. He has only been a lodger LL for about the past 10 years........so what does he know!!!! Have a post with him. Yours is a very interesting case. It is a salutary warning has to how Councils can take advantage of the poirbokd LL. Don't get MAD; get even, educate yourself

From: Paul Barrett 22 June 2019 01:15 AM

Paul Barrett
I totally get your sentiments and agree wholeheartedly. I'm afraid good LL are used as stepping stones by the unscrupulous. That is just life I'm afraid. I have learnt from bitter experience that despite what tenants contend at the outset of a tenancy with a wrongun it goes wrong pretty quickly! Tenants have no regard for LL and they will manipulate circumstances to advance what they desire. Something it seems you have very direct experience of and which few other LL have. We LL must be on our guard all the time as we are in the weaker position as soon as an AST is signed. We should pragmatically plan for failure. Not to do so is planning to fail. My strategy involves declining all tenant applicants that can't qualify for RGI. That means about 90% are unsuitable. As you can possibly imagine that stricture imposes a lot of stress on me. Without it what I do is unviable. One rent defaulting tenant could bankrupt me. So because of all the new regulations I have decided I am getting out of the AST game. I will try the lodger strategy if I can afford a suitable property from the sale proceeds of my BTL properties. I have a similar jaundiced view as you do and I know when I'm not wanted. My tenants want me of course but their views count for very little in the overall scheme of things. Ridiculous ideology trumps all common sense and practicalities. I sense with you an air of resignation with the debacle that the PRS has become and that you might be getting out of the game like me. I'm sure many LL share your sentiments and have had enough and will be slowly exiting the PRS. Obviously a crying shame that so many experienced LL such as you obviously are feel this way. But I suppose there is a straw for everyone that breaks their back! Govt just blunders around like a bull in a China shop not understanding or appreciating the havoc it is causing.. Well we will see how they cope with a much reduced PRS. I suggest not very well and then inevitably the call will go out for rent controls and there we are back in the 70's with the dysfunctional rental market. I have direct experience of this. My parents had some houses with regulated tenancies..Cost them a fortune to keep going. Never made a penny in profit. Had to wait til the tenants died before they could let at market rents. Being a LL with rent controls in force is no good for your stress levels!! You know when your time is up it is just time to go. Doesn't matter how great a LL you are the PTB don't want you around. You can't beat them.. When the wind is against you and unlikely to change in the bear future with the distinct possibility that it might develop unto a full blown hurricane time to recognise this and plan to go before you are sunk!!

From: Paul Barrett 21 June 2019 19:04 PM

Paul Barrett
There are a few deposit schemes which facilitate the LL holding the deposit monies. Yes a small fee of about £20 is payable EVERYTIME there is a new AST. So with these deposit schemes NEVER issue a new AST. Just allow them to proceed onto a periodic tenancy. If there is ANY change to the AST then a new protection fee is required. Not sure whether with the TFA whether a LL would be permitted to charge an admin fee for reprotecting a new AST. Most tenancy changes are as a result of existing tenant request and it is my belief that a deposit admin fee may be charged. As far as I am aware a LL is still NOT permitted to charge for the cost of a new deposit protection but it is still pemissible for a LL to charge an admin fee. The fact that the admin fee might be identical to the deposit fee cost would of course be purely coincidental!!!! As a complete aside I recollect a conversation with a mortgage broker who shall remain nameless who stated that if I had numerous BTL properties and had 2 month's deposit for each of them say on 30 properties that would be sufficient for a deposit on a BTL property. This on the basis that it would be highly unlikely that all 30 tenants would require their deposits returning at the same time. Now let us say you do have 30 properties and you have taken £2000 per property as a deposit that means at a fee cost of £600. So for £600 you have £60000 of effectively free funds. Naughty suggestion I know but quite frankly when assailed by the ridiculous S24 LL have to game the system to recover losses caused by the bonkers S24.

From: Paul Barrett 12 June 2019 19:26 PM

Paul Barrett
I knew a bit about the PRT but not really the full effects of it. I dread the PRT coming to England. I'm sure the Scottish experience is being carefully observed by Westminster. It would NOT surprise me at all if something very similar to the Scottish PRT is eventually introduced to England..........................at about the same time as S21 is abolished. I personally do not pay the slightest attention to what goes on in Scotland....................... different place, culture etc. But as a testbed for bonkers policies it is a very useful one for Westminster to tailor it's policies. Now the oil had gone Scotland is just a burden on the English just like NI. I say let there be a National Referendum to get rid of Scotland as part of the UK. I would vote to get rid of them. Scotland is of no net benefit to the UK. Should be relatively easy to build a wall to prevent the Scots getting into England. I would even forgive Scotland their share of the National Debt which is about £3 trillion out of about £7 trillion. Maybe even let them keep the pound. NI should be allowed to unite with the Republic. I care little for bog Irish Protestant bigots who are currently propping up the dysfunctional Tory Govt. A UI would be best for all. The Protestant minority could easily be guaranteed their rights in the Doyle. I doubt Republicans would give a monkey's if the Prots wanted to march through non-Protestant areas. Why would they care if there was a UI!? Again if there was a UK vote to get rid of NI to facilitate a UI I would vote to get rid of the bog Irish. We don't want them or need them and they are a burden to the English of about £10 billion per year. Let the Irish Govt pay to support the whole of an UI. I reckon Wales and England are perfectly capable of co-existing. The Welsh have proven themselves very savvy. They do not wish to come out of the UK. But as English LL I fear we have much to fear from the Scottish experience. Just imposing a modicum of that along with the lunatic Labour property proposals would kill the AST PRS stone dead. I believe that increasingly a lot of English LL are exiting the AST lettings market and using other strategies that you have highlighted. Bad news for AST tenants. I am sure this will hasten rent control in the UK and then we will be back to the PRS of the 60 and 70's!!!

From: Paul Barrett 12 June 2019 03:15 AM

Paul Barrett
Surely by implication by the time the ads are read the holiday maker will already be in London using the tube!!!? As for GR stating that LL are profiteering!!!!!! The only reason I became a LL was for PROFIT!! At no stage of my thinking was I concerned or even interested in whether my properties became homes. All I ever undertook was to provide a good service at a market price. This is the case for most LL. S24 had turned the PRS leveraged business model on it's head. Is it any wonder that desperate LL are turning to other business models to avoid bankruptcy. Making profit not profiteering is what LL are doing and justifiably so. GR have a weird outlook on what the PRS is. It is not and NEVER should be a secure form of tenure. If you attempt to make it so then LL will sell up. You simply CANNOT force LL to do what you want. But what you could do is to make the PRS as competitive as possible. So you could allow LL to offset their finance costs against tax. You could charge the same SDLT per property irrespective of how many properties a LL owns. You could charge SUBSTANTIALLY less for the various licensing schemes across the UK. You could enhance the eviction process in cases of rent default only to get rid of such rent defaulting tenants quickly. Do all this and you would notice rents reducing. Of course GR are too thick to understand these issues which is why the numbers of rental properties available for letting on AST will decline. LL will not allow themselves to be taxed into bankruptcy. They will just get creative and illegal to beat the ridiculous new policies. The tenants are the losers here. Tourists of course love the fact they can source cheaper accommodation than the normal very expensive London hospitality offer. Well done GR your support for S24 etc had caused this state of affairs. How can anyone be so thick!?

From: Paul Barrett 03 June 2019 14:17 PM

Paul Barrett
I have always been a self-managing LL. Over the years the amount of paperwork required for tenancies has seemingly increased exponentially. Now I like to give a full set of paperwork for each tenant. Mostly I have about 4 tenants on one 6 month AST. I am always shocked at how much printer ink I use. Invariably it costs me about £20 just to print out all the bumf we have to give to tenants. I appreciate that technically I only need to produce one set of documents. I produce more than 4 so that when tenants leave at least they have a record of that tenancy. I also do attached rent books. Now if I was a LA with a High St office to operate I can see how a fee of say £50 would be justifiable. It costs me £20 but I don't charge for my labour and don't have the costs of a LA. However there is NO point in renewing an AST and I NEVER have. NO tenant has ever requested an AST renewal. All my tenancies have proceeded onto a SPT. Do LL seriously imagine that a FTT will prevent a tenant vacating prematurely if they need to!!?? All an AST does is prevent a LL evicting within the FTT period providing the tenant confirms to the AST terms. Well if a LL offers a renewal AST they are hardly considering giving the tenant NTQ!! There is simply NO need for renewal AST. Some tenants may prefer a renewal AST and if they do then they should have to pay for it. But for the vast majority of tenants proceeding onto a periodic tenancy from an initial 6 month AST is all that is needed. Renewal AST's have basically been a method for LA to extract money from tenants. So completely unnecessary! Having an AST or periodic tenancy is just the same. The tenant will leave whether the LL likes it or not. Seriously how many LL would bother pursuing a tenant who vacates early!? I find that all I need to do is explain my circumstances and all my tenants have been perfectly content to proceed from AST to periodic tenancy. One thing I do tend to do which I know is unnecessary is I send out the latest edition of the How to Rent booklet. These things cost me little but for a LA these costs mount up. Perhaps now that it costs LA will no longer have renewal AST which achieve nothing. Whilst I sympathise with LA where were they when the JR on S24 was occurring!!? The sounds of silence from LA was deafening! So just like S24 is putting many LL like me out of business so might the TFA do for LA as well. New paradigms are occurring in the LA industry. Business models for LA and LL alike will need to be adapted. If not possible then time to leave the industry. There will be survivors who will go onto to thrive. But there will be many LL and LA casualties along the way. LA and EA employees need to start looking for other employment opportunities as many will be made redundant in the coming year. There is not a lot any of us can do about this. The various bits of legislation are here to stay. It is either adapt or die!

From: Paul Barrett 02 June 2019 12:35 PM

Paul Barrett
Since when did LL become responsible for how tenants dispose of their rubbish!? Surely the Council addresses such issues with the tenant!? So where will all the illegal immigrants live if every LL will require to be licenced!? There are probably more illegals in Barking and Dagenham than any other part of the UK. Perhaps they should have some vans driving round with an an advert inviting ILLEGAL immigrants to go home!!!!? I suggest Govt is facilitating this scheme as a testbed for future nationwide licencing. I presume Govt is aware that there are millions of fraudulent tenancies out there!? If Govt wants to introduce such nationwide licensing it first needs to ban ALL Lenders from having any mortgage conditions which ban LL from taking on HB tenants. Then it needs to ban insurers from having differential premiums for HB tenants with LL insurance. It would then need to ban residential mortgage lenders from requiring CTL if the homeowner needs to let the property. It would need to ensure that lenders would accept LL insurance for residential properties that are let out. It would need to ensure that where LL are letting on a short-term basis that any freeholder would be required to automatically give permission for such activities to take place in a block. Block insurance would need to be amended to include those LL letting to AirBnB etc. There would have to be 90 day checks to ensure that licenced LL are not exceeding the 90 day maximum. Govt and councils will do none of this. Which will just go to show that it is nothing but a money making scheme

From: Paul Barrett 01 June 2019 11:05 AM

Paul Barrett
You make some extremely valid points. Essentially we have large parts of the population behaving as scroungers. They are as you have suggested designing their feckless lifestyles to ensure they have the best of facilities for the least input. Welfare provides a rather comfortable lifestyle without the actual bother of working full time. Of course lots of LL assisted these HB tenants in their feckless lifestyles. They did so as it was highly profitable. Well since the Tories rightly introduced the OBC HB tenants for a wide variety of reasons have become less profitable than those tenants not in receipt of HB. Well now that LL don't want these HB tenants anymore as they are no longer as profitable as tenants not on HB the feckless are up in arms that LL don't want them anymore. This means a far less comfortable welfare lifestyle for the feckless who now invariably find themselves stuck in some pretty appalling TA rather than a nice LL rental property. I recollect that LL who did take on HB tenants were variously accused of being subsidised by the State who who paying their mortgages. Whereas now that LL are increasingly refusing to take on those self same HB tenants they are now accused of discriminating against them................a bit of a Catch 22 situation I think!!! Even with LL actively declining HB tenants the tenants are still very clever at gaming the system. All we LL can do is to not let to them. But you can get that if HB neared market rents that LL would start taking on HB tenants again. Afraid the UK is a soft touch. Which is why there are estimated to be about 400000 EU migrants occupying council houses. How this was allowed beats me! I'm sure there are plenty of UK nationals that would have loved a council house. But it seems EU nationals receive priority over UK citizens. Very strange.

From: Paul Barrett 31 May 2019 02:01 AM

Paul Barrett
Sorry chaps but vast numbers of LL are engaged in actual and technical fraud. Pointless denying it. As such these fraudster LL are unfair competition to LL that do comply with regulations and conditions. It is irrelevant if LL lenders don't give a ###k that LL are breaching loan conditions. They would if they became aware that LL are breaching mortgage conditions. Just accept that I am correct. Believe me if licensing is introduced all you fraudster LL will be found out. So to fraudster LL I suggest you obtain CTL on resi mortgages Obtain CTL for HB tenants Obtain correct LL insurance with HB tenants. Ensure that freeholders are in agreement of how you let your flats. Which means invariably no short-term letting. Getting rid of fraudster LL would substantially reduce the PRS to leave only fully compliant ones. Fraudster LL are unfair competition to those that are fully compliant. To not recognise they exist is very naive. To ignore the vast amount of fraud in the PRS is unwise LL doing things correctly are being competed against unfairly. No LL should be supporting unfair competition. A proper and thorough National LL licensing scheme would find out a lot of these fraudster LL. I hope such a scheme occurs ASAP to root out all the LL gaming the system that are unfairly competing against me I know of a LL in my block who is letting unfairly on AirBnB. The Freeholders do not give permission. The mortgage product doesn't allow AirBnB The block insurance doesn't allow short-term letting. I haven't yet decided yet whether to grass this fraudster LL up. She is having to commit fraud because she can't sell for sufficient price to redeem the loan and to pay CGT. So she commits fraud to prevent bankruptcy. Obviously completely understandable but still fraudulent and still unfair competition with me. If I was in the same situation as her I would have no qualms at all over gaming the system. The system currently allows this to occur but it shouldn't! So I would make it a legal requirement of a National LL Licensing scheme that until documentation had been received allowing HB tenants etc then no property would be allowed to be let. We simply cannot allow anymore fraudster LL to compete unfairly with those that do comply. It must be the case that most LA are fully complicit in fraud as they must know that many LL are not complying with relevant conditions. Currently there is no imperative to ensure LL compliance.

From: Paul Barrett 30 May 2019 18:53 PM

Paul Barrett
Nope am a LL that believes in fair competition. Much of the PRS is based on FRAUD by criminal LL. A criminal LL is one who lets a property to a HB tenant when their BTL mortgage terms prohibit any HB tenant being taken on as a tenant. A criminal LL is one who does not advise the insurer that they are letting to a HB tenant having not informed the insurer of this material fact. A criminal LL is one who has a residential mortgage and has not obtained CTL. By implication a LL letting on a resi mortgage without CTL CANNOT have the correct LL insurance as without CTL it would be a fraudulent letting. A criminal LL is one who lets a flat to short -term letter in contravention of the lease. Am I to understand that you consider these criminal LL that exist in their hundreds of thousands are not criminals!? They are all committing fraud. Now we have homeowners committing mass fraud with illegal short- term lettings. It is just a fact that there are millions of LL and homeowners committing mass fraud. As for Shelter I detest them with all my being. They would prefer the PRS didn't exist at all. I would have no issue with this if the state were capable of providing a subsidised home for everyone. Well we know that will never happen which is why a legal PRS will always be needed. I have no problem with Shelter providing information to assist tenants but I vehemently oppose their anti-LL policies like such as support for S24 and abolition of S21. All LL that commit fraud are unfair competition to me which Is I object to most strongly. Without fraudulent LL my rents could be a lot higher. It is fraudster LL that keep rents lower than they otherwise would be. And of course I haven't even mentioned the normal criminal LL that lets to illegal immigrants; overcrowds a property, has illegal HMO; doesn't declare HMO enhanced facilities which would require Individual Council Tax Banding etc etc

From: Paul Barrett 28 May 2019 12:56 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 28 May 2019 11:10 AM

Paul Barrett
National LL licensing would at least give a base level for all LL to achieve. Any LL letting a property that is not licensed for letting would face onerous sanctions. It would be quite simple. You either have a licence for letting a particular property or you don't. If you let and don't have a licence then that is it you face a RRO going back 5 years from when the property was first let. The sanctions have to be made so onerous that only an idiot LL would risk letting an unlicensed property. They might choose to risk it but in the knowledge that all the income they have received from the unlicensed property would be subject to a RRO. Included in any letting licence would be CTL proof, correct insurance proof and correct tenant type permission from a lender.. Of course I FULLY accept that my proposed stringent letting property licence would never occur due to millions of tenancies breaching the conditions of all that I have mentioned. Millions of letting properties are being let in breach of relevant conditions. No Govt will ever introduce such a stringent licensing process. It would result in millions of homeless tenants. It is an unpalatable truth that a massive part of the PRS is based on FRAUD!! Of course a LL letting to a HB tenant when that is prohibited by a BTL mortgage lender wouldn't be considered by that LL as fraud even though it is. Same with letting with AirBnB when the BTL mortgage only allows an AST. All fraud. But of course most LL don't consider they are carrying out any form of fraud. But technically they are and as such are competing unfairly by not using the correct loan product with the correct sort of tenants etc. But everyone turns a blind eye to the sutuation.

From: Paul Barrett 23 May 2019 22:32 PM

Paul Barrett
@jahan khan Just because it is costly to source short-term accommodation at reasonable cost in London is NO excuse to ignore FRAUD. Things are expensive usually because of REGULATIONS. I have NO issue with such short-term accommodation PROVIDING it is provisioned whilst being FULLY compliant with Lender Insurance Freeholder Council Conditions. It is rare that all these can be complied with. Just because London short-term accommodation is expensive is NO excuse for FRAUD!!! A 6 month AST does NOT address the short-term accommodation demand. That is used for tenants. Councils have EVERY right to control the usage of all types of properties within their purview. If the gig economy short-term accommodation fraud is ignored there will be anarchy. Councils have control over property usage and correctly so. FRAUDULENT operations like AirBnB are ignoring relevant conditions for those who use their listings service. They facilitate FRAUD which is unfair on those who do provide legal short-term accommodation irrespective of the costs. Of course the argument could be made that cheaper short-term accommodation facilitates greater economic activity. That may well be the case but it would be based on FRAUD!! ECONOMIC activity is all very well but it must be legal. Very little of it is in London. I fully accept that many LL are engaging in AirBnB fraud as a consequence of S24. If I was in such a position I would have no issues in operating fraudulent short-term accommodation. S24 is a tax to be evaded at all costs and by whatever means. But there are big potential risks but I suppose such risks are a minor detail compared to the S24 risk of bankruptcy. So FRAUD to counter the ridiculous S24 tax is OK in my book. Just don't get caught!!!

From: Paul Barrett 23 May 2019 16:02 PM

Paul Barrett
Indeed the journalist scum do not research the full story like a proper journalist would. Most journalists are just looking to create sensationalist stories based on fake news. I would like just one Journalist to report the story correctly. They could do this just by pulling together the content from LL on social media. Their continuing refusal to report the story correctly just proves they have a political agenda. Just once I would like a journalist to report the story correctly. It would be a purely factual exercise. People or journalists can then make political points based on that factual information. No LL would object to objective reporting!! As a matter of interest I discriminate against any tenants who can't afford my rents and they Include ALL HB tenants. Never have I found a HB tenant that could afford my rents. I bet there are lots of other tenants that might have liked to rent one of my properties but they chose not to as they couldn't afford my rents. There exists an all pervading sense of self-entitlement amongst HB tenants that seem to believe they have a right to rent on HB in expensive areas. Why!? Like anyone else not on HB they have to live where they can afford. I suggest moving up North where there are lots of cheap properties available for rent and sale. The HB classes should be economically cleansed to cheaper parts of the UK. Normal people have to economically cleanse themselves to cheaper parts of the UK. The SE is simply unaffordable to the welfare classes. They should MOVE!! The SE doesn't want or need them. Most of them don't bother working so it matters not if they are deported to the more affordable North where there are no jobs. Doing so would massively reduce the HB bill. There is no shortage of properties for rent or sale up North.

From: Paul Barrett 21 May 2019 12:44 PM

Paul Barrett
Well if I need to tenant source I will still be charging 8 weeks rent and won't be paying for referencing. Any tenant prospect will need to provide me with a Tenant Referencing Passport Those tenant prospects that refuse to provide me with their TRP; which would be their prerogative then I simply won't consider them. It is the right of every tenant prospect to not be considered by a LL. As for 8 weeks rent as deposit I will take the additional 3 weeks included in the rent over a 6 month period. At the expiry of the 6 month AST I will issue a new AST for a lower rent which magically will be what it would have been without the 3 weeks rent as additional deposit. I month before the 2nd AST expiry I will issue a S13 rent increase for an extra £100 pcm. This will be advised to the tenant at the outset of the initial AST. I will add an appendix to the 2nd AST advising that as far as I am concerned the tenants may regard the 2nd AST as a periodic tenancy where I would accept 1 months NTQ at any time as though a periodic tenancy. When the tenants vacate I will return the 5 weeks deposit. I will then as a 'goodwill' gesture give the outgoing tenants an amount in cash equal to 3 weeks of rent. Obviously if circumstances warrant all the deposit is used up then it is unlikely that a 'goodwill' gesture would be forthcoming. So tenants thinking they can avoid costs to obtain a tenancy with me will be sorely mistaken. Tenants will actually get a better deal as they should only need one TRP which could be used for all LL and LA. This would mean no LL or LA would ever need to pay for any Referencing as the tenant would already have done it. No TRP no tenancy possibility. Tenants will soon get their TRP. Now if 6 month AST are banned I shall have to consider a new strategy. But no way will I take less than 8 weeks rent as a deposit. I will always be able to avoid the legislation that prevents me taking 8 weeks rent as a deposit. Govt has been very stupid in restricting deposits. It should have known that no LL would that stupid to take more than 2 months rent as a deposit. Clearly they didn't know anything about premium tenancies!

From: Paul Barrett 16 May 2019 09:12 AM

Paul Barrett
Of course a major issue with these rogue tenant issues is the loss of tax to HMRC. Now just imagine this £9.9 billion of losses didn't occur!! The tax take by the Treasury would be considerably more!! So it could be fairly reasonably stated that rogue tenants are costing the UK Govt billions in lost tax revenues. Clearly the losses that LL suffer from rogue tenants are offset against taxable income. The less taxable income the less tax the Treasury receives. I would imagine that if rogue tenants were prevented from causing so many losses that there would be considerably more tax receipts. Now what might the UK Govt determine to do with these increased tax receipts!?........................Oh! I don't know; perhaps fund social housing............................just a thought!! Of course to achieve this the Govt would need to implement a fast track eviction process to ensure that rent defaulting tenants may be removed without Court action after 1 month and 1 day which would be 2 months of rent arrears if rent is paid in advance monthly. As far as I am aware Govt is not actively planning to speed up the eviction process which would have the effect of generating additional considerably increased tax receipts. What wouldn't there be to like here from a Govt perspective!!? Facilitate LL to get rid of rogue rent defaulting tenants and garner far more tax receipts from LL. Seems a no-brainer to me!! Of course with such timely evictions Councils would have to find TA for such rogue tenants. If S21 is abolished then when such Rogue tenants present themselves to the Council they will be deemed to have rendered themselves INTENTIONALLY HOMELESS because of rent default and that the Council has no housing duty towards these rogue wrongun tenants. Poetic justice wouldn't you say!? Be very interesting to see how Councils react when being presented by such rogue rent defaulting tenants. It is clearly in the Govt's best interests to garner as much tax revenue as possible. Clearly the way the eviction process is presently constructed rogue rent defaulting tenants are costing HMRC billions in lost tax revenue. Bizarrely Govt doesn't seem to be that concerned at the losses the PATHETIC eviction process causes HMRC. Clearly more robust referencing processes might reduce the numbers of rent defaulting tenants. But LL and LA know they do NOT need to pay ANYTHING for referencing. They just advise tenants that unless they provide aTenant Referencing Passport then the tenant won't be considered. It is then up to the tenants whether they wish to be considered. For this to be achieved tenants would have to pay about £60 pp or per guarantor. But that would be all they needed to pay. They could then tout their TRP to any number of LA and LL. If the TRP was of sufficient standard it might even qualify the tenant for RGI. Now that would make the perfect tenant applicant!! It would NOT be a requirement by LL and LA to purchase their TRP. If they don't they simply wouldn't be considered as would be their prerogative!!

From: Paul Barrett 08 May 2019 22:02 PM

Paul Barrett
Yep the philosophy of a Council should be to speak softly but have a big stick available. Rather than going for the POCA the Council should work with the LL to achieve compliance. This is what the legislation is for. If the LL is resistant to the Council and it's requirements then fair enough the Council may wield the big stick. Just because there is an ultimate sanction available to the Council doesn't mean it has to be used. It is there to 'persuade' LL into compliance. Working with LL to ensure compliance with Council requirements surely is a far more effective methodology. I fear that rather than such a pragmatic strategy Councils have been tasked with achieving as much money as they can from groups they consider this most achievable from. Nobody apart from the affected LL cares whether the LL is rightly or wrongly penalised. Councils care not a jot that they might bankrupt a LL. It is all about the money they can achieve. Technically they may be perfectly correct in enforcing regulations to the enth degree to achieve massive fines etc. But this should not be their raison d' etre for enforcement action. Assisting LL to be compliant and giving them logistical time to achieve this is what should be occurring. Unfortunately Councils see LL as cash cows who they can milk with nobody really protesting the fact. Of course the lost opportunities for tenants won't be realised by tenants. They will just note that there are fewer rental properties available for them. Govt doesn't seem to be concerned with this issue. They care more about converting tenants into homebuyers little realising that if a tenant wanted to do this they would have done so already. There was and is more than enough stock available to buy if wanted. Unfortunately for Govt few tenants want or can afford to buy...........................which is why most of them are tenants!! Reducing the layout of your properties to fewer properties just means fewer options for tenants and inevitably what stock there is renting at higher price points because of scarcity. In short Govt ideology is making life very hard for tenants who mostly are not in a position to buy. It seems bonkers that Govt is effectively reducing rental supply by it's ridiculous actions when demand for rental stock has never been higher. I just don't get what Councils and Govt are playing at. But I do know that what they are doing is having a very negative effect on LL to the point that these LL have had enough and are getting out of the game or are changing from the AST rental business model. It is the AST business model that is under attack but it is the one that tends to house a lot of people. With LL moving away from this business model where are all the tenants gonna live!? I confess I haven't a clue and don't care cos I am one of those LL getting out of AST lettings. No idea where my 14 current tenants will live as I can guarantee no LL will want to buy my properties and no FTB could afford them.

From: Paul Barrett 06 May 2019 19:20 PM

Paul Barrett
Hmm!!?? Well perhaps Councils in areas where ethnic minorities predominate should engage in an education programme to advise these cultures that they need to comply with regulations in the UK irrespective of what they do elsewhere. Educate rather than prosecute would I'm sure result in a better PRS for these ethnic minority cultures. Obviously if they fail to respond to education then prosecution is the final sanction. But I can't believe that such ethnic minorities do not suffer from inability to speak and understand English which unfortunately is the case amongst much of the PRS in these communities. I believe they need assistance in complying with PRS regulations. I have no time for criminal white LL who have no excuse at all. So it should be the case that before the kneejerk response of prosecution occurs that the ethnic minority LL should be sat down and explained to until understood what the problems are with a property. If a translator is required then so be it. If no satisfactory resolutions as far as the council is concerned occur then prosecution should occur. I guess I am saying give the ethnic minority LL a chance as he may not understand things due to poor English. Doing things this way might start to prevent the seemingly never ending prosecution of ethnic minority LL which quite frankly is giving them a bad name whilst at the same time reinforcing prejudices that such ethnic minorities are taking the p### out of the majority white population which leads to justifed anti -immigrant feeling. Councils need to up their game and help these criminal ethnic minority LL.

From: Paul Barrett 04 May 2019 15:25 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 04 May 2019 09:21 AM

Paul Barrett
Adam my dear chap I am NOT suggesting anything. Of course all LL AST or lodger should adhere to all regulations Just as I suggest that all LL comply with lender conditions Insurance conditions Council conditions Freeholder conditions. In your little naive world do you believe that all LL comply with these circumstances!!? If you do you are a complete and utter IDIOT! You need to reavaluate your comprehension of the real world because your views are idiotic. The real world is out there mate; something you don't seem to be aware of. Are you really that stupid!!?? I'll educate you. There is MASS fraud by LL ofdering millions of illegal tenancies. Surely you understand this. How long have you bern in the PRS If it is for a long time you haven't learnt much!! I believe that you are one of these self righteous idiots that fails to understand what is actually going on. Of course I agree it should NOT be occurring but like it not it does. As for LL evading tax. Absolutely I contend that such LL should comply with the RFR conditions. If they don't however many live-in LL might consider that if they exceed the RFR tax allowance who would ever know or even be able to find out!??? Do you believe that sole trader LL should comply with S24!? If you do you are an idiot.. To evade S24 is totally justified by whatever means. A lodger strategy is a means to defeat S24. Very few LL will be able to achieve this strategy and therefore is a very unlikely policy for many LL to enact. LL will have to make choices. Personally I would have no qualms about doing anything to defeat S24. Bankruptcy and poverty awaits if I don't. So for me an easy choice to make. Many other LL will be in similar circumstances. But until I have sold up from being an AST LL I really don't know what my situation will be. Many LL will be in a similar situation. Who knows what they might do!? But a fight fir survival of domestic circumstances will occur. If that neans evading RFR taxation then this is what might occur. Nobody will ever know the level of evasion because poor old Big Brother Connect just can't detect how much lodgers pay live-in LL. No live-in LL will accept anything but cash in excess of £7500 per year. But this issue is such a minority situation it won't even register with Connect. ALL LL should comply with ALL Lender Insurance Council Freeholder Tax MEES Conditions Very few LL comply with the above! Welcome to the real world!!

From: Paul Barrett 03 May 2019 23:13 PM

Paul Barrett
If you aren't a S24 LL then agreed though going corporate at the outset has its issues. Mainly getting at the rental income tax effectively. If you don't need the rental income then ploughing it into a pension is the best thing to do. But most LL want jam today NOT in 40 years time! Plus if you can keep your income below £50000 when the HRT kicks in then fine There can't be many mortgaged sole trader LL whose income and mortgage interest combined is less than this and of course there is the tax free allowance available to everyone which I think will be £12000 in a year's time. Though even with this you don't want to exceed the HRT level as withdrawal of child benefit and pension allowances occur once reached. Providing you ensure you don't earn more then this keeps you out of the S24 clutches. If Govt wants to restore the PRS then it needs to abandon the bonkers S24 policy and reform SDLT and certainly get rid of the SDLT surcharge for 2nd properties. If it wants I would suggest Govt imposes a 50% LTV requirement for all new mortgages required for any property purchased by a LL for the first time. Most LL would have £50000 for a deposit. They might buy 2 properties with this. Well now they could buy one. Still worth doing and from the Govt perspective far more resilient at 50% LTV than 75% LTV. No LL has the right to credit and it would give the Govt some brownie points as far as GR etc is concerned as it would prove to GR that Govt was restricting the ability of LL to maximise deposits if LTV is reduced compulsorily. It wouldn't have deterred me from buying except I could have only bought 2 properties rather than the 4 I bought with the same deposit pot. Govt could also offer a free pass to LL who wish to incorporate. So give every LL for say the next 5 years the opportunity to incorporate tax free though of course if S24 is abolished why would incorporation be necessary anymore!? The Irish Govt is desperately unwinding its S24 version as a housing crisis persists. A 3 year experiment with taxing LL turnover has proven disastrous in Ireland. Rents have increased by 50% and there is now a substantial shortage of rental properties. Irish LL are showing great reluctance to return to the market. Who can blame them!? However this Govt will do nothing. It is an ostrich Govt and is on it's deathbed. The drubbing it received in the Council elections is just the start. It only takes about 12 Tory marginal seats to go and you get a Labour/SNP coalition Govt!! Govt won't do a single thing to undo its bonkers anti-PRS policies; it is in a death spiral. It has set its path and is determined to hit the buffers. Make sure you are in the last carriage and NOT the first!!

From: Paul Barrett 03 May 2019 10:35 AM

Paul Barrett
Mate the reason why a tenant should not have security of tenure is because a a sole trader LL should always be able to withdraw his capital when he wishes. There should be NO security of tenure beyond the initial 6 month fixed term tenancy. LL should not have their capital controlled by tenants. Tenants know that their tenancy can be terminated at any time if the LL so chooses. I will not have the likes of you dictating what I do with my capital. As long as I CHOOSE to remain in business I will let my properties to tenants who I think can give me the most PROFIT. I provide good quality accommodation but I decide who occupies them. I haven't evicted a single tenant who wished to remain; all of them on SPT. However I had to EVICT 5 of the waster scum tenants for rent arrears. As long as my tenants wished to remain and were prepared to pay the usual annual rent increase then they have stayed. Only 2 tenants vacated due to refusal to pay increased rent. I replaced them with higher rent paying tenants. Tenants like you need to get over yourselves. The PRS is not a secure form of occupation. It is in the nature of the beast. However it is secure as long as the LL wishes to continue to profit from letting their properties. But LL should always retain the ability to remove tenants when they wish. If you want tenure security then as has been suggested go and buy your own property. See how you manage when you fail to pay the mortgage. You would find yourself homeless pretty quickly. Lenders don't suffer mortgage defaulting gladly like LL have to suffer rent defaulting tenants due to the dysfunctional eviction process. S21 at least gave LL a semblence of control over their properties

From: Paul Barrett 30 April 2019 14:04 PM

Paul Barrett
The problem with your suggestion is very few tenants qualify for RGI so stringent are the qualifying criteria. As you may be aware LL suffer over £9 billion of losses per year; most of them being rent arrears. There is simply no way RGI insurers would wish to take on the risk with such known losses. RGI remains for most LL an unattainable ideal. There is no doubt that RGI is a highly effective and actually very cheap insurance for what it provides. Trouble is few tenants etc qualify for it. Though I have seen that Hamilton Fraser might be offering RGI for tenants or their guarantors who don't currently qualify for the usual RGI. Quite frankly it should be the case that EVERY LL has RGI. This would actually garner more tax for the Treasury as LL would not be suffering the massive rent losses that currently occur. RGI; great idea though not much use if the vast majority of tenants haven't a hope of qualifying for it...............which leaves the LL carrying all the risk. Rarely will a LL EVER recover rent arrears as the Civil Revovery process is simply pathetic. Of course when S8 is beefed up to replace the soon to be abolished S21 process there will be millions of rent defaulting tenants ending up with CCJ as a result of LL having to use the S8 process. So no RGI for those tenants! Then would any LL take on a tenant with a CCJ for rent default!? Rent defaulting tenants need to carefully consider their future behaviour when LL are forced to use the S8 process. Any rent defaulting tenant evicted via the remaining S8 process will be considered by the council to have made themselves intentionally homeless and therefore the council will have NO housing duty towards them. Plus they will have a CCJ record which will stay on their credit files for 6 years and potentially even longer preventing even applying for a mobile phone contract!!! Perhaps tenants will consider that for their future domestic circumstances having a CCJ for rent default would not be a very wise thing to achieve!!! We shall see!! i would also mention that you don't seem to appreciate that for any LL owning a flat it is simply NOT possible to obtain buildings insurance. This is paid as a block insurance with service charges. A LL may only obtain contents insurance. It is a requirement for ALL LL policies in the UK that for these extra facilities you suggest that a LL has a buildings policy. Simply not possible with flats!

From: Paul Barrett 29 April 2019 16:09 PM

Paul Barrett
Mr Robinson I am not suggesting anything of the sort! At no point do I suggest any evasion of any sort. What others may choose to do is their choice! As it happens there are millions of fraudulent tenancies and to consider that there aren't would be naive in the extreme. There are hundreds of thousands of fraudster LL operating fraudulent tenancies. These are all those engaging in short term letting who are breaching mortgage; insurance, freeholder, council conditions. Then we have all those LL who do NOT have CTL which number about 4 million. This figure includes LL who let to DSS tenants in breach of their mortgage conditions. We also have the Accidental LL who still have a resi mortgage and who have NOT obtained CTL and who therefore have breached mortgage conditions particularly as far as insurance is concerned. It is rare that a resi mortgaged property can obtain insurance commensurate with letting a property. Consequently many LL will be illegally letting with resi insurance which means they are in breach as it is usually NOT possible for resi insurance to cover tenancy situations. It is not possible to have LL insurance with a resi mortgage. So you see there is mass fraud in the PRS. If there wasn't there would be millions of homeless. Lodgers are a way to retain a resi property as such. What HOMEOWNERS choose to do is their business. However the chances that anyone will ever discover what a homeowner does with lodgers is highly unlikely. It is either a lodger strategy or leaving the property empty. At least with lodgers and a guest the homeowner will not be in breach of conditions. Most lenders allow 2 lodgers. They cannot prohibit regular guests! You need to think further ahead than your simplistic understanding of things and appreciate that there are plausibly perfectly legal ways to manage a resi property other than letting it with all the risks and damages that the poor old LL subject of the DM article has suffered on an AST There is as they say more than 1 way to skin a cat Think on!!

From: Paul Barrett 29 April 2019 15:44 PM

Paul Barrett
Yep Dave I appreciate that I may have been a little bit naive here. I suppose I was espousing what the average member of public might think!! To at least encourage a move for single tenants to be converted into lodgers in resi homeowner's properties. Totally TAX FREE lodger income must surely garner a few votes for the Tories!! After all very few homeowners who take in lodgers declare anymore lodger income than the RFR A. But to publicly and vociferously announce such a tax free facility would be an eye catching policy and would surely garner more votes. It of course would not totally address the issues of tenant affordability but it would be something. Govt won't lose much tax as a result of such a tax free lodger income policy. It could gain lots of electoral brownie points which are far less damaging than what the policies are currently causing. To me making all lodger income tax free is a fantastically electorally appealing policy.There would be literally nobody complaining about it. Even Shelter and GR would be forced to support such a policy. It could address the problems of those elderly who are asset rich and cash poor. No need to downsize just take in lodgers. No real need to stay at the PPR. Just return every 30 days so as to comply with resi insurance conditions. Nobody can tell a homeowner where they should be the other 29 days!!! But I take your main point that Govt doesn't wish to address in any way the housing issues in the UK mostly caused by MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION.

From: Paul Barrett 26 April 2019 14:56 PM

Paul Barrett
Yep the days of the RELATIVELY easy!!! bog standard AST letting is destined to be uneconomic. Doing things differently as you are exploring is the only way to remain viable though inevitably it is even more work than the allegedly passive AST business model!!! Most prospective LL are only interested in what was the RELATIVELY easy AST model. But as you suggest this model is becoming increasingly unviable. As a very lazy LL I simply CAN'T be bothered with these other forms of letting activity. I will therefore just be taking in lodgers to a resi property once I have sold all my BTL. There will be NO tax to pay as I will never receive more than £7500 in lodger income per tax year (you can believe that if you want!). Yes lodger churn will be the case. Not a problem for me. As for me being continually at my resi property with lodgers!?; might be , might not be. No Govt can force me to be in residence at my home for so many days. However my insurance company conditions WILL This as they usually require absences of no longer than 30 days in a month. I reckon I can easily be a guest somewhere else and return to my home every 30 days. Big Brother Connect computer will NEVER catch me out as I will be a genuine homeowner with a lodger. The fact that I might have 4 lodgers and am never at my home is something that will never be detected. I will be earning more lodger income than from tenants which of course will NEVER be more than £7500. HMRC have no way of telling as all my lodgers will be paying the monthly rent in cash which WON'T be entering the financial system apart from paying off credit card bills over the counter. Paying debt NEVER flags anywhere!! Big Brother Connect has an awful lot to learn!!

From: Paul Barrett 17 April 2019 11:48 AM

Paul Barrett
So accepting that tenants would be disinclined to vote Tory. What happens if the numbers of tenants reduce cos lots of LL sell up? Then they WON'T be tenants of normal LL!! So surely tenants without a LL will be complaining that there are no LL to rent from!! So will a tenant vote for a political party that has effectively removed the opportunity for tenants to rent as a result of their bonkers anti-LL policies. This has happened in Ireland within a 4 year period. The Irish Govt is now desperately back pedalling to restore the PRS to where it was 4 years ago. There is no difference in the PRS sectors in either country. Yes in Ireland they may have been stupid with their version of S24 but they weren't that STUPID to make it retrospective unlike the dopey UK Govt. Irish rents are now 50% higher than 4 years ago. There is a lot of homelessness and I doubt the aspirant tenants are that pleased with a Govt that has made them homeless by forcing LL out of business. I bet hardly any of these tenants bought any of the rental properties the LL were forced to sell. There might be a few more homeowners who have bought the former LL. properties but that now leaves an awfil lot of cheesed of tenants. How might they vote for a Govt that has made them homeless. I'm sure most tenants DON'T give a monkey's about others now being homeowners. They recognise they will NEVER be able to buy and so they need a LL to rent from. But all the LL are selling up. Why would a tenant vote for a party that has removed many LL from the PRS!?

From: Paul Barrett 16 April 2019 10:04 AM

Paul Barrett
When Govt states it will have a process in place to EXPEDITE evictions for those tenants in rent default that would be of great interest. In Oz if you rent default you are booted out 14 days later with police assistance if necessay. Consequently OZ DOESN'T have to much of an issue with rent defaulting tenants who won't LEAVE!!! That is the sort of expediting that UK LL would want in exchange for S21 going. It may have escaped the Govt attention that tenants cause over £9 billion of losses to LL every year which are generally irrecoverable due to the pathetic Civil Recovery process in the UK. Most of the losses are rent default. But yet again we have aTory Minister repeating the mealy-mouthed words of pathetic Shelter that S21 is the biggest cause of homelessness in the UK. NO IT ISN'T!!!!!! S21 is just the process that LL are forced to use to evict if a tenant fails to comply with a S21 NTQ. All my 5 S21 evictions were caused by rent defaulting tenants who then refused to vacate. I was forced to evict because the rent defaulting tenants refused to vacate. It was my rent defaulting tenants that caused their own homelessness cos they WOULDN'T pay me the bloody contractual rent. Had they done so they could still be my tenants!!!!!!!! If ALL tenants COMPLIED with a S21 notice there would be NO need for ANY evictions. It is ONLY because tenants refuse to comply with a S21 that LL are then forced to carry out the formal eviction. Many LL will be chucking in the towel. Many LA are going to lose a lot of business if S21 is abolished etc. S8 even if beefed up will remain as inadequate as it is currently. The PRS will continue to decline the more these bonkers new regualations are introduced. If a LL CANNOT easily recover his property then he WON'T bother being a LL!!!

From: Paul Barrett 15 April 2019 09:30 AM

Paul Barrett
Unfortunately the very many snowflakes out there would deride what I and you have suggested as right wing to the point of being fascistic. Yet such attitudes were prevalent just after the war. The concept of welfare as a a lifestyle or not having a job was something regarded with contempt the majority of the population. Unfortunately neo-liberalism intruded to the point where millions of hardworking taxpayers pay vast sums to support millions of feckless workers who have seemingly been only too content to allow cheap migrant workers do the jobs they should be doing. As you suggest and I totally agree the only way migrants were able to make low wage jobs viable was to exist in poor usually illegal conditions to ensure the maximum of remittances to their home country. No benefit claimant would live in the condition that so many very hard working migrants did and continue to do. Based on current wage levels it is simply not viable for a British worker to live what would be considered a normal British domestic life. Brits are simply not prepared to live in sheds etc. Migrants from Ukraine will be shortly arriving to pick fruit etc that the lazy Brits refuse to do. On the UK minimum wage that is 10 times what a Ukrainian would make. You can bet your life they would be hard working and will put up with all sorts of deprivations to achieve that income. It would be just the same if wage levels were 10 times the British wage in Ukraine You would have lots of Brits wanting to work very hard in those countries. It was a bit like that back in the days of Auf Viedersein Pet times. But it seems that the wages are gradually increasing across Eastern Europe to the point that for many migrants the figures no longer stack up. I thought this process would take at least 50 years. I am out by 30 years since 1997!!! Personally I would prefer the PRS to reduce in size which only expanded to cope with the mass uncontrolled immigration. We may see an exodus of such workers as it becomes more viable to work and reside in their home countries. I say good luck to them and bye bye come visit us as a tourist in future. This will result in many surplus properties which will gradually be absorbed by homebuyers.. LL should prepare for reduced tenant demand from migrants. This is nothing for LL to be afraid of. It is just the market changing as all markets do. Reducing the numbers of properties a LL may hold is perhaps no bad thing. Reducing leverage with the remaining properties will leave such LL more financially resilient which surely must be a good thing. I am reducing my properties because I can see with reduced EU migrant demand there will be less demand for my properties. Demand currently is very strong but I reckon I can see the writing on the wall for EU migrant demand. I DON'T feel put out by these circumstances. We as LL operate in a market which is changing. Thats just life!

From: Paul Barrett 09 April 2019 10:15 AM

Paul Barrett
Gonna be a bummer for all those zombie businesses that have relied on cheap EU labour subsidised by Working Tax Credits. Mind you there are millions of feckless unemployed layabouts that should be forced to do the jobs that the EU migrants will be foresaking. Great that the EU migrants return to their home countries. The UK DOESN'T want them or need them. The UK managed perfectly well before the Labour Govt in 1997 facilitated MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION!!! Employers need to train their own workforces and get UK workers working rather than laze away on welfare which provides a very comfortable lifestyle. The sooner the EU migrants leave the better. This will force employers to pay better wages to UK workers unsubsidised by WTC. It is a disgrace that UK emplyers haven't bothered to train the workers they need. They have got away with investing in British workers by using off the shelf cheap EU migrants. EU migrants have reduced wages so that without WTC millions of jobs are simply unviable. Essentially the State is subsidising millions of UK companies. I would suggest that all share dividends should be banned until the conpanies can prove they have viable apprentice and other training schemes in place so that British workers may be employed. There also needs to be a form of workfare to force the feckless to work in available jobs. There are more than enough available jobs for the feckless. But the feckless DON'T want to do the rubbish jobs. They should not have a choice. There should be work conscription. Find your own job or you will be forced to do one. It cannot be right that there are millions of jobs yet we have millions of feckless unemployed. Hopefully with EU migrants going home LL will sell off properties where there is no more migrant demand. We need a smaller UK population with hopefully many more buying their own homes which they might be able to do if the tenant demand reduces. A smaller PRS will ensure rents increase which has to be good news. The fact that tenants will struggle to source rental property is just TOUGH! Govt will just have to get building more properties of all types of tenure. LL will not let to EU migrants that have not achieved the Right to Settle. WITHOUT such no way would I take on an EU migrant because not all EU migrants will qualify for the RTR. No way will I risk being fined for taking on an EU migrant that DOESN'T have the Right to settle paperwork My finances and liberty mean too much to me to risk on some migrant tenant.

From: Paul Barrett 08 April 2019 21:09 PM

Paul Barrett
Absolutely correct. Because my knowledge is poor as I self-manage I do my utmost to keep abreast of all things PRS. Because I do this I find I can run rings round your average LA worker who are pretty clueless when it comes to new regulations. I accept that as a self-managing LL with ALL the cost savings that result from NOT ever having to use a LA that it is my responsibility to become a PRS anorak. If I CAN'T be bothered to keep up with things like your idiot mates then what I would do is use a LA. There are many benefits to being a self-managing LL. But and it's a big but if as a self-managing LL you choose not to keep abreast of all the PRS info available out there then you should NOT be self-managing!! Keeping yourself aware of what is going on in the PRS world is simply one of those things you have to do if choosing the self-management route. Any who choose not to do this are simply idiots setting themselves up for a very big fall. I have no sympathy whatsoever with such LL. They deserve all they get thrown at them if they CAN'T be bothered to do the LL self-management job properly. Tenants are poorly served by such LL as your mates who think they know it all. I like to think I know it all. But just in case I DON'T I check everyday what is happening in the PRS world. Because I do this I have to be caught out. I have been in the past as I accept I was an ignorant LL who left things in the less than capable hands of a LA. I learnt through bitter experience that as a LL you need to keep up to speed with all that goes on in the PRS industry. If you DON'T eventually you come a cropper!!! I actually consider that as a part of a COMPULSORY National LL licensing system that ALL LL should be required to undertake CPD of 40 hrs every 5 years. Appreciate that once completed a LL could not say that no more knowledge needs to be gained until 5 years time but few LL would adopt such a negative attitude to keeping up to date with PRS knowledge. Tenants have the right to know that their LL knows what they are doing..CPD would largely address this problem.

From: Paul Barrett 04 April 2019 20:06 PM

Paul Barrett
Yep I will still be taking 2 months rent as a deposit. I would never take anymore than that. Of course the additional 3 weeks deposit over the statutory 5 weeks WON'T be described as such. I will spread it over a 6 month period. I will then issue a new 6 month AST with a rent reduction. Of course I will advise that if desired then I would have no problem if the tenants wished to surrender early the 2nd 6 month AST. So that effectively the 2nd AST is just a periodic tenancy. At the expiry of that 2nd 6 month AST the tenants vacate I will refund the deposit and as a goodwill gesture I will donate a proportion of my rent income equivalent to 3 weeks of deposit to the tenant or anyone they may wish me to donate to. Perhaps a child's savings account etc Cos I'm a jolly nice chap. Job done. Of course what will have happened is that 3 weeks of the deposit WON'T have been protected. Govt must think LL are stupid. It cannot ban LL making donations of rent as a goodwill gesture. There are specific reasons why taking more than 2 months rent as a deposit is inadvisable. Govt should have restricted the deposit to no more than 2 month's of rent. It costs me a bit of printer ink to produce the documents for a 2nd AST. I of course add the cost of protecting the deposit for a 2nd time in the 1st 6 month's rent. No lawyer could ever prove what I choose to do. No intent could ever be proven. The other way would be at the NTQ I would only require 1 weeks rent for the last month and would attach an appendix to the TA accepting that I decided to reduce the rent in the last week which would be very similar to the 3 weeks of deposit that Govt restricts me in taking. Silly old Govt thinking it can beat me!!

From: Paul Barrett 02 April 2019 16:16 PM

Paul Barrett
As a LL the last thing I would want is a degraded property for whatever reason. Apart from an internal redec that might be required is as much as I would expect my property to be in the same condition it was 10 years ago. I would have ensured this was the case. I have found that despite my imploring tenants to advise me of any issues so that I may attend to them they have failed to do so in some cases. I always advise that rent increases they WILL be subject to will not be related to any repairs or improvements I carry out as long as the repairs are NOT as a result of un- tenant like behaviour. I want the ability to be able to boot any tenant out and with minor works to be able to achieve top retail sale price. A stitch in time and all that. I abhor LL who refuse to keep a property in a decent condition providing a tenant has behaved correctly. Rogue tenants are far more responsible for the effects on themselves. Personally I would refuse to let a property to anyone who could not afford to heat a property. I decide whether a prospective tenant would be able to afford to do so. This means NO DSS tenant would ever make it past my selection processes. But any LL worth their salt must surely wish to maintain the intrinsic value of a rental property. It makes no economic sense to allow a property to degrade. The losses are eqivalent to rent default or probably far more than that. But from a purely altruistic perspective I would not wish any tenant of mine to live in sub-standard conditions. Invariably the vast majority of these conditions are caused by the tenants themselves. Of course what constitutes a sub-standard property is rather subjective. But in the interests of LL and tenants then surely working together to ensure habitable living conditions occur is something that needs to continually attended to. I have always attended to any issues that have been notified to me and some that I discovered myself. Regular inspection by a LL is something that could prevent a LL having to spend a lot more money later on if issues are identified earlier enough. The new housing regulations will surely concentrate LL minds on whether they wish to retain a property that is prone to mould etc if the tenants refuse to behave properly. In such cases a LL would do well to just get rid of such a property if it attracts tenants who WON'T behave properly. I believe that with the EPC regulations becoming more stringent that for those properties that will struggle to achieve EPC E status that for many LL it is worth getting rid of properties that would cost a lot to achieve EPC C status. Incurring the not inconsiderable costs to achieve EPC C status is such that is simply not worth the LL retaining such properties. These just happen to be the properties that are prone to the issues mentioned in the article.

From: Paul Barrett 01 April 2019 18:28 PM

Paul Barrett
@john hughes Very important points. All this stuff pales into significance if a Labour Govt wins power. There are sufficient voting idiots amongst the UK electorate that could well result in a Labour Govt. It may not be a majority Govt. Most likely it would be supported by the SNP. With the current political chaos the likelihood of a GE looks increasingly likely LL should read the Labour Manifesto and be very very afraid. What they have in store for the PRS DOESN'T bear thinking about. Unfortunately the Tories are a ridiculous political choice but they are less ridiculous than all other options. So there must be a majority Tory Govt returned at the next GE. Personally I'm working on the basis that the Tories WON'T be in power. But that is just my pessimistic nature. I am desperately endeavouring to get out of the PRS before the next GE. The last thing I need is for an early GE to occur resulting in a Labour Govt. You could even see forced billeting of UC tenants by Labour in privately owned rental properties! Govt will dictate the rent to be paid. The only way to avoid this is NOT to have a property advertised for letting on an AST. The proverbial writing is on the wall. The Tories have relatively gently attacked the PRS. This is nothing compared to what a Labour Govt will do. Labour seeks the extinction of the private LL class. Any LL who cannot see this is naive in the extreme! The first lot that will be got rid of will be the 25% of the PRS that are mortgaged sole traders. It is clear that for a start both the major parties would prefer to see the removal of mortgaged sole trader LL from the PRS. They DON'T care how this is done. But essentially they want to see the little man removed from the landlord class to leave just the rich running the PRS. The ability for the little man to enter the PRS via leverage has been a massive disruptor to the rich who traditionally operated the PRS. It is clear that the policy is to get rid of the mortgaged sole trader LL. Make them know their place! The problem with this is that this 25% of the PRS houses millions of tenants. Without this accommodation where are all the tenants supposed to live!? They certainly WON'T be occupying the former rental properties. But I do foresee with Labour a form of quasi nationalisation of a significant portion of the PRS for DSS tenants. The only way to avoid this is to sell affected properties. My preferred option irrespective of the cost is for a Govt to buy property on the open market as social housing. There would be many private LL more than willing to sell their current rental properties to the Govt at market prices. Govt could take a 100 year view on gilts to pay for this instant social housing provision. I am far from a socialist but due to RTB and MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION it is clear that the social housing sector needs to be restored to previous levels and expanded upon. But this will only work providing the borders are closed. It is simply impossible to build sufficient social housing to meet demand if the UK allows continued mass immigration. There are apparently about 400000 EU nationals occupying social housing............why!? Only British Nationals should have this ability. EU nationals can use the PRS or if they CAN'T afford that then go home!! No country can build their way out of a housing shortage if the borders are kept open to allow in the UK's case unlimited migration from the EU. It is simple practicality here. There will be obvious attempts to co-opt private LL capital to resolve problems of the Govt's own making. Personally I intend to withdraw my private capital from the AST PRS market and do something else with it. Not totally sure what I will do. But in extremis it will just be deposited in a savings account where it will remain socially useless whereas before it housed 14 people. Multiply my reaction by hundreds of thousands of other LL and you soon have a mass homelessness crisis. The vast majority of LL simply DON'T need to be LL; but ALL tenants desperately need LL to remain LL. But the way things are it seems the clever money is selling up; deleveraging, unencumbering and reducing portfolio size. Essentially to build up resilience to the worst that a Labour or Tory Govt might throw at them. Of course all this is very unfortunate for the poor old tenant. This is however NOT the fault of the private LL who would much prefer to remain as they are but without ALL the ridiculous actual punitive and threatened negative policies. As things are I prefer a ringside view and CAN'T wait to leave the PRS. I feel very vulnerable while I am still in it. I need to preserve my capital and realise what little gains I have made. Only by leaving the PRS can I be confident of achieving this. If this affects my tenants that is simply TOUGH!! I DON'T want to leave the PRS but due to bonkers policies existing and potentially soon to be enacted I am for the sake of self preservation being forced out of the AST PRS. Clearly there are other investment strategies to the AST market but I am simply not interested in them. I'm a simple soul for which the AST market was understandable. I could relatively easily manage those circumstances. I am simply NOT prepared to indulge in other more prosaic investment strategies. Until I can be confident that my capital WON'T be attacked I will remove it from that possibility. I am surely not the only LL that has such sentiments. The PRS simply cannot do without us as we house so many. There are simply not enough cash rich LL or those able to raise sufficient mortgage funds to be able to replace the mortgaged sole trader LL. In the coming years there will be tortuous times for all those in the PRS. All such a shame as had Govt left things alone everything was going swimmingly. The market was roughly providing what was required. Now all that has been put asunder to the detriment of everyone!!

From: Paul Barrett 30 March 2019 15:08 PM

Paul Barrett
This will be the end of the Accidental LL who lets through legal means. Those who have let as a normal BTL will be better off selling up. It would take a lifetime for rent profit to equal CG. This is a sort of S24 for homeowners. Bet they DON'T like it! Well now they know what being a S24 LL feels like!! Very few LL will be buying these properties which means even further reduced rental supply. A LL are reckoned to house about 1 million tenants. Where will these tenants live? Rents will be increasing as well. Being a tenant is going to cost a fortune and that is only if they can find somewhere. I predict sealed bids for rental properties such will be the lack of suitable supply. Me I'm jacking up my rents to make the tenants pay for all the bonkers additional costs being imposed on me. So far no lack of tenant demand............no surprise to me!! I predict what will happen amongst Accidental LL is that they will revert to a lodger strategy so that where possible they maintain their PPR status if having to rent elsewhere. No way will Big Brother Connect be able to detect homeowners letting to lodgers. There will be a drastic reduction in tax take because no homeowner will ever declare lodger income in excess of the RFR A of £7500 no matter how much lodger income is actually received by the A LL which will ALWAYS be in undetectable CASH! So the Treasury will see a reduction in tax paid on what up til now has been tenant income. Again the stupid Chancellor is effectively going to destroy a part of his current tax base. Tax on rents of over 1 million tenants is surely quite significant. Again we have another idiotic Chancellor who has no comprehension of what the effects will be as a result of this CGT policy. It is obvious that those A LL will sell up if they have significant CG. Only a fool would retain a property which if then sold after the 2020 date would then incur potentially substantially higher CGT. It is clear that the overwhelming imperative is for such A LL to sell up.

From: Paul Barrett 28 March 2019 15:41 PM

Paul Barrett
Wonder whether these idiot BTR operators have factored into their business model a Labour Govt!? They must surely be aware that Labour has stated that it would introduce a rent control policy. If I was considering investing in any BTR the last thing I would wish to hear is that the income mught be restricted by a Labour Govt. I simply would not invest in such a BTR scheme. These BTR operators must have really effective crystal balls to determine BTR is a viable business model as they must be the ONLY ones who know for certain that Labour WON'T ever attain power!!! Anytime there is the possibility of a business being restricted in income growth by a future Govt must make investing in such a business questionable. The threat of a Labour Govt has never been more present. LL and investors generally should be drawing up plans to protect their resources from a wealth stealing future Labour Govt. Many are now choosing to fly their capital out of the UK until they are certain a Labour Govt WON'T attain power. Capital flight is something Labour have already announced they will do everything to prevent if they attain power. But if this situation unfortunately occurs most of the clever money will already be safely ensconced away from the clutches of what would be the FIRST Marxist Chancellor. Only the dumb money will remain in the UK ready to be robbed by the Marxist Labour Chancellor. Make no mistake Labour will come for private LL in all guises. If LL think it has been a bit rough with the Tories you ain't seen nothing yet. Just wait until the Chancellor gets his grasping and greedy tax claws into your business. By the time he has finished with private LL they will have been very effectively asset stripped. Time to sell up and hide the profits away in cash from prying eyes.

From: Paul Barrett 27 March 2019 13:59 PM

Paul Barrett
It may NOT have been noticed by all those especially this idealflatmate idiot but a few years ago most LL would take on DSS tenants. The reason!? They were highly PROFITABLE!! But if you look back to those times there was much hate levelled at those LL accusing them of having their businesses SUBSIDISED by the Govt via HB. So these whingers were actually OBJECTING to private LL housing HB tenants and taking the King's shilling. Now we have the situation where for a wide variety of reasons many LL CHOOSE NOT to take on any HB tenant at the outset of a tenancy. Now because LL are refusing to take on HB tenants the same haters that accused LL of being subsidised by HB are now accusing LL of discriminating against those self same DSS tenants!!!!!!! Anybody see the dysfunction within the LL haters!!?? It is make your mind up time haters. Do you want LL to house HB tenants or not!? If so then presumably the haters would stop hating agsinst the LL that do house DSS tenants. That being the case then the next thing the haters need to campaign for are the following to facilitate and encourage LL to take on DSS tenants. End 'clawback' possibilities when HB is paid direct to LL Ensure HB is the FIRST element deducted from the OBC amount. Ensure that any top up rent required is paid directly second from the monthly UC Ensure that the DWP funds 5 weeks deposit. Ensure that irrespective of any UC process that once a DSS tenant is given a LEGALLY binding AST that the DWP will pay the contractual rent in advance along with the 5 weeks deposit. The DWP to be an effective guarantor in case any UC claim or difficulties occur. To ensure that in the event of any eviction process that the DWP pays the full contactual rent until the tenant is evicted. Now we all know that none of this will ever occur which is why irrespective of alleged ability to pay I and many other LL will refuse to let to DSS tenants. Affordability even if a DSS tenant could plausibly manage this is NOT the only criteria that LL use to choose a tenant. It is generally the case that LL have nothing against DSS tenants per se. It is the dysfunctional system which serves them and the LL which is largely responsible for LL choosing to refuse to let to DSS tenants. There are of course a lot of Tory politics wrapped up with all this. The LL haters NEVER mention S24...................................funny that!! A major reason for LL no longer letting to DSS tenants is the HB is insufficient to cover S24 liabilities so forcing LL to take on more profitable tenants. It is also a fact that private rents vastly exceed the LHA rates. So LL naturally go for the tenants that they can achieve higher rents from. I'm afraid LL simply DON'T want to have anything to do with the HB system which means de facto that LL WON'T let to DSS tenants.

From: Paul Barrett 27 March 2019 13:16 PM

Paul Barrett
Has Mr Spencer not heard that Barwell wants to get rid of all private LL especially the mortgaged ones? So first they attack the low hanging fruit mortgaged sole trader LL Then they will come for the small corporate LL. Then they will come for the mortgage free LL. It is Tory Party policy to get rid of every private LL except if they are a large corporate. They want as many tenants as possible becoming homeowners even though this is completely UNREALISTIC!!! But this is what the Tories intend as Barwell has stated this and he is SPAD to the Maybot!! The Tories have every intention to destroy the PRS. They simply can't seem to work out that this aspiration is a pipe dream and will NEVER occur! Like it or not the Tories need to change tack and recognise that a PRS of adequate size is required. If Govt refuses to facilitate housing of all types of tenure then it is obvious that the PRS remains the only resource available. With Govt trying to eradicate the PRS who is supposed to house those who can't afford or DON'T wish to become homeowners? Then add in MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION and it is obvious that with a net flood of about 250000 immigrants per year that there will be insufficient properties of all types of tenure. It is unlikely that the floods of immigrants will change anytime soon. Even if tomorrow there was magically 250000 properties it would only be sufficient for one year. Then we have the loss of 2 million social homes to the ridiculous RTB policy. The PRS has always been a flexible band aid that has provided accommodation in the absence of other types of property tenure. Govt is now seeking to reduce the size of the band aid when really the band aid needs to be EXPANDED!!! LL are now having their hands tied and many are now getting out of the PRS because of the bonkers Tory anti-private LL policies. This Govt is so inept the worse thing being that a Labour Govt would be even more inept!! Govt is still obsessed with the idea that getting rid of private LL will somehow translate into GR votes for the Tories. NO it WONT! They are completely incorrect. The Tories are massively miscalculating politically. Barwell is a disgrace. He is damaging the fortunes of tenants and the housing sector in general and is responsible for ridiculous housing policy. Will the Tories change policies on the PRS!? No they WON'T. They will introduce even more ridiculous ones!

From: Paul Barrett 20 March 2019 14:35 PM

Paul Barrett
A very sensible businessman. Unfortunately when it comes to housing people the ridiculous neo-liberal lefty media etc seem to believe that LL should open their properties to allcomers no matter the status of those tenants. Primarily a LL wants as a bear minimum a tenant who can afford and will pay the contractual rent. Just that requirement alone will mean vast numbers of tenants aren't suitable. Then a LL will need to ensure that RGI is possible. Very few tenants will qualify for this so that means even fewer LL have properties available. Then there are all the other reasons LL won't let. The PRS is simply NOT fit for purpose to house all those that need rental accommodation. This is something the State needs to provide in the form of subsidised social housing. There is no profit motive needed in the social housing sector due to the taxpayer subsidising everything. LL DON'T have the luxury of receiving State subsidies. They need to make PROFIT!!! Consequently they choose those tenants more likely to generate PROFIT rather than loss. A surely most sensible business determination!!!!? FW is being pilloried for doing exactly what I do every day along with most other LL. We simply have no alternative as we DON'T have a sugar baby taxpayer to bail us out unlike social housing. Personally I'm pleased for the Wilsons that they have decided to cash out of the BTL sector.. They are doing what many LL wish they could do to the same extent. I wish I could have been a FW with the same profits! FW is behaving as a ruthlessly efficient businessman. Nothing wrong in that at all. It is nothing personal it is simply business. Let the Wilsons cash out and to then live their lives as they wish. Whatever happens to the tenants is just tough. No LL goes on forever Surely tenants knew that!?

From: Paul Barrett 19 March 2019 09:32 AM

Paul Barrett
Are you off your rocker!!!!??? Have you NEVER heard of 'clawback'' That is what you risk if you ever accept any form of direct payment of HB. All councils and the DWP operate 'clawback' strategies. Private LL DON'T enter the PRS to be a social support system A business strategy based on the risk of 'clawback' is for the barking mad!! Private LL mostly are in the game to make as much profit as they can. DSS tenants simply aren't profitable enough. Tenants are simply a commodity to extract as much income from as possible out of them. Of course to achieve this a LL should provide a decent standard of accommodation and be compliant with all relevant regulations. This is what I do. But make NO mistake I am currently in the PRS to make as much profit as I can. DSS tenants do not figure in my tenant demographic and never will. They simply aren't profitable enough for me. PROFIT is the only reason I am a LL. I deploy my capital as best as I see fit to make as much profit as I can. However due to S24 I will leave the PRS as I cannot make sufficient profit with the bonkers S24 policy. So I can't wait to leave. It will cause me to make about 12 tenants homeless. I will take my capital and deploy it elsewhere. Possibly a FHL or a maximum 4 bed house to then let to lodgers. This will enable me to make more net income than from the existing rental properties. Of course it means that I will only be able to let to single lodgers who can't be in receipt of HB as lodger HB is derisory. When I start to sell I DON'T care how long it takes. My tenants will vacate near to completion date as they are good tenants and won't exploit the eviction process. Frankly I can't wait to sell up and get out of AST lettings. The things that are going to come to affect the PRS are just too negative to stay in. Add the threat of a Labour Govt and that is the end of the PRS. LL need to bail extracting as much wealth as they can before a possible Labour Govt arises. Few LL will be prepared to lose all they have achieved in the past 17 years due to a Labour Govt. The risk is just too high. The sensible strategy is to sell up!

From: Paul Barrett 16 March 2019 11:38 AM

Paul Barrett
As far as I am aware in Australia rarely are there issues with large rent defaulting and consequently LL are prepared to take on risky tenants. This is why they are prepared to do this............. In Oz if as a tenant you are in rent default 14 days after rent due date the LL may without recourse to any court process remove the rent defaulting tenant with police assistance if required. Now just imagine a similar process in the UK. You would see most of the risky tenants willingly taken on by LL. 14 days after rent default you are booted out by the LL with police assistance if the tenant refuses to leave. With such a process we wouldn't need any lefty talking shops etc. It would be as simple as this Pay your rent and if you DON'T 14 days later the LL could boot you out. Now that would concentrate rogue tenants' minds. In practice few LL would exercise the right to evict rent defaulting tenants so quickly. They would tend to work with tenants to resolve any issues. Remember this speedy eviction process is ONLY available in rent default circumstances. Just introducing this speedy Australian style eviction process would ONLY apply in rent defaulting cases. How could anyone NOT support such a speedy eviction process for rent defaulting cases only!!!!??? It is the eviction issue which prevents me even contemplating taking on DSS tenants. If I knew I could get rid of rent defaulting tenants so quickly it would transform my perspective on risky tenants. So we DON'T need any lefty talking shops. Just need the eviction process in rent arrears cases to be changed to the Oz method...........................simples!!!

From: Paul Barrett 15 March 2019 11:53 AM

Paul Barrett
It is all very well people saying renting is for them. The big issue is there may not be the rental properties available as the PRS shrinks abd a lot of it is being used for short term letting mostly in breach of lender and insurance conditions. Rarely will a LL be detected breaching relevant conditions. This makes the plight of normal tenants a lot harder with reduced supply. So tenants cannot rely on there always being a private LL to rent from. Inevitably homeownership is something that many will have to do no matter how much they would prefer not to!! Afraid tenants will have to realise that there will not necessarily be a LL available who is prepared to take you on. Far better to pay mortgage rent to a bank than rent to a LL! So perhaps no matter how reluctantly they enter into homeownership; to do so is actually an imperative for renters so they actually have a guaranteed place to stay. Yes there are hassles with homeownership but it is the only way to prevent a LL from moving you on!! Stability has it's hassle factors!! It really shouldn't be too much hassle to paint the house every 5 years and have the gas boiler serviced etc. Homeownership has to be an effective form of tenure. But what I would like to see is a changed attitude from lenders so as to maintain existing resi mortgage terms and rates but give CTL for however long required. Not doing this just encourages homeowners to game the system. They still let their resi property but nobody knows. Clearly risky for a number of reasons but needs must and all that. Lenders need to recognise that homeowners have changed circumstances and prefer not to sell but let and rent where they need to be.

From: Paul Barrett 14 March 2019 19:46 PM

Paul Barrett
Difficult to see how a turnover tax would be rolled out to general business. Now obviously if Govt desired to get rid of all sole trader butchers for eg it would introduce a S24 version on finance costs. As far as I am aware Govt DOESN'T wish to tax other business on fictitious income. So I fail to see how or why a turnover tax would be imposed on other business. Govt only wishes to rid itself of leveraged sole trader LL. That is why it has imposed S24 on mortgaged sole trader LL. At some point potentially the mortgaged sole trader LL will be very few in number mostly having converted to corporate status or have exited the PRS. So taking the logic to the extreme the PRS will have 50% of leveraged LL who will have defeated S24. No Govt will accept being beaten on a major tax policy designed to eradicate leveraged LL. So at some stage Govt will have to tax corporate LL on turnover. The logic of S24 is to eradicate mortgaged LL. It simply cannot be allowed that mortgaged LL remain having escaped to corporate status. Govt should abolish S24 and just introduce PRA regulations to prevent all new loans for new purchase property being anymore than 50% LTV. Instituting this would still allow sole traders to remain in business but would be prevented from purchasing in future due to increased LTV requirements. LL would have to invest considerably more in deposits and there will be still the onerous SDLT surcharge. But at least the remaining rump of mortgaged sole trader LL could retain existing properties preventing many tenants being made homeless.

From: Paul Barrett 13 March 2019 10:27 AM

Paul Barrett
The incorrectly perceived political dynamics are such that no Chancellor will surrender the supposed political capital that S24 was designed to achieve. The fact that S24 has garnered no such political capital is beyond the idiocy of the Tories to comprehend. They do sincerely believe that S24 will garner votes for them from GR. Never before has such political incompetence been displayed. Govt would have done far better to abandon its ludicrous RTB policies and announce a mass social housing building programme. It is simply not the case that Council tenants vote Labour. Thatcher won largely due to former Council house Labour voters switching to her. Remember that S24 LL are just a thorn in the side of Tories. They make up only 25% of the PRS housing about 2 million tenants. So getting rid of mortgaged sole trader LL DOESN'T figure large in Tory concerns..2 million homeless tenants can probably be absorbed by the remaining PRS. Govt has managed to keep most of the homeless from public view by means of TA albeit very expensive TA. It is on the hunt for GR votes and so DOESN'T care about the effects on those dehoused by S24. There is simply no way that idiot Hammond with change party political policy. He won't be happy until he has exterminated all S24 LL which as mentioned is only 25% of the PRS. There is simply no way he will do anything to assist this part of the PRS. Indeed the evil propaganda that the BBC was allowed to get away with by calling tax relief for LL as generous tax reliefs when every other business has such alleged generous tax relief because without it taxing turnover would bankrupt most business and cause a UK wide depression just takes the proverbial biscuit!! But putting LL out of business by taxing turnover was seen as a worthwhile political exercise. Mortgaged sole trader LL should be under no illusions that S24 will continue. It will very soon be no tax relief at all on finance costs the logic of which is just the final outcome of S24. Such LL would do well to try and become unencumbered ASAP if wishing to survive in some form or another. NOBODY but nobody will be doing anything to rescue the private LL from S24.

From: Paul Barrett 13 March 2019 02:43 AM

Paul Barrett
Yep I can see what Commercial means to you guys. As such you are perhaps far more sophisisticated than the average resi LL which is me. Sophistication comes nowhere near my business model and I intend for it never to!! So for your bog standard LL wishing to escape S24 but not willing to get involved with the clever investments you guys have developed could your basic LL convert to what I would suggest is very simple commercial as in FHL; SA etc. I suppose a sort of commercial for dummy LL! So not much different from normal resi letting but with letting that avoids S24. S24 is after all the tax tail that now wags the business dog!! Before S24 the situation was reversed which is how business should be managed. S24 threw the spanner in the works for that conventional business model in use for over 18 years. With the rumours over the S24 tax free status of small commercial as in FHL etc it seems that if a current resi LL is NOT prepared to become sophisticated then leaving the PRS remains the only avenue. Much of SA is being conducted illegally by LL in breach of lender conditions. As such LL are winging it in the expectation that very few lenders will ever find out what they are doing. Converting to FHL is a far more stable and legal proposition right up until Govt imposes S24 on FHL mortgages!!! So personally the lodger methodology has more future proofing with its business model. It would be very difficult for Govt to ever impose S24 on a lodger LL Will S24 see the comeback of the Rigsby style live in LL with no more than 3 other occupants so as to avoid Mandatory HMO licensing!?

From: Paul Barrett 12 March 2019 09:59 AM

Paul Barrett
You are obviously a bit of a go getter not prepared to be beaten by S24. Many other LL will respond as you are. Me I can't be arsed(lazy perhaps) and intend to sell up and invest in one resi property for myself with no more than 4 occupants so as not to become a Licensible HMO even though it would be my PPR. Not interested in one HMO or anything prosaic. Worked out my net income would be nearly the same with lodgers as it would be from 4 properties. Agreed I lose the CG potential from 4 properties. But I believe it is generally recognised that CG won't happen for at least 10 years. So not worth hanging on for that. Did notice today on an okd HUTH that some guys had done a really good job on converting a terrace house in Plumstead into a quality HMO. Every room had an en-suite. Not sure if they were aware about the risk of Individual Council Tax Banding which would have reduced their net income from £3000 to about £2400 not including all other costs. Just ICTB can have a massive detrimental effect on profitability. One of the reasons I never went HMO was the risk of ICTB.. As we all know Council Tax is massively increasing. It will be increasing by at least 4.99% per year as that is I believe the amount Councils may increase by without a local referendum So funnily enough this is how much ALL Councils increase by!!! Then there is the threat of revaluation. Councils will then see a wonderful opportunity to ICTB HMO and make fortunes out of HMO LL. Especially those who have made their HMO really nice places!!

From: Paul Barrett 11 March 2019 15:29 PM

Paul Barrett
Naively the Govt DOESN'T think your totally correct logic applies. Govt honestly believed that by reducing LHA it would force LL to accept cheaper rents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well that went well didn't it!?? Because of such a bonkers policy LL chose NOT to let to those in receipt of LHA as they can achieve more from non-HB tenants or DSS tenants in the old parlance. Indeed they are evicting such DSS tenants as they cannot afford the market rent the LL requires! Now who would have thought that LL might refuse to take on HB tenants when they could take on tenants who could afford higher rents!!?? Thus leaving Councils with far higher TA costs than had they just paid the market rent. Such market rent was and is usually ONLY about £150pm than the LHA rate. So far cheaper than TA costs etc. Govt tried to buck the market and failed miserably and is now having to pay the enormous costs of TA. I honestly believe that Govt thought that HB LL didn't have anyone else they could let to and so would have no choice but to reduce rents. Well that perception went a bit awry for the Govt didn't it!!!!!!! Surely they must have realised that with MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION occurring in sucking in over 2500000 net migrants per year that there were plenty of tenant alternatives to pay market rents!? It looks unlikely that mass immigration will reduce anytime soon. This makes life very hard for the average DSS tenant who is no longer wanted or even needed by most LL. There remains and it will continue a massive unmet demant for rental accommodation by immigrants. Until the borders are closed then this situation will continue. Even with closed borders it would take decades dor sufficient properties of all types of tenure to be built for the existing population. The last thing in the world I would want to be is a TENANT. There simply aren't enough properties to go around. Being a tenant but having a home elsewhere is a better strategy One can always have lodgers in a resi home. The live -in LL can be renting elsewhere and just pop home every 30 days to keep compliance with resi insurance conditions.

From: Paul Barrett 11 March 2019 10:03 AM

Paul Barrett
It is looking less likely now that there will be a looney lefty Govt. However that DOESN'T mean the dopey Tories who will probably be the next Govt won't nick such looney policies off Labour. They nicked the daft S24 one from the Greens. So DON'T think that just because their sort of Govt isn't in power that it will mean such daft policies aren't introduced by the dopey Tories. The Tories are still very much intending to grind LL into the dust. Firstly they want rid of ALL mortgaged sole trader LL. Then they will work out a wsy to hit small corporate LL with a version of S24 or something that taxes turnover. Then once 50% of the PRS has been removed they will come after the cash rich LL who DON'T have mortgages. This they will do by the expedient of rent controls. This will reduce the PRS to levels not seen since the late 60's. God knows where all the homeless tenants will live. About 4 million of them. I can't see sufficient social housing being built to cope with all the homeless. So never underestimate the continuing ability of the dopey Tories to make a complete pig's ear of the whole PRS situation. Whatever happens make no mistake the Tories are coming for you just as much as Labour etc. As such LL cannot afford to be complacent. Defensive strategies should be planned for and potentially put in place now. Do not imagine for one moment that avoiding a Labour Govt means you have swerved a bullet. There is a Tory waiting with a machine gun!! You will have no chance of swerving the many bullets the Tories intend to fire. A bullet proof vest won't be sufficient. A tank might be!!!

From: Paul Barrett 11 March 2019 09:27 AM

Paul Barrett
Yes one wonders whether the Govt eventually works out that fewer BTL mortgages equate to fewer corporate taxes!!! Probably far more corporate tax lost compared to S24 taxation gains. Then again with LL converting to corporate status; deleveraging or selling up there will be fewer S24 taxes coming into the Treasury. Who'd have thunk it eh!? So LL might consider converting BTL mortgages to FHL to avoid S24 which is what this lender has taken a punt on. After all the profits on lending for FHL are probably about the same as for normal resi BTL. It seems that many LL are taking a stand against S24 and diversifying. It is gratifying to see that certain Lenders have recognised these circumstances and are now coming up with offers to facilitate LL escaping to other forms or rental tenure. Obviously it is lender self interest that are causing them to adjust their relevant offers. But at least they are recognising it is pragmatic to adjust to the changing letting market mostly caused by S24. It could well be that lenders might be able to have such compelling offers for LL to changes tenure to FHL etc that such LL might with much lender assistance be able to escape S24. It is surely in the interests of Lenders to ensure their LL stay in the market. The last thing they want is LL paying off their mortgages. So converting a LL mortgage to a different type to keep the LL in a letting market of some sort must surely be in the lender's best interests. It is also bizarrely in the Govt's best interests as it will keep the corporate taxes going and taxes on LL profits but with no taxation on turnover.

From: Paul Barrett 08 March 2019 06:44 AM

Paul Barrett
@a townshend Yes I totally agree with your construct that irrespective of political colour that most couuncils effectively operate as Communist enterprises. They are not subject to the pressures of a private business. They can never go bankrupt as Govt will always bail them out; not so a private LL who can lose his shirt!! If only Councils would understand and recognise the issues of being a LL then perhaps there might be a more harmonious relationship with both parties. It is a problem that all private enterprises have with Councils. I'm sure if it was put to Councils they would prefer all private enterprise to be eradicated and for all services to be provisioned by State and Local taxation. Realistically Councils will NEVER choose to work with private enterprise to provision effective service delivery. Councils have an ideological stance that all private enterprise is bad and State provision is the best. As LL at the proverbial coalface we see directly the contempt that ALL councils have towards private LL. That contempt is equally felt and more by LL for Councils. Such contempt is costing Councils fortunes. It rarely costs private LL anything as they are mostly all capable of operating their business without any interraction with HB tenants or the Council. Gone are the days when HB were profitable. HB tenants are no longer needed or required by PRS LL. This has come as a bit of a shock to Councils who are only now realising how desperately they need PRS LL. Well now such LL are no longer interested in anything the Councils have to offer. Engaging with private LL would greatly assist Councils but so wedded are Councils to their anti-private LL stances that even attempting to engage with LL in a belated attempt to be seen to trying to engage with them falls on stony ground. On principle I would refuse to engage with any Council. I loathe and detest the way Councils behave towards private LL and it would be a cold day in hell before I ever engage with Councils. Contempt DOESN'T even half-way describe the way I feel about Councils I'm sure many LL feel this way. Councils seem to have a total disconnect with the PRS. They really shouldn't be surprised that now private LL wish to have nothing to do with them after the way they have previously and now behave. A classic example of this disconnect is my East Herts District Council expects me to issue an AST to a prospective tenant BEFORE their HB entitlement has been approved!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????????? So if then it turns out that the tenant is NOT entitled to HB I then have a tenant with no means to pay rent. I would then have to evict the tenant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????? There is simply no way I would issue an AST without a validated way that rent would be paid. Yet my stupid Tory Council expects me to issue a tenancy agreement without any means to pay for it at the outset of that tenancy. That just shows you the total disconnect with business reality as evidenced by the ridiculous policies of EHDC!!!!!!!!!!!...........................a Tory Council.

From: Paul Barrett 07 March 2019 22:27 PM

Paul Barrett
Even if Govt abolished their ridiculous S24 policy it would still be insufficient to recover the PRS. To assist recovery the SDLT surcharge would need to be abolished. The PRA regulations for those LL with 3 or more BTL properties also needs to be reviewed. Not that it would solve the issues for those LL wishing to expand but I believe a trade off could occur. This would be ABOLISH S24; the SDLT surcharge and current PRA regulations. Replace the PRA regulations with a new lending requirement that ALL new mortgages for newly purchased property must be no more than 50% LTV. Such a stricture might be more onerous than the current PRA requirements. But I believe a fair exchange with the Govt for abolishing S24 and the SDLT surchcharge. Perhaps at the same time BTL should also become a regulated activity. Such abolishment of regulations mentioned and introduction of ones suggested would greatly assist the PRS and also go towards to a large extent to having the same effects on the PRS. But the immediate S24 abolishment would prevent the PRS reducing in capacity which is what tenants desperately need. Destroying the existing PRS capacity makes no sense at all. With my suggested maximum of 50% LTV for all new purchase borrowing that would immediately reduce the scope for BTL purchasing. Essentially it would require a lot 'more skin in the game' to use a common parlance. Perhaps rather than a 50% LTV requirement this would be adjustable by politicians. Essentially it would be a political decision as to the level of LTV allowed by Govt. So in extremis Govt could require 100% LTV to ensure only cash could be used to buy BTL property. So depending on a Govt's political imperatives as it saw them a Govt could finely tune the numbers of leveraged LL. LL should have no right to the levels of credit they require Homeownership should always be the preferred form of tenure accepting that a PRS will always be required. Personally I would like to see MIRAS reintroduced for property values up to £300000 for GENUINE FTB. But if Govt wishes to prevent rents running away it must immediately abolish S24. That would only be a stop gap measure to the problem of a reducing PRS. Controlling BTL LTV is I believe a far more effective policy for Govt to control the size of the PRS. Such political control of LTV would be far more acceptable than the current methods. As a LL I would have NO objection to being restricted in LTV for new property purchases. I would fully accept being resticted as to the level of borrowings for a BTL property I would be permitted. I would accept that such restriction is subject to political control by the Govt of the day. But these different ways of doing things must surely be better than S24 and the PRA regulations

From: Paul Barrett 07 March 2019 20:27 PM

Paul Barrett
The PRS suffers over £9 billion of losses every year. A substantial portion of this is caused by DSS tenants. Can you honestly see Govt prepared to take on the financial hit for such losses!? Of course a really effective way to prevent such losses which are mostly caused by rent arrears is to allow immediate eviction by the LL with police assistance 14 days after 1st rent default. That will concentrate DWP minds or the Council's!!! Such a policy could persuade many LL to consider taking on such DSS tenants. Indeed as a Govt to incentivise LL to take on DSS tenants I would allow speedy eviction only if they were DSS tenants. If LL knew they could get rid of only DSS tenants 14 days after 1st rent default then I reckon many LL would take the additional risk of letting to a DSS tenant. If it proves an effective policy then Govt might be minded to roll out such a speedy eviction process for non-DSS tenants. If introduced just for DSS tenants County Courts would see their PO and eviction workload reduce by about 75%!! Which tells you EVERYTHING you need to know as to why many LL currently refuse to let to DSS tenants. Of course Councils wouldn't like it as they would have a duty to house Though if rent isn't paid isn't that the tenant making themselves intentionally homeless!? Though of course UC would by default make every DSS tenant homeless as UC certainly isn't paid fewer than 14 days after rent payment date. But this will never happen. No way will Govt risk the massive financial hit. Even though they technically are as L