x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button
Paul Barrett
Paul Barrett
8385  Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Paul's Recent Activity

Paul Barrett
@jonwilson Please advise on what illegality I am proposing. I believe I know far more about regulations than you. Which is why you need to pay attention to my words. If you did you would know there is no illegality. If you wish me to educate you then happy to enlighten you. After all we want ALL LL to understand regulations. However where perhaps you and I may be in agreement is that ALL LL should be licenced and required to undergo CPD training once every 5 years. LL licence for 5 years should be no more than £150. Tenants have the right to expect their LL has undergone a Nationally accepted level of training. I also believe there should be a LL licence for those who take in lodgers or regular 'guests'. There would of course be different licence knowledge with the nation states. But if a LL has properties in all 4 countries then 4 licences would be required. I am all for COMPULSORY LL education. Indeed I contend that no new LL should be allowed to become one BEFORE they have undergone suitable CPD training. However my knowledge is up to date as far as I am concerned. But I accept nobody can know everything which is why I would not object to CPD training with a licence issued afterwards. I have undergone a similar CPD process with HGV training. Cost me £250 for 5 days of training. I have been a HGV/PSV driver for 30 years. At no point did I consider the CPD useless. Far from it. I have no issue at all with being licenced every 5 years once I have passed the CPD training. Introducing such would remove the many hundreds of thousands of criminal LL that currently operate in the PRS. There are many LL that don't consider themselves az criminals. A classic example is where a LL lets to HB tenants in direct breach of mortgage conditions. That LL is committing FRAUD. Another one is where a residential property with a residential mortgage has a tenant where no CTL has been sought is FRAUD. There are about 300000 of these fraudulent LL types. I could go on further about the FRAUD that continues on a regular basis. LL licencing would reveal all this fraud which is why there will NEVER be a comprehensive LL licensing scheme.

From: Paul Barrett 15 July 2020 22:57 PM

Paul Barrett
I'm afraid your perspective on being a LL is completely flawed. We normal LL are subject to normal business practices. That is we seek to maximise our hoped for PROFIT as best as we are able. You may call that greedy; normal people don't. Where I do agree with you regarding what might be termed GREEDY LL is where such LL do not offer a decent product for top money. Most good LL offer quality propositions and are totally justified in seeking to maximise profit from that asset. LL like you who choose not maximise rents depress overall rent levels. But that is fine we LL know there are LL not operating as proper businesses. We understand this affects our market rents but that as they say is simply business. If I had a preference I would much prefer hobby LL like you didn't exist. But we are where we are and of course you have every right to conduct yourself as you do irrespective of the negative depressive effects your less than business like methods have on the market. But good LL offering a good product have every right to attempt to achieve maximum rent. You may call that greed I don't. It is the case that people like you are never willing to indicate at what point they deem a LL to be greedy. I'm sure we agree that maximum rent for a poor product offer is greed. We all know the LL types who have these poor product offerings. Few of them have traditional British names. So as a LL who offers an exceptional product I charge market rents. That doesn't make me a greedy LL. Oh! and as far as any reliance in any omnipetent being I have no belief in any fantasy figure. Religion is so much bunk. If people choose to have such bonkers religious beliefs then fine just as long as they don't try and impose their beliefs on ME!!

From: Paul Barrett 15 July 2020 20:42 PM

Paul Barrett
@davidcrisp You assert that as a good LL you are a little right of centre. I have to say I totally disagree. If you are that must make me an extreme Fascist!!! Something if this was the case that I would rejoice in. However from what I have seen of your posts you are a good LL with a positive attitude. You also seem to expect that tenants comply with the terms of their AST and that if they don't you expect to be easily able to remove them. Now for the life of me I can see nothing remotely right-wing in the way you conduct business!! Quite funnily and I think I may have regaled LL Today with this little story. I was attempting to assist someone on FB to source a rental property. Anyway it came down to methods of operating. I advised that in the very rare event that I accepted DSS tenants I would require the UC to credited to a tenant Credit Union account so that the FULL CONTRACTUAL RENT was paid to me before the tenant could access any remaining UC. This person accused me of being a fascist for this operating methodology!!!! This just confirms to me that many of these DSS tenant types are feckless. But certainly neither you nor I could in any way be accused of being right-wing as all we are is wanting tenants to pay the FULL CONTRACTUAL RENT on time. Since when is paying for a service meant that service provider of whatever type is considered right-wing!!!!??? Believe me you aren't right-wing at all. You just expect to be paid for the service you provide and that tenants conform to AST conditions.

From: Paul Barrett 14 July 2020 22:28 PM

Paul Barrett
@lee holland Yep you are thick. You university types are the thick ones. Divorced from reality and steeped in ridiculous left-wing ideology. It is not for me to have resources to cover for feckless rent defaulting tenants. Of course if such rent defaulting tenants surrender their tenancy then I accept that is a business risk I have exposed myself to. But by my business nous I reckon I would be able to source new rent paying tenants. But of course I can only use my business acumen if I have a vacant property to offer. This wont be possible if FECKLESS rent defaulting tenants refuse to vacate. I'm afraid you are typical of supposed intellectuals who don't live in the real world. You may have sufficient resources to cover for FECKLESS tenants. Most LL DONT!! It is tenants that are feckless in not having sufficient resources to pay their rent in cases of sudden income loss. A LL is not feckless if he doesn't have the resources to subsidise feckless tenants for free for months on end. LL fully understand the business risks but it is the dysfunctional eviction process which conspires against LL operating effectively. Many more LL will be selling up as the eviction process is made even more difficult. It is NOT for LL to put resources aside to cover for feckless tenants who refuse to vacate when they can't afford the rent for WHATEVER reason. It is IRRELEVANT why LL become LL. The deal is they buy a property and let it to a tenant who pays RENT. Simple concept that many tenants fail to comprehend. The idea that it is perfectly acceptable to consume an asset for free seems only to apply to LL. Why!!?? Why are LL the only ones forced to provide private assets for FREE!!?? Your ideas are idiotic and you have made yourself look even more stupid by your revealing of educational achievement which clearly hasn't educated you at all in the ways of the world. What a waste that education has been on you!! Oh! and as an aside if I ever suffered sudden income loss I have sufficient resources to fund my normal monthly domestic commitments for about 4 years. I would hope during that time that I would have been able to garner alternative resources. But because I'm not feckless I am able to cope. As you can imagine that means a quite boring lifestyle but needs must! .Something few feckless tenants are prepared to do which is why they are in the state they are in. What a LL does with rent is IRRELEVANT. But it is for the tenant to pay the rent they agreed to for at least 1 year.

From: Paul Barrett 14 July 2020 19:54 PM

Paul Barrett
Surely a LL considers each tenant from the perspective of business risk. These risks change. Under normal circumstances I would never at the outset of a tenancy take on a DSS tenant. But if as things are then I would not evict a DSS tenant even though it would breach my current ridiculous mortgage conditions. The lender would never find out. Though of course I would be taking a massive business risks as if a lender found out they could financially destroy me!! As an aside I believe Govt should ban immediately any restrictive conditions that lenders and insurers have for DSS tenants. However if the now DSS tenant converted from perhaps a Professional tenant then I would still evict if the FULL CONTRACTUAL RENT wasn't paid. Substantial numbers of former professional tenants would be able to make up the difference between HB and the rent by secret cash payments to the LL. Obviously they wouldn't be able to do with the DWP knowledge as that would result in less HB being granted. The DSS is not concerned about any other payments as all they will pay is the UC. For many savvy people they will remove any savings and hold as cash. Having savings just subsidises Govt welfare. Now as far as DSS tenants at the outset of a tenancy no way will I ever do so. This is because my East Herts District Council require a valid AST to be provided by the tenant before they are assessed for HB!!! What sane LL would EVER issue an AST in such circumstances. Personally I have nothing against DSS tenants per se. It is the completely dysfunctional UC process I have issues with. For me UC is a BUSINESS risk I choose NOT to take at the outset of a tenancy. I have a lovely vacant 2 bed flat. No way will I take on any DSS tenant. Pretty IRRELEVANT though as the LHA rate is less than half what I charge!! LL are discriminating against the DSS system NOT the tenants themselves who are mostly good people. As an aside from this post the most effective way to persuade LL to take on DSS tenants is to change the dysfunctional eviction process in cases of rent defaulting only. Indeed the S21 process could be retained but only for FAULT BASED RENT DEFAULTING. But I would have no Court interference. At the expiry of a 2 month notice the tenants would be removed by the LL with Police assistance if necessary. Of course if rent was paid before the notice expired then the LL would withdraw from evicting. This being the case it should be the case that 2 months rent is allowed as a deposit. Any more than this creates a Premium Tenancy which no sane LL would EVER want. It is largely the dysfunctional eviction process in cases of rent defaulting that causes most LL to decline HB tenants

From: Paul Barrett 14 July 2020 15:07 PM

Paul Barrett
Are you really that thick!!?? It DOESN'T matter what the reason is for sudden income loss it is for the user of the services who wishes for those services to be provided to make provision to still be able to pay come what may. The traditional method has been savings. But due to the feckless lifestyles of tenants very few have at least a year's worth of savings. Having this level of savings would give tenants a very effective level of security to be able meet normal monthly commitments. Invariably after a year a tenant would have been able to source a new job though in light of how things are looking perhaps 2 year's of savings would be better. It is clear that feckless tenant behaviour is only as it is due to the dysfunctional eviction process which is 100% in favour of the tenant. We also albeit for an allegedly temporary period have Govt suspension of that useless eviction process. Govt is effectively sanctioning mass tenant rent defaulting. Why for example did not Govt state that for any tenant in receipt of furloughed wages that Govt would directly pay the LL the FULL CONTRACTUAL RENT out of the furloughed wages!!?? Believe me tenant behaviour would rapidly change if in the event of rent default a LL could boot out the tenant 14 days later. This is what happens in Australia and they don't tend to have long eviction cases.......................funny that!!! Your feckless attitude is indicative of what many in society believe. This is only for LL. They expect and indeed consider it a right that they should be immune from eviction if they can't afford the rent for WHATEVER reason!!! Nobody presumes that other parts of business should be expected to provide free services and yet idiots like you DO!!!!!!!! BONKERS!! Oh! Incidentally I have a great reputation amongst my tenants. Indeed some have returned to me after changed circumstances. So my reputation continues to be excellent. Though of course I readily accept that I may not be exactly flavour of the month with the 5 tenants I evicted for rent DEFAULTING. I can live with that!! Also unfortunately because of all the anti-private LL policies I intend to leave the AST sector making about 16 people homeless. It finally came that another idiot posting on here finally fell for my trap. A certain Mr Edmunds castigated me for selling up making people homeless yet many people including probably him don't want LL to be LL..................but they don't want LL making people homeless by selling up...................Catch 22 sort of!!!

From: Paul Barrett 14 July 2020 14:40 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 14 July 2020 06:17 AM

Paul Barrett
So what about the LL like me that are terrified of bankruptcy resulting in my being made homeless!?? As has been suggested feckless rent defaulting tenants could have saved for sudden income loss for WHATEVER reason. Or they could have taken out income protection policies. The reason these feckless waster tenants DON'T do this is they know that due to the dysfunctional eviction process and the equally dysfunctional civil recovery process that it will be at least 10 months before the LL manages to have them evicted. They know there is little chance of the LL bothering with Civil Recovery so that effectively feckless tenants can live rent free until evicted. The LL might possibly be able to obtain UC HB element payments directly but woe betide 'clawback' possibilities once tenants have been evicted. This CV19 issue has exposed how feckless millions of tenants are. They simply can't be bothered to have resources to cover for sudden income loss. The PRS by it's very nature can NEVER be secure. That is the WHOLE point of it! It gives the LL or should do flexibility to determine what he wishes to do with his investment assets. All tenants must surely be aware that they reside in private rental accommodation for as long as the LL wishes that to be the case. For most tenants they have tenure security on the basis that their LL wishes to remain in business and that providing the tenant complies with ALL aspects of the TA the LL offers security of tenure. Fail to comply for WHATEVER reason and the LL is perfectly justified in terminating a commercial agreement with the tenant. This termination usually occurs as a result of the tenant failing to pay rent. It is IRRELEVANT why or how this occurs. LL are NOT free money trees for feckless tenants. A tenant who for whatever reason cannot afford to pay for the services a LL provides should offer to surrender the tenancy to the LL. It will then be for the LL alone to make a business decision on whether a continuing business relationship with the tenant is desirable. Every situation will be different with the difference being it will be for the LL to decide what he wishes to do and NOT the tenant dictating to the LL by REFUSING to vacate when given appropriate notice to do so. There are many hundreds of thousands of LL that are TERRIFIED of how they will manage as they can't get rid of rent defaulting tenants to give them the opportunity to source ones who will. No LL has the right to expect his ability to source rent paying tenants will work but he must have the ability to offer to treat. With a rent defaulting tenant refusing to vacate the LL CANNOT conduct a normal business. This simple situation TERRIFIES many LL including me. We have lenders to satisfy and believe me if they DON'T receive their monthly pound of flesh they will very quickly take the property asset away from the LL. Such a situation for a LL would be devastating for a LL. The feckless tenant meanwhile just sources another mug LL of which there are many.

From: Paul Barrett 13 July 2020 15:41 PM

Paul Barrett
Be aware that some of the best RGI policies are from DAS. They white label their RGI product with lots of LA providers and others. DAS policies are good policies but the necessarily stringent criteria means few can qualify. Since this CV19 thing it may well be that RGI isn't as effective as it used to be. Insurers will naturally be pricing in a future pandemic into their business models and most likely increase pricing or reduce scope of the RGI. As with most things and especially in light of the CV19 crisis you need to shop around to obtain the best deal for your circumstances. I don't believe you should rely on anything that was stated before CV19 hit. Which is why you should really ignore everything I have stated and do your own research. So much might have changed. I am going by the way things were from years ago. That information is probably out of date by now. So check with ALL providers Have a look on propertytribes as they partner with a few good reference and RGI providers. But really anyone who has or has had RGI etc needs to come at this with a clean sheet of paper. The providers must have reacted as far as their product offerings are concerned. I doubt very much that RGI requirements and conditions are less than they were. I suspect they will be far more rigorous and policy conditions not as good as they used to be You can't really blame the RGI insurers. This CV19 has exposed them to massive claims. It is fortunate for them that many idiot LL that could have qualified their tenants for RGI didn't bother. So there shouldn't be many RGI claims. But many LL will now see the error of their ways and obtain RGI where they can. You can't blame insurers from tightening up on referencing criteria and quality. Just to give an example of the losses compared to premium income an insurer could suffer. For an £89 RGI annual premium it cost them over £10000 to evict etc. Best £89 I ever spent. Now imagine me multiplied by about a million. RGI claims could bankrupt RGI insurers. So not unreasonably underwriting criteria will be enhanced!!

From: Paul Barrett 09 July 2020 15:31 PM

Paul Barrett
@irina wood Nope I do all my own tenant sourcing. Agents are useless. Cost me thousands. There simply aren't sufficient tenants of quality that can pass RGI checks. Consequently I am fully exposed to rent defaulting tenants and the dysfunctional eviction process. I have no alternative. But now have some good occupants though now struggling to let a vacant property. I was planning when one became vacant to sell off but then CV19 came along!! So this has slowed my hoped for exit from the PRS. Effectively I'm trapped into remaining a LL for the time being. Rents seem to have reduced and certainly don't reflect S24 costs. Such rent levels won't even pay the mortgage. As I never remove occupants unless they rent default I'm stuck being a LL until the property occupants choose to vacate. My properties are in Bishop's Stortford. There is now a reduced market as many properties were taken by cabin crew. There are far fewer of them currently!! I tend to take on Ryanair. Fortunately I had no easyjet! But I consider that with declining demand tenants are seeking lower rents. That simply isn't viable for me especially because of S24. Then add all the other recent costs imposed on the PRS and the business viability is suspect to say the least. One 4 bed house with lodgers would make far more business sense for me. My risks of wrongun tenants would be gone as lodgers don't have the same tenure rights. It is also far easier to source single occupants prepared to rent a room rather than a whole flat But personally I'm done with tenants. I will be having lodgers only once I have been able to sell up and reinvest in one house. I tend to use spareroom; word of mouth and ads on noticeboards. Haven't used a LA in over 10 years.

From: Paul Barrett 09 July 2020 12:26 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 07 July 2020 13:40 PM

Paul Barrett
@davidcrisp As terry states very succinctly You don't!! The PTB are scheduled to make eviction even more difficult Just one of the many reasons I will be selling up. It must be apparent to most LL by now that Govt intends to use LL spare assets and capital to subsidise feckless tenants. This saves Govt and Councils fortunes. No way will Govt make eviction easier. They know that this is not electorally damaging as there are more tenant votes than LL ones It can therefore hit LL as much as they like with total impunity. LL must realise they are on a loser all the time. They may well consider it appropriate to amend their business models. Rent defaulting is the biggest business risk for LL ESPECIALLY leveraged ones. With a completely dysfunctional eviction process LL have an effective dysfunctional business model if letting on an AST. This means for many LL that their business isn't really viable. I've come so close to bankruptcy myself. I don't have a magic money tree to pay mortgages if tenants rent default for whatever reason. I am simply not prepared to suffer this level of risk anymore. It just isn't worth it. I'd far rather have a reduced but more stable income than risk maximisation of my portfolio which could collapse immediately if all tenants stopped paying rent. Fortunately my lot were furloughed and they have now returned to work. But too close for comfort for me. Not prepared to suffer these financial risks anymore. I'd rather less but more stable income. I'm selling up!

From: Paul Barrett 07 July 2020 13:24 PM

Paul Barrett
As LL clearly what you state makes sense. But ALL LL must be aware Govt will NEVER make eviction easy for whatever reason. Why would they!? Govt knows that electorally LL are not a threat. They know that tenants hold the electoral power. Therefore they know hitting LL won't damage any electoral opportunities. Govt will make LL bear the costs of dealing with rent defaulting tenants. The longer they can ensure LL bear all the eviction and rent defaulting costs the better for Councils who won't be required to house until eviction by bailiffs. This is the simple reality of being a LL. If you cannot afford a rent defaulting tenant every new tenancy then you shouldn't really risk being a LL. Of course we all do risk everything if we are leveraged LL. Perhaps in light of the sudden realisation by LL of what feckless tenants can do perhaps the BTL game is not as many LL thought it was. Certainly no way to achieve Financial Freedom!!! Being a leveraged LL is for risk takers only. Just be aware that the eviction process is 100% in favour of tenants. Yes you will EVENTUALLY get rid of them. But you will only survive providing you have the resources to pay the mortgage for about a year and then most likely refurb costs along of course with all the associated eviction costs. When you add up these possibilities the BTL business model is a very shakey one. It is only the useless eviction process which causes this situation. Govt actually intends to make it even more difficult to evict...............if that were possible!! The CV19 crisis has just highlighted these difficulties. The business proposition just DOESN'T add up anymore if that business is very effectively prevented from removing rent defaulting tenants for nearly a year. No business would last long if for a year services were consumed and not paid for. This unfortunately is a LL reality as many are starting to find out!

From: Paul Barrett 06 July 2020 12:37 PM

Paul Barrett
Social housing is all very well but the problem with it where available is that it always goes to those deemed to be in the greatest need. This means the chances of a single white male achieving social housing is precisely ZERO. It is illegal immigrants that are given such social housing. Social housing should be based on the queue not on alleged need. That would mean new entrants to the country would be way down the list and would have to use the PRS wherever available. I would also remove the 400000 EU migrants that are currently occupying social housing. They should be using the PRS which would leave the 400000 social housing properties available for sole British Nationality citizens. The Council House Waiting List needs to return. This will inevitably mean that few new entrants would ever achieve social housing with so many British Nationals wanting such social housing That is as it should be. The whole point of the OBC was to enforce on feckless welfare scroungers the same cost considerations as normal working people. Gratifyingly this has forced many of these feckless welfare scroungers out of expensive areas where HB would previously pay in HB whatever the rent was. Enforcing an effective maximum Welfare Wage was ENTIRELY appropriate. This by the way doesn't include any Council Tax assistance. So that means the maximum Welfare Wage is actually far more than the OBC. There is also very little mention that the OBC may be easily avoided by the feckless Welfare scroungers. All such a scrounger has to do is do an alleged 16hrs of work per week. This then facilitates UNLIMITED WELFARE. This is why 90% of Big Issue sellers are Romanian Gypsies. All they have to do is stand on a street 2 days a week for 8 hrs each and then COMPLETELY UNLIMITED WELFARE awaits them and their very extended families. So the feckless welfare scrounger can avoid being economically cleansed from expensive areas. They just REFUSE to do so because they are FECKLESS. As such these feckless are forced by the correctly applied OBC to MOVE to cheaper areas. Just because you are on welfare DOESN'T give you the right to reside in expensive areas. Personally I would reduce the OBC including Council Tax benefit to the income someone on minimum wage would achieve on a 42 hr working week. It CANNOT be right that a worker struggling on a minimum wage for 42 hrs per week is far worse off than a welfare scrounger who achieves a far superior lifestyle without needing to do any work. It should NOT be the case that LL are able to charge market rents and expect the taxpayer to pay such enormous amounts of HB in expensive areas. Welfare scroungers should be subject to the market just as those not on welfare are subject to. There are hundreds of thousands of properties available for welfare scroungers; just NOT in expensive areas. There needs to be a massive economic cleansing of welfare scroungers to cheaper areas of the UK. These are the circumstances that normal workers are subject to. I do NOT support HB being increased nor the OBC being lifted to enable the feckless to afford market rents in expensive areas. The OBC is more than adequate if the HB tenants MOVE to areas where the OBC will afford rental properties in those areas. There seems to be an acceptance by some LL that the OBC should be lifted to enable affording of their market rents. That concept I fundamentally object to. For every property that a LL provides for a feckless welfare scrounger means one fewer for a hard workin tenant. LL should NOT be facilitating the housing of feckless welfare scroungers because they can achieve income as the OBC is lifted to enable LL to receive market rents. If markets rents are able to be paid within the OBC then fair enough. Inevitably though this will be in cheaper areas. Having said that I personally still wouldn't take on HB tenants because of the dysfunctional HB system. I would NEVER accept direct payment as long as the 'clawback' policy exists. We also have the ridiculous situation where the HB element of UC is the last payment calculated within the OBC. This gives the impression to thick welfare scroungers that this is all they have to pay. The idea that they may have to use any of their other benefits to pay the agreed contractual rent doesn't even enter their tiny minds. Because of course this is what the intention of the OBC was. To enforce domestic financial rigour on Welfare scroungers. There is an issue as well that LL receiving HB are being subsidised by the taxpayer. We all know this is a ludicrous idea but the vile propaganda spewed out by the vile left continues. To avoid such propaganda LL should endeavour to NOT let to HB tenants. These tenants should be housed by councils. It is NOT the responsibility of the PRS to house those on HB. LL seek PROFIT which is NOT a requirement for the social housing sector.

From: Paul Barrett 01 July 2020 16:27 PM

Paul Barrett
I struggle to source good quality occupants i.e. those who can pass the necessarily stringent RGI requirements for themselves or a guarantor. It therefore remains the case that whilst my occupants are still OK and paying I am very vulnerable to rent defaulting occupants. I'm simply not prepared to continue with such circumstances. It really isn't worth the additional yield. I would feel far happier with reduced yield by way of reduced LTV following property sales. Indeed had the LTV maximums been 50% I would be in a far securer position as I would have fewer mortgaged properties. 75% LTV is simply too high especially when considered in the light of the eviction ban. I would have no issue in all new BTL mortgages being a maximum of 50% LTV. That would enforce prudence on LL. Of course it would result in a vastly reduced private rental stock which would mean many hundreds of thousands of homeless tenants. That would be a very good thing as those rental properties remaining would be able to achieve far higher rents. If anything this CV19 crisis has proven that leverage above 50% is very risky when Govt gives the ability for feckless tenants to stop paying rent and an eviction ban imposed. Even 50% LTV looks risky in this situation. Reducing or eradicating leverage is a key business imperative for such LL if they wish to achieve business resilience to avoid a lender ever repossessing their properties. But I do believe tenants and FTB should be allowed IO loans so that LL could offload rental properties to these aspirant OO. This would immediately achieve 2 Govt objectives. To reduce the capacity of the PRS and to enhance the purchase of residential properties. It is clear that having vast multiples of BTL properties is a very risky business strategy. To have far more resilient portfolios must make business sense. Mind you with reduced rental stock Govt doesn't have any plan as to where all the homeless tenants are supposed to live. But that won't be a LL problem. Those remaining LL would surely be inundated by desperate tenants seeking to source a very scarce rental property.

From: Paul Barrett 30 June 2020 17:48 PM

Paul Barrett
I'm afraid like it or not Govt intends to use LL as social housing until the LL gives up. They know that LL will do almost anything to retain possession of their properties. But I believe a tipping point has already been reached. It will take time for LL to sell up. It will take me 4 tax years to sell up which is my intention. There will be a steady decline in the numbers of rental stock though I believe LL numbers will remain roughly the same. Just many LL will downsize their portfolios to unencumbered properties. This will ensure financial resilience for the next pandemic situation. At least no chance of being repossessed by a lender for mortgage payment defaulting!! If only Govt would allow IO mortgages with no repayment vehicle required and mortgages til age 90 the market would take off. LL could then sell off into what would be a highly liquid market But of course Govt wants mortgages to be paid off so that when care home fees need to be paid the Council can force the sale and rob the equity value Whereas all the feckless waster tenants will have theirs all paid for by the Council. Doing this would potentially facilitate tenants to be able to buy. IO mortgages are key to the ability of OO to buy. Govt shouldn't concern itself with the market 40 years from now. Most in Govt will be dead by then. MMR is very effectively preventing aspirant OO from buying. If LL can have IO mortgages with no repayment vehicle then so should aspirant OO. After all both would tend to repay mortgage debt by selling the property. OO to downsize and LL to liquidate business assets to leave the PRS. Perhaps the MMR should be adjusted to allow IO mortgages but with a 25% required deposit. So basically the same mortgage terms as LL have. Level playing field then!!

From: Paul Barrett 29 June 2020 11:02 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 27 June 2020 01:10 AM

Paul Barrett
Large deposits are all very well but NO sane LL would ever accept more than 2 months rent as a deposit under the old deposit regulations. Obviously there is now a 5 week maximum now. In case LL weren't aware that under old regulations if a LL took more than 2 months rent as a deposit they created a Premium Tenancy. This would allow tenants to change aspects of the tenancy. Which is the only reason I never took more than 2 months rent as a deposit. This is maximum amount of deposit Govt should have mandated. Plus they should have allowed an additional Pet Deposit of say 2 weeks of rent. These would have been the maximum deposits allowed which coincidentally would prevent a tenancy from being converted to a Premium tenancy with the additional Pet Deposit being excluded from being considered as part of the main deposit ensuring no Premium Deposit was created. But dopey Govt didn't do this. So now on principle I do not allow pets. 5 weeks deposit is totally inadequate to cover for rent defaulting and damages. 2 months deposit was inadequate but certainly slightly better than 5 weeks. For tenants with pets Govt by its stupid deposit regulations is now responsible for many pets being put down. Many LL would accept pets but NOT if they are unable to achieve an additional deposit over and above 5 weeks of deposit. Govt by it's actions is preventing tenants from having normal domestic circumstances. Pets are a major part of tenant lives. Now tenants are being discriminated against through no fault of their own by LL who have no alternative than to discriminate if separate pet deposits aren't allowed.

From: Paul Barrett 26 June 2020 15:31 PM

Paul Barrett
Everyone keeps wittering on about how they will in future insist on guarantors. The simple facts are that very few tenants are able or willing to have a guarantor. Even if one is available they are still pretty useless from a cash flow perspective. A LL may eventually recover rent owed. Trouble is that would take years by which time a lender would have repossessed the property in the absence of rent to pay a mortgage. Even with a guarantor that usually works for the initial AST period. Few guarantors are on the hook for as long as the rent defaulting tenant is occupying before being evicted. I have never seen any form of guarantor deed which is legally watertight to keep a guarantor liable for as long as the the tenant is occupying. It would be best to have RGI on a guarantor though very few would even qualify. The facts are that most LL have little alternative than to take a massive business risk and hope they don't need to evict. This rarely works out as the many LL who suffer collectively every year about £9 billion in such losses mostly caused by rent defaulting tenants can testify to! Being a LL is in fact a very risky business due primarily to the increasingly dysfunctional eviction process and this is even BEFORE the AST and S21 are abolished. So if LL consider things are problematic now just wait and see the deep s### you will be in when S21 and the AST goes!!!!! It has now become an impossible situation for leveraged LL compounded by recent events. If Govt at a whim can sanction rent defaulting preventing LL from evicting then it really is game over for the BTL sector. It is based entirely on the ability of a BTL mortgage to be paid for by rental receipts. Few LL are capable of servicing mortgage payments for extended periods without rent. It is simply outrageous that very effectively Govt is presuming that ALL LL will do whatever it takes to service the BTL mortgage payments. I just don't believe that this would be achievable for the vast majority of BTL LL. It is inevitable that there will be mass LL repossessions with many LL being bankrupted Eventually any tenant of a BTL LL faces the possibility of being evicted by a repossessing lender rather than a LL. Either way the tenant still ends up homeless. Plus the LL could end up being homeless as well. Many LL will now consider that the risks are too high and get rid of mortgaged properties to leave a reduced number of unmortgaged rental properties. Yes there would still be the same rent lossess but repossession would be avoided as no lender would be involved. In light of all the eviction problems it makes far more business sense to be an unmortgaged LL. Trouble is if mortgaged LL chose to attempt to achieve unmortgaged status there would be mass homelessness as many rental properties would need to be sold for the LL to achieve unmortgaged status on remaining properties.

From: Paul Barrett 08 June 2020 11:49 AM

Paul Barrett
What an idiot you are. You must be one of those idiot socialists that believes they have the right to spend other people's money. Where do the likes of you get off!!?? It matters not how many properties a LL owns or as is the case with 50% of the PRS are owned by the banks with the LL owning about a 25% share of the property value. If the mortgages aren't paid the LL could be bankrupted and made homeless. That is hardship. What isn't hardship is ANYONE on welfare who are considerably richer than many who bother working FULL-TIME. There are LL reliant on rental income for their own income as they do not qualify for UC due to having assets worth more than £16000 Basically your comments just prove your complete ignorance to the genuine hardship that LL are suffering currently. Owning leveraged property doesn't make you rich. If rents aren't paid then very quickly hardship for the LL occurs. You are typical of the idiots especially Labour MPs that believe all LL have pots of money to subsidise feckless tenants. These tenants should have savings instead of indulging in feckless spending. Now idiots like you expect LL to pay for free accommodation that tenants are now having because they refuse to pay rent rather than offering to vacate. People like you always seem only too willing to support fecklessness rather than shining a light on feckless behaviours which lead to tenants not having the resources to meet their normal monthly domestic costs. Believe me if the eviction process wasn't so dysfunctional tenants would ensure they had savings knowing that if they didn't they could be very quickly booted out. The complete false scaremongering that is being disseminated by idiot Labour MPs that tenants face eviction very shortly is basically lying. If you start the eviction process with a S21 it could easily take a year to eventually evict by County Court bailiff. So eviction June next year!! Hardly an immediate eviction. You must be surely aware that any mortgaged LL unable to pay the monthly mortgage payments because no rent is being paid will find their properties rapidly repossessed by lenders. It is only the facility of mortgage deferments that has has prevented many lenders from repossessing. BTL loans are considered to be Commercial Loans and are UNREGULATED. Therefore BTL lenders have no compunction about repossessing if the LL misses 2 mortgage payments. You clearly know nothing about the financial costs of being a LL and if you did you would realise how stupid your comments are. Govt cannot prevent lenders from repossessing which is what will occur if LL are unable to pay a BTL mortgage. Such a repossession would take about 3 months for a lender and not a year that it would take for the LL. Resulting of course in the tenant being evicted by the lender. You should state the truth and not some propaganda to assuage your weird socialist views. But of course people like you don't want the truth to be told because it would mean admitting LL do face extreme hardship due to rent defaulting tenants no matter how many properties they own. The only risk a tenant faces is having to return to the parental home. They certainly won't face bankruptcy which can occur very quickly for a LL or at least wipe out all his capital. Why do you believe feckless tenants should have the ability to inflict this on their LL!?

From: Paul Barrett 04 June 2020 09:56 AM

Paul Barrett
Surely it should be the case that tenants ensure the LL has the opportunity to operate as an effective business!? So what tenants should do is invite the LL round to discuss matters. Or do it over a video call. So the tenant fully declares all their current circumstances. The tenant may be able to make some of the rent etc. It will be for the LL to make a business decision on whether he wishes to retain a tenant who after all remains liable for expensive things like Council Tax and utility standing charges. If the tenant vacates then IMMEDIATELY the LL is liable. So tenants should offer to vacate IMMEDIATELY but leave it for the LL to decide if they wish to retain the tenant. Quite a few LL will wish to retain tenants as there will be few new tenants currently. I think perhaps tenants should state they will remain but leave IMMEDIATELY the LL has sourced a replacement. That gives the opportunity for the tenant to source another LL if indeed their LL does wish them to leave. In the vast majority of cases tenants will be able to pay something which would probably be far preferable than just vacating leaving the LL liable for all the empty property costs. Lets us say a LL has 5 properties with the tenants all offering to vacate IMMEDIATELY. The LL agrees and now has 5 lots of Council tax Tv licence Utility standing charges Broadband To pay. Not an inconsiderable amount. I doubt there are many tenants currently seeking new LL. So perhaps in the overall scheme of things for many LL it makes business sense to retain tenants even if not receiving the full contractual rent. The point being that invariably the tenant might resume normal work and then arrange with the LL to catch up on rent arrears. I seriously doubt even if the tenants offered to vacate that LL wholesale would accept such an offer. LL are far more pragmatic than that and the idea that LL would engage in mass requests for tenants to vacate is for the birds. Most of the tenants currently rent defaulting wouldn't under normal circumstances be rent defaulting. LL are practical people who would much prefer to discuss with tenants their situation and wouldn't normally respond with a knee jerk reaction to require the tenant to vacate. But it should be for the LL to determine whether they wish to retain a tenant and NOT for a tenant to force the situation by refusing to vacate if required by the LL. EVEN if the tenant isn't paying rent they are acting as a sort of property guardian and if the LL is unable to source new tenants leaving the rent defaulting tenant in place could be the wisest business decision for the LL. Obviously every tenancy will be different and LL would need to take full regard of each tenants particular curcimstances. So quite frankly even if tenants offered to vacate I doubt that many LL would want that to occur. There are many sides in owning a rental property. Being paid rent is just one of them albeit a very significant one!! But I say to tenants do the honourable thing and offer to vacate if the LL after discussion doesn't wish to retain you. My contention would be that many tenants would pleasantly surprised that in the majority of cases their LL wouldn't wish them to vacate. Just give the LL the opportunity to make a business decision.

From: Paul Barrett 04 June 2020 01:01 AM

Paul Barrett
Potentially many more new lettings could have been achieved. As it is there can't be unless all the rent defaulting tenants vacate. Many LL are facing bankruptcy unless they are permitted to at least try to evict quickly so that they have a chance to source tenants who will pay rent. It is simply outrageous that LL are being forced to continue to house rent defaulting tenants. Govt should simply announce that at the end of the eviction ban all rent defaulting tenants must vacate properties if the LL wishes that to occur. Any tenants refusing to vacate to be removed by Police IMMEDIATELY. This will give those rent defaulting tenants the opportunity to source cheaper lodgings so even more new rental activity could occur. The rental market has changed. Tenants need to accept the situation and adjust their domestic circumstances in light of what for many is considerably reduced finances. It cannot be allowed that for many LL they are facing year long eviction processes with tenants refusing to pay rent. Before an eviction occurs many properties will have been repossessed by lenders forcing many LL into bankruptcy. Govt by it's ridiculous eviction ban is making a bad situation even worse and is effectively conspiring to put many LL out of business. LL must be given the opportunity for price discovery which is not possible while rent defaulting tenants are still occupying rental properties. Effectively a large proportion of the rental market has been suspended. This distorts the market in total. Govt simply cannot be permitted to make so many LL bankrupt. If Govt really wants to assist tenants then it should provide loans to tenants to enable all rent arrears and future rent to be paid. Such loans could then be recovered over say 5 years from tax code adjustments. It should not be for LL to subsidise feckless rent defaulting tenants which is what Govt is effectively doing by it's incompetent policies. All LL ask is to be given the chance to operate in a realistic market which can only be achieved if rent defaulting tenants can be removed quickly. To date it seems that this situation will remain for many months. It is simply appalling that Govt by it's incompetent policies will be putting many LL out of business or causing extreme financial distress for those LL able to survive. I'm sure this effective persecution of a minority is against the UN human rights. The Govt should be sued by the UN for what will be a destruction of vast parts of the PRS. When will Govt realise that LL are in the game to make money and NOT to provide FREE accommodation!!!

From: Paul Barrett 03 June 2020 14:05 PM

Paul Barrett
For the vast majority of us little people in our investment timelines property remains a far more effective investment vehicle than anything else. Especially residential lettings property of all types. Granted there are issues as regards being able to get rid of rent defaulting tenants. But there are ways these problems may be solved albeit requiring tenants of far higher quality than LL have traditionally accepted. It just means LL have to be super cautious when it comes to taking on tenants. This is the hardest part of lettings. FHL obviously doesn't have the same risks but it does involve risking void periods which is why many LL prefer normal residential lettings on AST. Rent controls will be the catalyst for the leveraged part of the PRS to disappear. So no more BTL mortgages as it won't be possible with rent controls. As and when the new penal regulations are introduced I'm not sure that BTL will be seen as viable anymore. S8 would need to be massively improved to give lenders the same confidence that S21 has done. I am very surprised at lenders still offering high LTV BTL mortgages. With the increasing difficulties of getting rid of duff tenants I would have thought lenders would have reduced maximum LTV to no more than 50%. Surely lenders are aware of the enormous financial distress that many LL are in following their tenants refusing to pay rent. I would consider that many LL are selling up and consolidating much reduced debt with fewer properties. Many LL are simply remortgaging with existing providers who are desperate to hang onto their market share. So no new mortgage searches will be evidenced. With millions soon to lose their jobs there will be massive turbulence in the property market as many OO are bankrupted and repossessed. The economic realties of this CV19 haven't hit yet. Everything is in suspended animation. When employers have to contribute to furlough ed wages that is when the redundancies start. Employers will be requiring massive changes in contracts and working practices. The situation with BA will be replicated across industry. Employers need to be able to pay less for more flexibility. This makes such employees not very good mortgage or tenant risks. There will in coming months be floods of distressed property sales. Those rich LL will be able to buy with no mortgages required. It is my contention that the BTL sector will massively reduce. Many fomer BTL LL will just become unencumbered ones. There will perhaps be a mass exodus of Londoners to far away from London as they are allowed to WFH. Commuting daily into London for many London workers will be a thing of the past. Such a major change in working practices will cause massive upheavals in the property market. I predict that coastal areas will see a large uplift in values as Londoners evacuate out of diverse London to the far less diverse coastal areas. As long as it is possible to reach London by train within say 2 hours those are the areas that will see value uplift. LL I reckon will be planning to sell and then invest in coastal areas which are currently vastly undervalued. If you want to avoid polluted cities then coastal living has its merits. There will be no return to the BTL industry as it was. It will remain very subdued to the point of eventually disappearing apart from remortgage business. BTL only really works with quality tenants. Vast numbers of tenants have proven how feckless they are. To not even be able to sustain loss of income for a few months just proves how tenuous most tenant finances are. LL need far better tenants than these if they are to financially survive. It does seem that across society as a whole there is very little financial resilience. This has been fully exposed by this CV19 crisis which has revealed how precarious the letting business model is. It is hardly surprising therefore if BTL mortgage searches have declined so much. Lots of LL are considering their positions!

From: Paul Barrett 02 June 2020 11:20 AM

Paul Barrett
There is much hyperbole about the eviction process. Shelater etc NEVER accept that the vast majority of tenants do NIF vacate at the expiry of S21 notice. It would be great if they DID!!! Nope most LL know that as soon as a tenant receives a S21 notice they will STOP paying rent and will wait to be evicted. Rat her than leaving things until the tenant gas vacated it will be possibly worthwhile the LL issuing a Money claim online once thee have been 2 months of rent arrears which is 1 month and 1 day where rent paid in advance monthly. The LL has an impossible situation to attempt civil recovery. But at least while the tenant refuses to vacate following expiry of a S21 the Civil Recovery process will have been commenced. As it takes so long to evict tenants via the County Court and with the increasing prevalence of refusal by DJ to allow LL to escalate to HCEO then LL could easily escalate a CCJ to HCEO. With the rent defaulting tenants refusing to vacate HCEO should be able to locate bank and savings account to apply 3rd party charging orders or to aatrend the property facilitating access for HCEO with keys. Then the HCEO will be able to enforce further etc. All this can be done while the tenants refuse to vacate. It is perfectly possible to add to a CCJ further rent defaults etc. Few tenants would expect to receive a CCJ before being evicted. Of this might incentivise them to satisfy the CCJ as they will have 30 days to achieve this to avoid it being registered with the Registry Trust. I think it is worthwhile pointing out to new and existing tenants that if they default on 2 month's rent then they will have a CCJ registered against them if they fail to pay those rent arrears. So suggest that tenants should have sufficient savings in place in case of sudden income loss. The last thing these tenants would want is to have a CCJ registered against them. It therefore would be sensible for feckless tenants to have financial resilience to be able to meet their monthly domestic financial commitments. It is clear from the many comments in MSM and on this site that many tenants are completely feckless regarding their AST contracts as something that are purely discretionary. No LL can afford to operate a business model where the consumer of the service considers they have every right to consume a service without paying for it!!

From: Paul Barrett 01 June 2020 22:12 PM

Paul Barrett
Multi-faceted I am not partisan especially. Usually am but I try to understand and appreciate other perspectives. I do all with the best of intentions to provide a good accommodation service at market rents. Quite a simple business model you would think! But for many they wish SMALL private LL would all disappear down a hole. A not very practical solution to accommodation shortages! I have no issue with being forced to professionalise. I had to do it as a lirry abd coach driver. Cost me £390 to do 30 hrs of CPD without which I cannot drive for money. Have to do it once every 5 years. I really don't see that as too much of a burden. Of course licencing will never hapoen as there are thousands of fraudulent LL out there who would never pass licencing criteria. Just a smalm example. How many LL are letting to DSS tenants in breach of their mortgage conditions. They ard all fraudster LL. They would not pass a licencing requirement to have the correct mortgage product and conditions for the type of tenant they have. Associated with that little issue is whether as required by lenders the LL has the correct insurance. If the lender bans DSS tenants how can the LL have DSS buildings insurance? That means the building is insured for the wrong type of tenant. Now let us presuppose the LL didn't bother advising the insurer of DSS tenant occupation. In the event of total loss and the insurer finds out the tenants were DSS they will reject the claim. If the lender fi ds out which they surely will they will call in the loan. How would that work for the fraudster LL who has an uninsurable hole in the ground remaining!? Mant LL wilm ve required to advise their lender that their tenants arr now in receipt of HB. Will the lender require the LL to evict as mortgage conditions state no DSS!? If required to evict or the lender calls in the loan how to evict when it could take years!? So many things to trip leveraged LL up.

From: Paul Barrett 30 May 2020 06:56 AM

Paul Barrett
I do believe that LL need to adjust their BTL business model such that in the event a tenant is unable to pay the market rate that LHA will at least cover all costs. This means reducing leverage to that which could be afforded by LHA. It would mean LL having to sell off some properties or to pay off vast chunks of mortgage debt. This maybe unpalatable for many LL but it must make business sense to know that worse case scenario the business is supportable by LHA rates. Sweating residential letting assets to the maximum is all very well until the tenants stop paying the market rent for whatever reason. Having the backstop of LHA to cover a LL business model would be a wise move by LL. I know there would be massive attendant costs for many LL to reduce their leverage. But I see little alternative as bankruptcy awaits LL unable to meet the costs of their letting assets. Doing all this will actually result in far better yields for LL though of course it would mean for many LL including me sacrificing the possibilities of CG across multiple properties. The chances of CG for at least the next 10 years is precisely zero. My properties are worth no more than they were 10 years ago. It could easily be 20 years before property values exceed those in 2008. I'm afraid like it or not LL need to make themselves far more financially resilient. LL should aspire to become unencumbered as soon as they can. As this CV19 situation has shown being a leveraged LL based on market rents rather than LHA rates is too risky. LHA if qualified for is effectively a Govt wage which will always be paid. LL need to base their leverage on LHA rather than market rates I also don't get why these LRU groups believe that paying costs for ILLEGAL ECONOMIC MIGRANTS is the correct thing to do!!!! Simply beggars belief!!

From: Paul Barrett 29 May 2020 20:23 PM

Paul Barrett
The demand by tenants is still there. But if they won't pay their contractual rent they will have to leave. Alternatively LL will just have to accept LHA rates and that is if their tenants qualify for LHA. LL are unable to determine price discovery for their assets if unable to remove rent defaulting tenants quickly. Leveraged LL are the most at risk. Heavily leveraged LL will be bankrupted if LHA is insufficient to service all costs. I predict that the PRS will shrink by at least 40%. These will be leveraged LL. Those unencumbered LL will be in a better situation even if they can only achieve LHA rates. Many tenants would be better off surrendering their tenancies and returning home. There are simply too many rental properties available at rates that LL want. Few LL will be prepared to let at LHA rates. A massive shrinkage in the PRS would be most welcome. The economy will suffer mightily with nowhere to rent as LL sell up. There will be about 5 million unemployed soon. They simply don't all need to rent. They can return to the parental home. Leveraged LL will be under extreme distress. Time for leveraged LL to deleverage and ideally become unencumbered with far fewer properties. The time has come for a massive contraction in the leveraged PRS. Of course it will mean mass homelessness but that won't be the fault of LL. Reducing the BTL sector while increasing the unencumbered sector would be a far better business model than the current very precarious BTL one. Anecdotally I am able to assess the distress being experienced by LL. MX have stated that most of their time has been spent dealing with mortgage holiday applications. This just proves my contention that LL are running very risky BTL business models. To have just 2 months for extreme financial distress to occur just proves the BTL business model is unviable. BTL LL are nowhere near enough financially resilient enough. Things are gonna have to change

From: Paul Barrett 29 May 2020 19:35 PM

Paul Barrett
Some of the comments on here seem to be confident that they will be able to seek recovery from student guarantors. I would suggest that such LL are being extremely naive. Attempting civil recovery from guarantors is no easy situation. Just imagine the situation where both parents have been made redundant and are now receiving UC and Oh! yes any supposed equity in their residential property has been wiped out. How may a LL enforce any guarantor agreement!!!!???? It can take years to enforce guarantor obligations. If the LL is unable or unwilling to service the mortgage payments before guarantors can be forced to then the property will have been repossessed by lenders years before. A student guarantor is NO guarantor of anything. Only if there is a RGI policy in place would there be sufficient liquid cash from the RGI company to prevent repossession. I don't know many parents that would be prepared on a joint and several basis to be guarantors to the student tenants in the household. If student tenants are facilitated the ability to just void their student tenancy because of whatever excuse will be the day the PRS stops letting to students. The whole point of LL letting to students is for enhanced profit. If this is put at risk then student LL won't bother being student LL. As other LL have commented they have bern able to replace their student tenants very easily with professional tenants. Any property used for students is easily made suitable for professional tenants. Many such proverbial student properties are usually in ideal locations for such professional tenants. I predict that many student properties will be converted to professional tenants as HMO. Such professional tenants will provide far more tenancy certainty than student tenants. I believe that many existing student LL will be reviewing their student portfolios with a view to withdrawing from the student market. It must be a nightmare being a Scottish student LL. Students will find availability of suitable property is substantially reduced. This will have been entirely the fault of feckless student tenants. There will be many changes in the PRS.. Student lettings will be just one of the them.

From: Paul Barrett 26 May 2020 21:27 PM

Paul Barrett
Absolute twaddle you talk. Both parties entered into a civilly binding contract. Nobody forced either of them to do so. The LL did so on the basis that the contract would be fulfilked. The tenant did so on the basis that the LL would provide the contracted services. If either party withdraws from the contract without mutual consent then the relevant party would be liable for the costs of the affected party. Force majeure has sod all to do with it. Not the fault of the LL if the tenant wishes to vacate early. They are still liable for the full contract length. It is just TOUGH if it is no longer convenient for a student tenant to use those services the LL has provided. Using your ridiculous logic all tenants could cite this FM situation. They couldn't posdibly expect to find themselves in such a position that they were unable to service their contractual obligations. It is ridiculous views like yours that undermine the whole tenant/LL relationship. To have LL exposed to the whims of people like you are very dangerous for civil contract law. Faced with these new paradigms many LL will stop letting to students. The day contracts en masse are sanctioned to be void is the day such tenancy contracts won't be written. Leveraged LL in particular would be hoghly exposed in future to effectively make it a pointless investment so risky would they be to students being permitted not to pay fir the entirety of the contract. So only unencumbered LL could risk student tenants. Even for them there would be monthly costs to be met without any rent being paid.

From: Paul Barrett 26 May 2020 20:47 PM

Paul Barrett
So then Seb do you mean the sort of comments which you term as vitriol but which most LL consider commonsense! !?? So do you consider LL should subsidise feckless tenant lifestyles! ? Have tenants never heard of saving for a rainy day!!!?? Or is it the case perhaps knowing about the dysfunctional eviction process they know they don't have to bother as they know it can take months to get rid of them!? Can you think of any other service provider that is forced by law to continue to provide a service without payment until legally the consumer can be prevented from having access to that service!? Why do you believe it is acceptable for tenants to live a just in time lifestyle. Wouldn't the responsible thing to do would be to build up savings just incase for whatever reason the tenants loses his usual income. Believe me if tenants knew they could be booted out very quickly for rent defaulting they would very quickly change their attitudes and start saving to prevent being evicted. It is the dysfunctional eviction process which facilitates feckless tenant behaviour. Now none of what I have stated could in any way be considered vitriol unless you consider the unvarnished truth is vitriol. If you did you would be an idiot. I'm sure you don't expect LL to subsidise feckless tenant lifestyles. Where would LL find the resources if you did support such a bonkers concept. I don't know about you but after all my costs I have little if any remaining resources. So I will be assisting my occupants to remain by advising them that providing they continue to pay the full contractual rent they may stay as long as they like. I only review rents annually and that might mean an increase or it might not. But my occupants know what their rent will be for 1 year. I do not have any spare resources to enable my occupants to pay less rent than they currently are. They have asked and I have naturally declined. If you have some free resources you could help me with I will knock off £100 pcm of their rent for the 4 flats I have. I'm sure you could spare £400 for me as it seems you consider LL should have. Must be nice having a magic money tree to enable you to spread your largesse far and wide to assist all those feckless tenants who couldn't be bothered to save. I think you'll find LL have no interest in subsidising the lifestyles of feckless tenants. There will be many homeless tenants shortly. Any new LL will be asking very searching questions of new tenant applicants as to where they have been living. They won't accept they have been with parent's! ! Tenants need to buck their ideas up and understand that LL will not put up with their feckless way of living. Any new occupants I have I will require them to explain how much they intend to save and I will be checking that have kept to those amounts. If they don't out they go after 6 months. I am not going to have my lifestyle controlled by some feckless tenant who couldn't be bothered to save so rent could be afforded in the event of income loss. RGI won't generally be possible as most tenants can't qualify for it. I will require any new tenant to have at least 2 months of savings equal to the monthly rent. The world for tenants is going to substantially change. No longer will LL accept taking on borderline tenants. Tenants will need to be well resourced. None of this just in time living stuff knowing that the dysfunctional eviction process protects them from the real world. The brave new world of renting awaits feckless tenants!!

From: Paul Barrett 21 May 2020 10:03 AM

Paul Barrett
In light of this CV19 thing hasn't the dynamic of the DSS tenant changed!? OK where the private market rent is substantially more than the LHA rate then usually not worth bothering with HB tenants. But where the LHA rate is about the same as local market rates DOESN'T it make a bit more sense to take on the feckless DSS tenant!? They are effectively Govt workers in receipt of a Govt wage. So rent should be paid irrespective of any pandemic or any other situation which cause hundreds of thousands of private tenants not to pay their rent. I suppose a bit of an issue is due to the OBC in the event of direct payment the LL might only receive £0.50pcw. As far as I am aware direct payment can only be for the HB element of UC. Not much use if the tenant doesn't bother working and is subject to the OBC potentially resulting in all other benefits using up the OBC limit leaving very little of the HB element to pass on. What happens if a DSS tenant receives an increase in other benefits reducing even further the amount of HB element!? If direct payment was required the LL could find a far reduced amount of HB element. But even taking into account the potential of the Govt welfare wages being paid it still wouldn't make me take on DSS tenants. Still far too many downsides to DSS tenants. I can't see anything changing with DSS tenants to make LL wanting to take them on. Of course this situation isn't the fault of the DSS tenant it is just the system they and the LL are subject to. It is the dysfunctional UC and eviction system which causes LL to decline tenants. Believe me the full contractual rent was paid directly to LL; with no clawback possibility and tenants could be evicted 14 days after 1st rent default LL would be taking on DSS tenants. As this will bever hapoen even mire LL will refuse to take on DSS tenants. Rather than use the term DSS tenants. Just use the term Subject to status For tenant suitability. The DSS tenants will soon cotton on that STS means no DSS. No way could the likes of Shelter accuse LL of being discriminatory as lots of financial marketing material quotes Subject to Status. LA and LL alike may use this phrase as a very handy replacement for No DSS. But irrespective the ways things are in the PRS can only mean fewer LL wishing to take on tenants who don't have sufficient status as far as the LL is concerned.

From: Paul Barrett 15 May 2020 23:51 PM

Paul Barrett
Ahh! Presumably idiots like Ray DON'T agree that property developers should be able to borrow on the increased value of their properties to build more commercial property. Other businesses borrowing on the increased value of property they own. Seems like ray doesn't like the idea of people borrowing based on increased values. Forgive me but isn't that a principal driver of the housing market in the UK!!!!?? I suggest ray is a silly little socialist and consequently his views are irrelevant. It is capitalism that pays for socialism. Socialism normally stops when they run out of other people's money! It seems ray resents the deployment of capital in the housing market especially the rented sector. How quaint!! Meanwhile back at the coalface LL are getting on with the day job keeping their business going in spite of millions of feckless tenants who won't or can't pay their rent. It seems to have escaped the attention of feckless tenants that perhaps they should have savings to cover sudden income loss. Just a little anecdote from yesterday while I was outside attempting to fix my van. Two tenants a couple of houses away from me discussing things. One eventually stated that if it came to a choice of being able to only afford food or rent the LL would not be getting any rent. That just shows you how feckless tenants are. But I can guarantee that if there was a fast track eviction process for rent defaulting to get rid of rent defaulting tenants his attitude would have been completely different. Feckless tenants know they are protected by a dysfunctional eviction process which gives them licence for their feckless behaviour. It would have been great if he had stated that he had to prioritise paying his rent before food otherwise his LL might boot him out and that he would have to try using a food Bank etc to survive. That little scene I witnessed yesterday encapsulates all I think about tenants. They are largely feckless scum who will knock LL at first opportunity. Such attitudes are another reason for me to get out of the PRS. I refuse to let my rather nice properties to such sanctimonious scum. The most important thing for tenants to realise is that the MOST important Bill to be paid is their rent bill. Without a roof over your head life can be pretty uncomfortable. But the eviction process facilitates these feckless attitudes. As part of my future referencing I will be wanting to see a decent level of savings. No savings no tenancy. I refuse to be used as a free bank loan for feckless tenants to live their feckless lifestyle. I say to tenants start saving so you can always afford your RENT even if you suffer sudden income loss. Adopt a boring lifestyle until you have a sufficient cash buffer of at least 6 months of savings to cover normal monthly outgoings. Trouble is few tenants are interested in saving anything. They live a just in time lifestyle knowing there is little a LL can do to get rid of them quickly. This then inculcates feckless tenant lifestyles. .The law enshrines this fecklessness by protecting tenants from immediate eviction if they stop paying rent. So LL now you know where you are in the pecking order as far as feckless tenants are concerned. Ensure your business models are sufficiently robust to deal cope with the attitude of the average feckless tenant. If you don't you could be bankrupted by your feckless tenants!! Some food for thought.

From: Paul Barrett 13 May 2020 01:38 AM

Paul Barrett
I think it can be safely said that many tenants have become feckless which I consider has been a surprise to many LL. Such LL may well have considered what they thought were good tenants were not in fact providing any sort of financial resilience for themselves. It seems even supposed good tenants lead a feckless just in time lifestyle. Essentially the LL is put at great financial risk by the feckless lifestyle of what was supposedly a good tenant. Such tenants must surely have savings to cover loss of income. It seems NOT. Are those sort of good tenants GOOD tenants!? I suggest not! Feckless tenants are not the usual suspects. It would therefore seem reasonable for any LL to ascertain the status of a tenant to be able to service their domestic financial fixed costs in the event of income loss. A tenant no matter how good a job without savings is a very risky tenant as CV19 has proven. Different if the job is a Govt or Council one. They are paid regardless. So even if lower paid they have wage security and don't need a level of savings that much. It is clear that fecklessness is reckless and not having resources to meet rent commitments in the event of income loss is clearly irresponsible. Few tenants are prepared to adopt a boring lifestyle to enable them to accrue reasonable savings. Not doing so to me shows a level of disrespect towards the LL. Being able as a tenant to advise the LL that the tenant has sufficient resources to pay the rent for at least 6 months in the event of income loss would be very reassuring for a LL. Would LL not want such tenants in future rather than the ones who purport to be good but are easily unemployed. There are very few tenants that are respectful of their LL. If they were they would have ensured financial resilience for themselves. Few tenants do this. Most live a feckless just in time lifestyle. This means that the LL is very vulnerable to such a feckless lifestyle. A rather significant business risk!

From: Paul Barrett 11 May 2020 22:12 PM

Paul Barrett
What chance is there of a rent defaulting tenant moving out before formally evicted!? I'll tell you; precisely ZERO. Tenants know LL don't stand a chance of Civil Recovery which is why very few LL ever bother with CCJ's. So tenants will use this even more dysfunctional eviction process to default on rent. Even if receiving income they won't pay their rent. They will use the very lengthy eviction period which could be easily 2 years to build up a rather nice amount of savings as they won't be paying rent. They will also default on utility bills and if bills are included in rent and in the LL name even more unrecoverable costs. I suppose it might be worthwhile applying for a CCJ after 2 months rent default which is 1 month and 1 day where rent paid in advance. But even then the chances of any tenant paying a CCJ are ZERO. Apparently Courts do not even register a successful CCJ on the Registry Trust unless a special application is made and even then by all accounts the court ignores the request. Easy to see why LL don't bother with CCJ. I'm afraid that many hundreds of thousands of tenants will take the proverbial out of LL and there is very little LL can do. Not legally anyway. Which is why I expect many LL to move to the darkside in order to prevent personal bankruptcy. Who could blame them when you have Govt processes essentially supporting feckless rent defaulting tenants without any care for the LL. Govt just believes that LL should support tenants in their time of need.................with what......shirt buttons!? If LL didn't realise how parlous their circumstances can be made by Govt and feckless tenants they must surely realise now!! For those LL that will at considerable cost to themselves survive bankruptcy will they continue in the same old way!!?? Of course and very unfortunately many LL will be bankrupted by feckless rent defaulting tenants. LL will receive NO sympathy or empathy from Govt or Society in general. Most of Society will believe that such private LL will be receiving their just deserts!! I'm afraid if LL never realised how despised they were they must surely realise now. Govt is NOT assisting them in any way. Mortgage deferment is NO assistance at all. What about LL without mortgages who rely on rental income for their income!!??? They can't even claim UC as most LL have equity of more than £16000 which means they are disqualified from claiming UC. Have yet to see a supermarket accept a brick as a payment method as part of the property equity!! I'm afraid that many LL are in for some extremely distressing times. They aren't even allowed to control their business effectively as the usual course of action is to get rid of rent defaulting or otherwise incapable tenants. LL aren't in control of their personal capital. Govt is dictating how it is used or not as the case maybe! Reality has arrived to the PRS. LL who survive must surely accept the old ways of doing things are no longer worth risking. Surely there will be massive changes in the PRS which I see massively reducing in capacity. This CV19 is a shot across the bows. LL who ignore this will be fools if they are insufficiently resilient when the next lockdown occurs as a response to the next pandemic................and there WILL be one!!

From: Paul Barrett 11 May 2020 17:20 PM

Paul Barrett
Granted what you suggest is valid. Of course WFH is NOT a panacea for many businesses. But from the perspective of business resilience which means essentially the ability to continue to make money any business would be wise to take business resilience measures. For many businesses this means ensuring that WFH at the drop of a hat is possible and to also encourage WFH. Of course there are disadvantages in WFH but it must be surely worthwhile facilitating the ability to do so. I believe that there will be hybrid business solutions where there will be a combination of office and WFH working. I believe these inevitable changed business practices will much reduce the requirement for expensive City centre offices. It makes sense to move from cities to the regions where real estate is far cheaper. I believe many businesses will review how they conduct business in future. Business will not wish to be in a situation where it cannot continue because it's workers are locked down at home. It makes pragmatic business sense to have alternative strategies in place in the event of anther lock down situation. It should also be for LL to consider their business practices. Essentially this means ensuring their business is resilient to mass tenant rent defaulting etc. Inevitably this must means LL selling up and reducing their exposure to rent defaulting tenants. It would be no bad thing if the numbers of mortgaged LL substantially reduced. It is clear an unencumbered LL is far more resilient than an encumbered one. The business model of gearing up and hoping there will be a tenant to service the costs is now a busted business model. There will be another CV19 as long as air travel continues. A disease can reach any part of the world from a Chinese wet market in 24 hrs. Only by enforcing strict quarantine for all visitors will there be the ability for preventing diseases from entering a country. Unfortunately there are few borders that are resilient enough to prevent illegal entry. So the world will remain vulnerable to such pandemic diseases. Business must therefore make itself resilient or not bother being in business. That is my intent to not remain in business. I simply don't have the resilience to sustain multiple rent defaulting tenants. Consequently I have little alternative than to revise my business methodologies. Essentially this means reducing my exposure to rent defaulting tenants. I can only do this by reducing my exposure to mortgages. This must mean for me selling various properties to reduce or eliminate leverage. Only as a very lightly encumbered or unencumbered LL might I stand a chance of surviving the next pandemic crisis. The fact that my actions will result in homeless occupants is of no concern to me. I am not the slightest bit interested in housing people. Making money is my only imperative. If this means I can guarantee only doing so by reducing property numbers and remaining leverage on remaining properties then that is what I will need to do. I simply cannot risk being exposed to bankruptcy because of rent defaulting tenants. My penchant for risk only goes so far. I always knee there was a great risk of rent defaulting. I never really appreciated how exposed I was until this CV19 lock down process occurred. I do NOT intend to remain so similarly exposed. Ultimately if this means I leave the PRS in entirety then so be it. I really don't see the point in risking bankruptcy because of rent defaulting tenants. At least if I had say one unencumbered property I would be resilient to rent defaulting tenants. I'm sure that many other LL will be considering such options for the future. Personal domestic financial security is my main concern. Risking that due to rent defaulting tenants is not something I wish to continue risking anymore. I surely cannot and will not be the only leveraged LL that will have similar concerns. The PTB are doing everything they can to ensure it is the small LL that carries the can for rent defaulting tenants. Personally I am not prepared to carry that can anymore. So will take steps to manage the situation.

From: Paul Barrett 11 May 2020 14:03 PM

Paul Barrett
Those who are able to work remotely will definitely be calling into question living near expensive cities. If not having to commute on a daily basis it makes eminent sense to move out of expensive cities to far better and cheaper properties are far better surroubdings. I would imagine that many remote workers will only need to come into an office setting once per month. . I predict a mass exodus of city workers to the countryside which will give a massive economic boost to rural areas. Of course this means a massive reduction in workers required for the hospitality industry. That means far fewer immigrants are needed so they can return home. I reckon if still possible to reach Central London in say 1.45 hrs that gets you to most coastal areas. There will be massive 'white flight' once it is realised diverse areas can be left for the diverse. The whites can move out to a far better quality of life where diversity is not common. Keep the diverse in the cities. I predict a massive demand for houses in the Country where city dwellers bring their property profits to the countryside. So consider a ring 1.45 hrs from London with effective train connections and that is where to invest. All those who invested loads near CrossRail......................doh!! Not needed now. People can move further away. 1.45 hrs travelling time easily gets you to Margate in the South. Remote workers will transform property demand. I've had carious dealings over the phone. All of the staff have been working from home. I noticed no difference in the service provided. All you need is a dining room table and a laptop. You don't need expensive London offices This CV19 issue will be a blessing in disguise. It will transform where people consider they need to live for work purposes. So far from just daydreaming browsing this is very serious property searching. People will wish to move out of cities before everyone has the same idea and prices shoot up in the well connected to London country properties.

From: Paul Barrett 08 May 2020 10:54 AM

Paul Barrett
Will such a loan be considered by HMRC as income for S24 purposes? One presumes that LL would be allowed to offset the loan against income if such a loan is meant to assist LL!? Potentially taking the loan could push the LL into being a HRT if HMRC DOESN'T allow the loan to be offset against income. That would have all sorts of negative effects. Why should a LL take a loan that under S24 could bankrupt the LL if he has no money to pay tax on fictitious income!? Why should a LL take out a loan to cover for rent that feckless tenants refuse to pay for whatever reason? Why should not tenants obtain the loan to then pay their rent? Nothing then to do with the fact that Govt knows feckless tenants won't repay any such loan. Maybe Govt is aware that feckless tenants cause LL over £9 billion in losses per year mostly caused by feckless tenant rent defaulting. Surely it should be for feckless tenants to ensure they have sufficient financial resilience in the event they suffer income shortages. I think such financial resilience is usually called SAVINGS. Of course there are also income protection policies that tenants could take out. Why does Govt consider it acceptable that LL should take out loans to to pay themselves the rent that the tenants should be paying!? Perhaps the supermarkets should take out loans to pay for the shopping that their customers do but don't pay for!!!!!!????? Yet again the ridiculously STUPID PTB are imposing policies on the PRS that simply beggar belief. Especially on mortgaged sole trader LL. It is simply ridiculous to expect any private LL to retain a rent defaulting tenant. GOVT knows that if it did not impose even more penal eviction processes many LL would have been evicting millions of tenants. It seems Govt believes that LL will do whatever it takes to remain a LL. A situation they will very sadly be disabused of as LL sell up! To imagine that LL will suffer thousands of pounds of losses is for the birds. There will be night visits by men in balaclavas carrying baseball bats evicting feckless rent defaulting tenants!!! Any tenant who believes they could get away with living rent free until being eventually evicted after a year or so will be sadly deluded!!

From: Paul Barrett 07 May 2020 04:53 AM

Paul Barrett
Unfortunately there is still too much rental stock available. Until we reach the happy point where we have at least 10 people chasing every tenancy then we will have too many rental properties. We need scarcity to increase rents to realistic levels. More LL need to sell up to match what will be declining demand. Many tenants will be returning to mummy and daddy. They won't need expensive rental properties. Afraid most tenants are in service sector and that won't be around much longer. Hospitality is NOT essential. People will be saving their money and not using restaurants etc. Many more will find working from home is effective so why bother living near work? Move further out to cheaper areas. So what if once or twice a week you have to travel into work. I.5 hrs on a train can get you a long way from London in a nice cheap property. If I was a London LL I would be desperate to sell up. Demand will be for nice big houses with gardens etc. There are plenty out there. You DON'T need to live within the M25 to make working in London practical. Working from home will be very attractive for employees and employers alike. Big office buildings in London will become virtual white elephants. Time for LL to invest in houses way out of city centres. That is where the demand will be. Southern coastal areas will see a revival as London workers move out to homes there. They won't be commuting every day. So a slightly longer journey once or twice a week is far more bearable. Anywhere on the South and East coast with decent train connections to London will be in much demand. It so happens that those areas are still relatively cheap compared to London. Houses with gardens will be what tenants want. A good 4 bed house can be let out to tenants all day every day and no Mandatory HMO Licensing costs to bother with. Obviously pick areas where no Additional Licensing required. Leave blocks of flats for the big corporates. They can suffer the ridiculously high service charges etc Small LL should gravitate towards houses with gardens. Even better a house with parking on frontage etc. We will see an exodus of workers from city centres to more pleasant surroundings. We might even see employers respond the same way. After all Barclays are emptying Canary Wharf. They could easily set up in Margate! I believe that with what will be more home working people will want more space. If I was looking to invest then 4 bed houses maximum is what I would be looking for at max 15 mins walk to a Stn This CV19 outfall is going to change tenant demand. DON'T be a LL left with expensive flats in London. They won't be wanted. Get out to the sticks where quality of life is far superior. As long as it is possible if required to commute to London then that would be a good location for rental property. Let the dopey Chinese buy up all the dud flats in London. Nobody will want them!

From: Paul Barrett 04 May 2020 10:49 AM

Paul Barrett
I would much prefer homeownership made far easier. As it isn't we LL are unjustifiably attacked by everyone. Though it must be remembered that if it wasn't for LL property prices would be far higher and there would be a much reduced rental supply and also of properties that OO buy. LL through their acumen are responsible for funding most new-build developments and bring to market much supply that no FTB would ever wish to buy. It is LL that sort out the 'awkward squad' properties and rejuvenate them for rental occupation. This clueless idiot managing director needs to learn what the property market is all about. It must have escaped her attention that since 2015 the Tories via their bonkers and penal anti-LL policies have sought the eradication of the small LL. The SDLT surcharge was just one of these bonkers policies. Govt is hardly going to remove a policy which would see an increase in more rental property. Govt is not the slightest bit interested at all in where tenants might live if there were fewer rental properties available. It just hopes its big buddy corporate LL will bring sufficient supply to the market. Consequently the Tories are doing everything they can to give advantage to the corporates by coming up with as many disincentives for the small private LL as they can think of. They want to eradicate the small LL NOT encourage him!! I would say that since 2015 they are doing a pretty good job in that eradication as indeed many LL are selling up or downsizing the numbers of rental properties they have. Surely this stupid director has been aware of what has been going on in the PRS since 2015!!?? 2015 being the start of the bonkers LL eradication policies with S24 being announced. There is simply no way that Govt will do anything to assist small private LL to bring more supply to market. Small LL have got well above their station and need to be put back in their box.. Can't have the hoi poloi making money out of property. That is reserved for their alleged betters!!! I don't believe the PTB realised Pandora's Box was opened with the advent of the BTL mortgage. No longer for the rich property investment was made possible for the man in the street who could be bothered to save up a decent deposit or acquire one. Obviously feckless aspirant FTB never bothered saving for a deposit so they ended up as the tenants of those who did. Personally I would incentivise FTB. So first thing would be to abolish MMR. Allow IO residential mortgages with a term of 70 years from age 18 with NO repayment vehicle required beyond that of selling the property to redeem the mortgage. Also 95% residential borrowing to be allowed. I would abolish SDLT for all buyers of property up to the value of £500000 and would index link it to avoid fiscal drag. However I would also introduce a maximum 50% LTV for all BTL and LTB mortgages but would abolish S24. That would massively constrain how many properties LL could buy. Making these changes would be politically massively appealing. I also believe MIRAS should be introduced. Home ownership is something to be encouraged. It is residential lending criteria which forces many to become tenants. Converting tenants to homeowners is something I would greatly welcome. Such homeownership is a great driver of GDP. If Govt wishes to remain electable it needs to incentivise OO. Changing lender criteria is the first thing to do. If that meant less demand for rental property I would be perfectly content with that. There will still be a need for a PRS. It will just be smaller and far more select as to who it takes on as tenants. This managing director however should read up this site. She might learn about what is going on in a sector that she is supposed to be an 'alleged expert' in!!!!!!!!!

From: Paul Barrett 01 May 2020 10:37 AM

Paul Barrett
What I find bizarre with all this situation is that tenants seem to believe they can adjust their rent payments depending on what they perceive the LL does with the rent. IT IS NONE OF THE BUSINESS OF TENANTS WHAT LL DO WITH RENT PAYMENTS. Some LL may choose to use rent payments to service mortgage debts or other related property debts. Some may choose to spend the rent on wine women and song and then waste the rest. It is nothing to do with the tenant what a LL does with the rent. The rent is a contractually agreed payment amount for services provided. What a service provider does with the payments for the service provided is NONE of the business of those who are using and paying for those services. There appears to be a bizarre presumption that depending on what a tenant believes their rent is being used for gives them the right not to meet their contractual rental obligations whether or not Govt assists LL. Govt is arranging for many to receive income sufficient for many tenants to meet their contractual rental obligations in FULL!!! Why tenants believe they should have the right to stick their big noses into a LL private financial affairs beats me!! If a tenant refuses to pay me rent I will get rid of them. If tenants weren't so feckless then they would have adequate savings to ensure they can maintain their living costs for at least 1 year without any other income being received. Why TENANTS seem to believe that LL should be a FREE overdraft facility when they can't for WHATEVER reason pay their rent etc beats me. Since when was it determined that LL should be responsible for supporting the FECKLESS lifestyles of tenants. I say to tenants ensure that you have sufficient financial reserves such that you are able to meet all the costs of a rental property. All that comes before food and other expenses for self-gratification purposes. That means for most a boring lifestyle. So be it! Tenants should stop being so feckless and understand that if they desire domestic stability then they need to ensure they have sufficient financial resilience such that they do not need to rely on the goodwill of LL to support their feckless lifestyle. Govt is effectively supporting such tenant fecklessness by preventing LL from evicting. Simply outrageous!!

From: Paul Barrett 22 April 2020 18:12 PM

Paul Barrett
Many LL rather than leave the PRS entirely will reduce their leveraged exposure such that any rent default won't bankrupt them. It is the leveraged LL that is facing bankruptcy. Such LL will surely wish to become far more resilient You can be sure there will be further CV19 outbreaks.. There were outbreaks of the Plague for 300 years CV19 is the new Plague. Already the European CV19 has mutated from the Chinese original version. Like it or not the world will have to face a new societal paradigm. LL need to pick tenants who will pay rent in difficult times. Taking on tenants who work in flakey non-essential industries is just asking for trouble. Inevitably LL will de-risk as it makes business sense. There is no returning to the old ways. There will be far fewer rental properties as a result of LL taking steps to become more financially resilient. Few LL will wish to take on flakey tenants. Perhaps the unencumbered LL will take such tenants on. A mortgaged LL simply can't afford the risk. Apart from anything else the stress just ISN'T worth it. I have properties fortunately mostly fully Iet but I am very concerned that this situation could change to my great detriment. The old certainties of rent usually being paid are long gone. This CV19 has exposed the vast underbelly of feckless tenants who with Govt assistance can now easily default on rent knowing it will take years to get rid of them. In practice rent defaulting tenants will be removed by repossessing lenders long before a LL is able to conclude an eviction process. There will consequently be many LL bankruptcies. LL will need to rapidly change their business models if they hope to survive in any form. It would be great if the leveraged PRS reduced from the current 50% to about 25%.. Then we would have the very gratifying sight of mass homelessness. . Only then might Govt realise it's enormous mistakes in the way it has treated the PRS. But it will be too late. The UK Govt will take years to restore the PRS as few LL will return despite Govt attempts to persuade them. This is what has happened in Ireland as they now have a massive homeless problem. I sincerely hope that when I leave the AST PRS that I make my many occupants homeless. It won't be my fault as I don't want to leave but bonkers Govt policies are forcing me to change my business model. Many LL will be making the same determination as me!

From: Paul Barrett 22 April 2020 02:23 AM

Paul Barrett
@seb You make very good points. Very few LL even consider the issues which may or may not arise and certainly they don't factor it into their business model. If they did few would even bother becoming a leveraged LL. It is clear that the only LL that are really vulnerable are leveraged ones. It must make business sense for leveraged LL to assess their viability based on their current levels of leverage. That is where the main business risk is for LL. Yes there are loads of other issues which can mitigate against LL viability but they ALL pale into insignificance compared with inability to service BTL or LTB mortgage payments. There is of course an unique difference to being a leveraged LL or an unencumbered one. It is the leveraged LL that are at most risk. It seems very few leveraged LL have any strategy to deal with lack of rent to service mortgage payments. This just highlights how BTL is a VERY risky business model. I know I never factored in all the things you mention LL should. Given my time again rather than buying 5 properties on BTL mortgages I would now purchase only one property. That property would be unencumbered. In the event rent wasn't paid it really wouldn't be an issue. Yes there would some costs still to be borne by me. But bankruptcy would never be an issue to be faced. Very few leveraged LL could service mortgage payments for a year on even one property if rent isn't paid. As such those LL will need to seriously consider their position. Being a leveraged LL has now been exposed as a highly risky proposition. As such I have belatedly recognised this vulnerability and fully intend to cease being a leveraged LL. This I intend to do as profitably as possible. This might take some time!!! I can make as much net income out of one property with no risk of bankruptcy . Yes I lose out on potential CG across 5 properties which is what I was hoping for. Fat chance of that for the next 5 years at least! My appetite for BTL risk has been well and truly quenched!!! If occupants default on rent for one unencumbered property; no big deal. Very annoying of course. Would just have to put off that holiday to the Maldives! I believe many LL will come to the same conclusions as me.

From: Paul Barrett 16 April 2020 19:44 PM

Paul Barrett
Yes this ridiculous artificial assertion that there is unearned and earned income comes from the stupid left-wing ideology. All income is earned. Even shares if they increase in value has been earned. The risk of buying shares has been a gamble with income As such any appreciation has been earned by that risk. The usual dopey lefties don't understand these basics. Everyone earns their money different ways but it is all earned by the effort they put in.. That might be clicking a mouse or working in the fields. All LL earn their money however they do it. There is no such thing as passive income. What the lefties hate is the idea of passing substantial monies to someone for accommodation. They simply hate the idea of anyone apart from the State receiving such market rents or social rents as only councils etc can afford to charge social rents. Private housing providers are usually subject to market price finance costs along with all the other ridiculous costs that Govt and Councils impose on private LL. The left will never understand entrepreneurship. They just expect to avail themselves always of other people's money. Such an ideology has been proven time and again to be a bankrupt philosophy. Capitalism is of course far from perfect but it beats Socialism hands down every time. Clever Socialists will always tax the capitalists just enough to keep them going so as not to leave the country. A savvy Socialist would not wish to kill the golden goose capitalist. Unfortunately for LL it looks like the Tories are trying to kill the golden goose of LL.. A most bizarre turn.

From: Paul Barrett 15 April 2020 22:34 PM

Paul Barrett
@nwlandlord Very interesting the response of you and your associates. So far from anectdotal evidence we have it from the proverbial horse's mouth of an experienced LL. What I don't understand is why in the absence of sufficient social housing stock or corporate letting property where Govt expects tenants to be housed if LL leave the PRS en-masse. It is almost as though Govt are continually piling on the agony and daring LL to sell up but actually hoping most don't and suffer from the bonkers Govt policies aimed at driving LL out of business. Does Govt have a plan for housing millions if LL call the Govt's bluff and sell up!? This is what happened in Ireland. Unfortunately for the dopey Irish Govt the LL called their bluff and sold up. There is now a homelessness crisis in Ireland with the Irish Govt now desperately trying to entice LL to return to the PRS. The LL unsurprisingly are having none of it and are choosing to retain their capital rather than invest in the long term lettings market. This is the nightmare scenario for the UK Govt. We will have LL slowly selling up unless compelling offers are made for LL properties when LL could exit immediately. It seems that for most LL there will be a slow sell off such that in 4 years time there will be a reduction in the PRS of about 10% especially of leveraged properties. It is clear that highly leveraged LL are extremely vulnerable to abnormal economic shocks as opposed to most unleveraged LL. When I say highly leveraged I mean any LL between 51% and 100% LTV. The 50% of the market that DOESN'T have any leverage is relatively secure though of course those LL relying on rental income for their income are financially vulnerable. But the vast majority of LL without leverage on relevant properties are pretty secure. Yes it will be damn annoying rent not being paid but they won't face bankruptcy that many leveraged LL will. It is the leveraged PRS which faces the real risks compounded by the CV19 crisis. Unfortunately many LL are between a rock and a hard place. Due to borrowing on equity over previous years they literally cannot afford to sell as there would be insufficient sale proceeds to pay CGT bills. So unless such LL can keep on spinning all their proverbial plates then they face bankruptcy once HMRC comes for their CGT. The resources simply won't be there. With the now potential decline in property values this will just exacerbate the already tenuous situation that leveraged LL are in. CV19 will be the straw that breaks the back of many leveraged LL. It would be very useful if Govt funded Councils to buy such LL properties at say 10% BMV for the social housing sector. I believe many LL would use that as an opportunity to get rid of many of their higher leveraged properties. It would also bizarrely for the Tories be a very popular policy amongst the general electorate. It would be a escape strategy for many LL facilitated by Govt. It would also substantially reduce the HB bill once Councils charge social rents on their newly purchased ex-LL properties. Govt could use this CV19 crisis as a way to substantially reduce the leveraged PRS and increase the social housing stock. We shall see though I don't expect Govt to behave so pragmatically. I expect there to be mass LL bankruptcies.

From: Paul Barrett 15 April 2020 17:38 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 15 April 2020 12:21 PM

Paul Barrett
@mark wilson Yep I do consider your sentiment will eventually occur. It will be very popular with the mostly economically illiterate tenant demographic. That is why I am desperate to get out of AST lettings. I wouldn't go anywhere near short-term lettings as I cannot achieve so unless fraudulently. Just one residential property with LODGERS who AREN'T subject to rent controls is all I want. Ireland has a homelessness problem all caused by rent controls and their softer version of S24. LL would do well to substantially deleverage to the point where LHA would be sufficient to cover a mortgage if DSS tenants were the last resort. It makes little business sense to have 10 properties all mortgaged at 75% LTV. Far better to reduce to say 2 properties very lightly mortgaged or even unencumbered to better absorb the inevitable increased taxes along with the nuclear weapon of rent control. After all rent control was introduced as an emergency measure in the First World War!!! It lasted effectively until the AST introduction. Govt could as you intimate ascribe this CV19 issue as a similar emergency to introduce rent control. That would bankrupt many LL. It is beyond living memory how LL managed when rent controls were first introduced. Certainly this CV19 has removed all the previous business certainties of the PRS. Many LL will be seriously reviewing their risk profile. They will find they need to de-risk substantially to reach a level at which they feel comfortable with maintaining. This inevitably means there will be far fewer rental properties NONE of which will be bought by tenants.

From: Paul Barrett 14 April 2020 12:15 PM

Paul Barrett
It is about time that Govt deported people to where there is appropriate housing. Tough if occupants don't like the area. All social housing and TA should be withdrawn from any who refuse to be deported to decent accommodation wherever it may be. We simply cannot have the feckless choosing where they would like to be. They should be sent where suitable accommodation exists. It is IRRELEVANT if it upsets their communities etc. They will have to create new communities to where they are deported. It is a national disgrace that decent accommodation is NOT being fully utilised. It is tough if the homeless don't want to move to these decent properties. They shouldn't even have the choice! Once ALL the empty accommodation has been used up then refurbishment of existing property should occur. There are streets of empty properties in the larger Northern towns. Rather than building rabbit hutches which is what ALL new -build properties are just refurbish existing properties. It is easy to knock through two empty terrace houses to make a 4 bed house. Instead of building stupid flats houses with a back garden of decent size should be built. Bring back the Parker-Morris space standards for such houses. To reduce demand STOP MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION. Build 2 houses on a plot where 3 would be squeezed in. A terrace house with sufficient space to park 2 cars on the frontage is what is required in their millions. It has been a popular property type which has been appropriate for the masses. All my homes have been terrace properties as I could never afford a semi or detached property.

From: Paul Barrett 13 April 2020 19:28 PM

Paul Barrett
Yep all you need to do is make a claim on your RGI. Advise the tenant that if you submit the claim she will eventually be evicted no matter how long it takes. Also advise that if you submit a claim then even if she pays all her rent ardears it will ve too late. Eviction is the only redult that can occur unless of course she surrenders the tenancy which is highly unlikely Advise her that you will not be out of pocket as your RGI will pay any rent not paid by her until evicted. Advise her that the RGI company will come after her for the defaulted rent. She will NEVER again qualify for RGI which will make obtaining a tenancy that much more difficult. It is most likely that the RGI company will apply for a CCJ against her. Advise her that she is also in breach of her AST with having an illegal occupier. If she is on any sort of HB she will be committing fraud if not advising the DWP of an additional occupier. In short you have all the power. I did exactly as I have suggested to you and consequently received a full claim payout of £10000. It took 10 months to evict my rent defaulting tenant. I gave my rent defaulting tenant 85 days before I submitted my claim which was carried out under the S8 process. The RGI claim period was 90 days. During the 85 day period my rent defaulting tenant promised to pay the rent arrears. She never did. I was extremely generous in giving her 85 days to pay. She knew I would make a RGI claim and she would eventually have to go She disappeared well before the bailiffs carried out the eviction. It isn't worth waiting to see if your rent defaulting tenant will pay. She is obviously a p taker. Use your very effective RGI policy to evict her and damage her credit rating for at least 6 years. It is brilliant that you obtained RGI. Very wise and astute of you. Now use it to get rid of her UNLESS she pays the FULL CONTRACTUAL rent. Give her 2 weeks to achieve this or advise you will then submit the RGI claim. However BEFORE you submit the RGI claim contact the RGI company and enquire as to the requirements for a successful claim. You should be able to comply. If you can't then your RGI policy is pretty much useless. You would then need to consider other options though I can't see what you could do apart from obtaining possession yourself probably by using the S21 process. This will obviously take a lot longer now. If your RGI claim is successful it is IRRELEVANT how long it takes for the RGI company to evict. That is their problem!

From: Paul Barrett 09 April 2020 20:12 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 09 April 2020 00:56 AM

Paul Barrett
Kate You have to accept you are a mug. So am I!!! We are both leveraged LL. As such we took massive business risks to become so. Nobody forced us to become leveraged LL. I readily accept that becoming a leveraged LL was a business risk. I have no right to exist no matter how unfair things might be. Capitalism which is what leveraged LL engage in is not a fair system. We risk all predicated on our assessment of business risk Those LL like Andrew are not at the same risk levels as leveraged LL. There is no inherent right for a leveraged LL to exist. Of course it is damned unfair when events and bonkers Govt poliices conspire against us to render our business models unvIable. But that is the business we are in. Pointing out pertinent business facts is NOT rude it is just business so nothing personal. The unecumbered LL is mostly in rude health. They aren't facing bankruptcy as they have few outgoings to consider. I'm afraid this is a wake -up call for leveraged LL. Unfortunately the tenants won't always pay rent for whatever reason. LL must take steps to manage such circumstances or risk business annihilation. You mustn't take things so personally. It is simply business and it certainly ISN'T fair! !! How we leveraged LL survive this business debacle God only knows. But we are on our own. We need to carefully consider our position now and for the future. Essentially do we wish to remain to the extent we are as leveraged LL!? I have determined I DON'T wish to. I decided this long ago before even this CV19 thing popped up its ugly head. I would suggest you need to review your entire business strategy mindful of all the new paradigms and whether in fact you should or wish to remain a leveraged LL to the extent you are. The facts are LL like Andrew will be able to take advantage of mug leveraged LL. When we face business distress the likes of Andrew are there with their cash resources to take advantage of our business distress. Nothing wrong with that. It is simply BUSINESS nothing personal. Capitalism is all about seeing opportunities and taking advantage of them usually to the cost of others. That's life I'm afraid. Pointing out such realities isn't rude. Just Andrew is pointing out realities whether you like that being brought to your attention or not. As leveraged LL we should now perhaps aspire to become unencumbered. Lowering our business risk would seem to me to be a sensible aspiration. Those LL who wish to carry on in the same old way well; that is their lookout!!

From: Paul Barrett 07 April 2020 22:03 PM

Paul Barrett
Generally you have 90 days to submit a claim from 1st rent default. The RGI policies facilitate this as they hope a claim won't be required and everything gets sorted. There are rumours going around that RGI companies are declining claims because of CV19. This is totally wrong. RGI is used for whenever a tenant defaults on rent. The reason is IRRELEVANT. To give you an idea as to the potential losses the RGI industry faces. For a £89 annual premium my RGI policy paid out £10000. It took 10 months to evict a rent defaulting tenant. Multiply that by the numbers of rent defaulting tenants who have RGI on them. Gonna cost the insurance industry £billions. No wonder they are trying to wriggle out of meeting claims!! I would imagine that RGI will effectively become unaffordable as the premiums will be so high commensurate with the new risk profiles exposed by the CV19 crisis. That will leave LL needing to self-insure. That will be easier if LL have less leverage. The new BTL LTV norm will be no more than 60% Perhaps not such a bad thing. It will mean those wishing to risk being a LL will need a lot more 'skin in the game' Many LL won't be able to become so unless they have very large cash deposits. It is inevitable that the PRS will massively shrink or should I say the leveraged PRS! Cash rich LL won't be affected Problem is there are simply insufficient cash rich LL to replace all the leveraged LL who sell up. So where will the homeless tenants live!!!?? You will struggle to find affordable RGI. Best to only take on tenants guaranteed to be paid in any Govt lock down. That is a sort of free RGI if you will. Oh! Yes anyone on welfare will receive their full Govt welfare wage. I predict DSS tenants will be actively welcomed now especially the ones not required to actively seek work! !

From: Paul Barrett 07 April 2020 17:57 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 06 April 2020 14:21 PM

Paul Barrett
Rather than describing comments as rude. Surely realistic is the better descriptor. Of course we are all trying to work our way through resolving our individual difficulties. Being realistic as to how things might be managed must surely be the appropriate response Sometimes there are no solutions. Particularly for me I have never been able to find a way round the ruinous costs of S24. Even before CV19 I was for getting out of the PRS. As LL many of us are in a truly invidious position. It is extremely difficult to see our way out of this CV19 issue. It is not so much CV19 it is more the case that a lot of tenants are simply not paying rent. This is something we LL need to cope with. Many of us can't. Therefore we have to consider our position. This is all Andrew is pointing out. There has been an inherent risk to being a leveraged LL. There is no divine law that tenants will pay rent. It has been confirmation of my take that I am in a risky business. The CV19 issue has confirmed that I am correct. Perhaps this is a shock to many LL; but it shouldn't be! Leveraged LL especially must appreciate that they are in a risky business predicated on tenants paying rent. As has been the experience of many LL they can now see the extreme financial risks they are running. Yes it's unfair..............damned unfair and I resent the situation as much as you do. But this is capitalism where you can lose everything. Nobody forced you nor I to become a LL. We will receive very little if any sympathy or empathy from society. We are in a generally reviled industry where those who desperately need our services resent having to pay us for those services Nothing you or I can do will change that mindset. All we can do is to remain tough and remain in business.

From: Paul Barrett 06 April 2020 13:20 PM

Paul Barrett
Yep I believe many LL will be forced to adopt the strategy of Andrew. It makes pragmatic sense. The days of the highly leveraged LL are over. The only way to realistically survive for the future is to ensure a LL has at least 1 year of mortgage payments per mortgaged property and even that would just about be enough if another CV19 situation occurred again. So to afford such mortgage payments for at least a year on all mortgaged properties LL will need vast reserves. If not possible then LL will need to downsize. Leverage should probably be no more than 50% LTV. Even that is pushing it. Inevitably for those LL that survive the CV19 cull they will need to become more like Andrew. Not so easy to achieve but worth striving to be so. There needs to be a massive contraction in the highly leveraged BTL sector. This will require millions of rental homes to be sold. Few tenants will be able to afford them. So they will be homeless. Personally I believe this is a massive opportunity for Govt to buy back on the open market millions of homes for the social housing market. They could buy 4 million and just add the debt to the National debt. Over 60 years the debt will have been more than repaid by savings in HB costs if social rents are charged. Politically a buy back of homes for the social housing sector would be very popular. The normal left and right politics seems to be in abeyance currently. Effective nationalisation but with market prices being paid for the rental properties would be popular. A trillion here a trillion there matters not currently. Future generations can pay the bill just like we had to for the First and Second World Wars for which final payment was only achieved in the early 2000's. The leveraged LL will become massively smaller. There may well be a similar number of LL but rather than 5 or 10 properties they will be reduced to 1 or 2 lightly leveraged or unencumbered properties. Of course there will be millions of homeless but that won't be the fault of LL. It will be the effective support by Govt for feckless tenants that will cause that. Private leverage has been of massive assistance to the UK economy. When it starts to be repaid as LL sell up Govt will need to find replacement leverage to house all the homeless. I'm afraid as Andrew as intimated the PRS is finding that capitalism is red in tooth and claw. It is a merciless systen which ordinarily works and while it does those who risk all are reviled for being greedy capitalists forgetting that without risk taking there would be few jobs or rental properties. Of course when it all goes t##s up the usual dopey lefties all mock those who are losing their shirts. Clearly leveraged LL will need to consider their position. They will need to take a far more conservative position if they are to survive in future. Leveraged LL simply cannot carry on as before. The risks of being one have now been fully exposed. It could well be that all the efforts of many LL over the past 19 years are wiped out by what will be a massive economic downturn. The UK and for that matter the World largely depends on leverage to survive. A contraction of leverage will lead to a vastly reduced economy. It is tenants who should be really worried about what is going on as many LL don't need to be LL but tenants definitely need LL to remain so. Without the rental properties available millions of tenants will be homeless. Govt will have a major political issue when this occurs. Govt is too thick to realise what is happening. They are too busy appeasing GR in a vain attempt to gain their votes. Until Govt realises it's errors and reverses all the recent bonkers anti-PRS regulation the PRS will continue into terminal decline. It will return to the days of the 70's when the PRS was 7% of the housing market. Of course back then there was a large social housing sector. That sector no longer exists in the size that would be required when the PRS massively downsizes. I'm afraid like it or not for personal financial survival we all need to strive to become lots of Andrew Townshends. Not easy to achieve but something that should be striven for. .

From: Paul Barrett 04 April 2020 23:40 PM

Paul Barrett
@kate sim Yep you are totally correct with your conclusion over what will potentially happen to you. Where did you get the idea you can evict in 6 months!!!!???? Try 1 year would be nearer. Of course it is manifestly UNFAIR. But that is the game of a private LL. Leveraging up puts you at great risk. I'm in the same situation as you though currently have paying occupants. If this changes I will be bankrupted. Like you I cannot service my mortgages without rents. 2 missed payments and MX will repossess. They will sell into a massively distressed market. Those with cash could probably pick up £1.5 million of properties for about £850000. There would be a massive shortfall. I would lose all my capital and would be bankrupted. Fortunately I'm on a pension so that can't be touched. But I am a whisker away from bankruptcy. So far since 1996 no real issue has occurred like CV19. But certainly it has revealed many LL me included are the proverbial emperor wearing no clothes. I have vowed to get some clothes back on by leaving the AST PRS as soon as I can. This will be made even more difficult now. There is no sympathy or empathy for LL. Just got to suck it up and accept that despite the good we do we are still reviled. The last thing society or Govt for that matter will do is come to the rescue of the private LL. Gonna be a real struggle for all LL. Many of us won't survive. We are in for turgid times. The great LL cull is about to begin. Prepare for bankruptcy...............just in case!!

From: Paul Barrett 04 April 2020 22:12 PM

Paul Barrett
@danniela provvedi I think you misunderstand. I fully support LL who choose not to operate as a proper business. I just don't want them trotting out the poor me attitude and accusing LL like me of being greedy when all I do is charge market rents for my properties. I'm afraid my views on certain types of tenants are exactly correct. Many LL will unfortunately find themselves agreeing with me as more feckless tenants default on the rent. Don't they have savings. If not why not!? Spent it all I guess. Why should LL support feckless tenants!! I commend all those LL out there who choose not to operate as proper business people. They are effectively operating as quasi social landlords. I applaud such LL. However they must surely appreciate that this makes them invariably more vulnerable to feckless tenants. Though I suppose quite frankly those LL who have UC tenants are in a pretty good position. Such tenants I consider to be the dregs of society and have proven to be socially irresponsible. Most of them knocking out as many benefit babies as they can to avoid ever having to work for a living again. Such tenants are worthy of the well deserved contempt I have for them. Certainly borne out of personal bitter experience of the 10 years of being a LL with 5 properties. One in Southend and 4 in Bishops Stortford. I have always provided and excellent service and have sought to charge market rents. That to me is being a proper LL. Anything less cannot be described as being a proper LL. Such LL are playing at while obviously they are essentially providing an element of charity. That is fantastic if that is what they wish to do. But it is not being a proper LL. I'm afraid that recent events have confirmed all my informed prejudices. My vast detrimental experience of feckless tenants had led me to conclude I wish to stop being an AST LL. I make good money doing so now. But it is a very fragile existence. I have all Ryanair and consequently they are struggling. Fortunately I have 4 in a 2 bed flat. So they share the costs and it makes my flats affordable for them Though even two of those have vacated breaching their contract. So to me scum tenants! A perfectly reasonable assessment of them as people. Unfortunately in this game it isn't possible to get out quickly for maximum profit. This I must achieve so I am stuck being a LL selling a property every tax year. That is the cross of responsibility I have to bear. If course I appreciate nobody forced me to be a LL. That is my fault that I became one. So I don't really blame feckless tenants for my issues as it is generally in their nature. Knowing what I know now I might not have even bothered being a BTL LL. But we are where we are!! To all those slightly naive LL offering their services at less than market price I take my hat off to you. But it is not how I choose to operate. Unfortunately the current CV19 crisis has just highlighted how many feckless tenants there are and therefore consequently so many LL have been made extremely vulnerable through really no fault of their own. Manifestly unfair and victims of a system which holds private LL in contempt. Makes you wonder why we bother!? Well I won't as soon as has I can get out. My tenants will miss me as I provide an excellent service. However I consider it largely a thankless task and have determined that it no longer has any hold over me. I can earn just as much by being a live-in LL which is what I am striving to be now. So if anyone wants to 4 flats off me for about £1.5 million I have 4 very nice river facing flats on the Central Walk development in B Stortford. 3 on the ground floor and one on the first. All 2 bed 2 bath.. All fully occupied!!

From: Paul Barrett 03 April 2020 16:31 PM

Paul Barrett
Well all this comes as NO surprise to me. Since S24 I have realised my vulnerability as a LL. Viability has gone. There will be another CV19 along again. What will you LL do then!? I suggest a LL will need to engage in a massive retrenchment of their businesses resulting in them having far fewer rental properties and unencumbered if at all possible. Most LL could support a low LTV mortgage on a couple of properties but NOT 5 or 10!! It simply makes no business sense to be so exposed to feckless tenants. They should have their own resilience built up but few of them have bothered. They are now poncing off LL knowing they can't be evicted yet. They will vacate and source another mug LL to take them on so poor is referencing. LL will NEVER recover defaulted rent. I'm afraid LL are going to have to resource their BTL mortgages from personal savings or other income. Perhaps now LL will realise how fundamentally flawed their business models are. It makes eminent sense for LL to reduce the numbers of properties they have and to be as lightly geared as possible. Gearing is all very well when you can be sure it can be serviced by rent. Who can seriously consider that things will return to the previous status quo!? If LL kept to such a situation they would then be similarly exposed to another round of feckless tenant rent defaults when the next excuse comes along. For some bizarre reason nobody has suggested that perhaps tenants should plan for such eventualities as has occurred. There could be similar events which affect their ability to pay rent. Surely these feckless tenants should plan for such circumstances!? Why should it be the expectation that it is the LL who should subsidise the rental costs of these feckless tenants!? I believe it is only the dysfunctional eviction process which is used by feckless tenants as an effectively free insurance policy in the knowledge that if they ever had to use it they could achieve months of free accommodation until eventually evicted. Believe me if eviction could occur the day after 2 months of rent default which for most would be 1 month and 1 day without any Court action being required there would be a rapid change of mindset by feckless tenants. They would invariably build up their personal financial resilience or utilise relevant products to ensure they could pay their rent. Currently feckless tenants know they can have Free accommodation until the LL eventually manages to evict them. Now even that ability for LL to get rid of rent defaulting tenants is currently banned. This is a wake up up call for many LL. They need to accept that their current business model is very fragile. Do they wish to carry on with such a fragile business model!? I know I don't which is why I have been planning to sell up long before this CV19 crisis. It will be sheer hell for tenants. I predict sealed bids for tenancies soon as tenants fight with each other to source a tenancy from the vastly reduced rental stock.

From: Paul Barrett 03 April 2020 15:29 PM

Paul Barrett
@kathy miller. Yes I didn't fully appreciate how the status of mortgaged sole trader LL is regarded. It seems we are neither one thing or the other. Consequently LL fall through the gaps of assistance finance or are penalised because of the way they are regarded. Govt needs to determine the exact status of LL so that they are not penalised in future. I know it wouldn't suit me to be incorporated due the difficulty in extracting income tax efficiently from a company. Once this CV19 crisis is over for those LL left standing I believe to create a level playing field that ALL LL should be given one year to incorporate. Govt would force lenders to facilitate this and would NOT charge LL CGT etc for converting to corporate status. No LL would be allowed to operate without a Company no. That would result in an effective National LL register. Such a corporate strategy would not be popular among many LL especially ME! But a level playing field should be the case for all those involved in lettings of any sort. Such a corporate status should then enable LL to receive appropriate financial assistance when Govt deems it necessary. The likelihood of another CV19 situation must surely occur again. Govt needs to ensure that the vast PRS is protected from feckless tenants not paying rent. The logistics to achieve this are massive and would not be welcomed by many LL. But I believe it would be fair to all overall if ALL LL were forced to become companies. There are of course advantages and disadvantages to having LL all at corporate status not the least it would COMPLETE negate the ridiculous Govt S24 tax policy. But politically that could be probably sold to dopey GR as Govt taking over control of the PRS. Of course none of this will occur and LL will continue falling through the gaps in the Govt financial assistance facing penury in the future and possibly even bankruptcy. I think many LL have just realised how fragile their financial circumstances are in fact are. They will be reflecting on how to cope now and certainly what they need to do for the future to be more financially resilient to better cope with another similar CV19 crisis. The idiot Chinese are still indulging in their ridiculous wet markets. This being the case along with the vast amounts of Chinese tourists the potential for another CV19 crisis is an aircraft flight away. All very concerning!!

From: Paul Barrett 02 April 2020 17:58 PM

Paul Barrett
Yep it is indeed the case. But what I wish to know is at what level a LL is deemed to be greedy. You have twits like Martha stating she is NOT a greedy LL but she refuses to state why the rent she charges is not greedy compared to other LL. Other LL may charge less than her. Does she not then become a greedy LL? I'm afraid such a phrase tends to be used with gay abandon by society in general and now even certain idiot LL are joining the greedy LL mantra. I maintain charging market rents is not greedy. It is just the market. Of course private rents are more than social rents as LL are subject to commercial pressures that Social LL aren't. Market rents must reflect not just the actual costs of the LL but must build into the business model sustainability and net income potential otherwise it is pointless being a private LL. A market rent arises as a consequence also factoring in demand and supply. It seems some idiot LL on here consider that for this to occur means that LL is a greedy LL. A most bizarre concept. I consider such LL as not truly being proper LL. They are just playing at the business. That is all fine and dandy but please let them not besmirch the totally correct and appropriate business attitude of those LL seeking to maximise their business model. Personally I fully respect and commend those LL willing to subsidise their feckless tenants' lifestyles. I feel such very nice LL are being taken advantage of but of course it is their prerogative to allow themselves to be taken advantage of. But please that gives them no right to castigate LL such as myself who choose to maintain sound business practices.

From: Paul Barrett 02 April 2020 11:24 AM

Paul Barrett
@Danniela Proveddi I'm very surprised you disagree with most of what I state. I feel that makes you not a proper LL. I wish to know at what point LL on here consider that a LL becomes greedy. Simple question! The 'greedy landlord' brickbat is a commonly used phrase but nobody is prepared to state at what level a LL is deemed to be greedy. I charge market rents because I am behaving as a proper business. For LL like Martha to moan when she clearly isn't and hasn't behaved like proper LL that is her lookout. To me she is a very nice person but useless at being a proper LL. That is her choice. If she chooses to behave in such a fashion then LL like her are the first to suffer from feckless tenants. Obviously a great shame but that is people. Most people are very nasty when it comes to paying their debts and meeting their financial obligations when times get tough. LL of course are directly in the firing line when tenants suffer financial distress. LL simply need to consider how they wish to operate in such circumstances. But charging market rent cannot be considered as being a greedy LL. I know that based on my assessment of the BTL business model from long experience that it is increasingly unviable. The CV19 crisis has just compounded that reality and is why I intend to leave the AST BTL sector as soon as I profitably can. I will take a few years to achieve but leave I will. I will feel sorry for my tenants but I intend to redeploy my capital to more profitable and resilient accommodation business model. I see me being reduced to one unencumbered property. That would satisfy my aspirations for suitable income and a far easier life. I would wish all you remaining highly leveraged LL the best of luck as you will surely need it!

From: Paul Barrett 02 April 2020 09:35 AM

Paul Barrett
Does make me laugh when behaving as a proper business is deemed as being a greedy LL! It is great if a LL wishes to assist tenants with their own resources. Personally I entered the PRS to make as much profit as I could. At no time did I ever consider that I would subsidise the living costs of my occupants. Of course along with maximising profits I always provided and excellent service to the point that many previous tenants returned to me. Even on here a site for LL we have some idiot LL castigating other LL for wishing to behave in a business like fashion. Most bizarre! LL simply aren't depositories of vast amounts of forbearance. It should be for tenants to have their own financial resilience. I don't expect my local supermarket to let me have food for free. So why is that it seems it should be for LL to subsidise tenant rent costs when financial difficulty occurs? The levels of fecklessness amongst the tenant demographic is simply astounding. To have many LL effectively supporting such fecklessness simply beggars belief. I am certainly not and never will be a LL that supports any sort of tenant fecklessness. If that makes me an objectionable character then so be it. I am simply NOT concerned in the slightest about any brickbats that might be applied to me. I'm a LL here to make money come what may. But for that to occur my business principles require me to provide an excellent service for which I charge a market rent. It seems such a business model is beyond the pale. Well that is just tough. I will not deviate from this particular business model no matter what other people think. .

From: Paul Barrett 02 April 2020 09:07 AM

Paul Barrett
Unfortunately for many LL they will be part of mass repossessions by lenders. Lenders are simply incapable of offering forbearance on BTL mortgages. Their attitude is that LL should have the capability to pay their mortgages irrespective of any circumstances. Lenders will start repossessing if the deferred mortgage payment facility is not paid. I predict many repossessions. This may not mean Tenants being booted out as lenders will become the LL of last resort. This has happened before in the 90's Many LL will be bankrupted through no real fault of their own . The BTL business model has always been extremely precarious as many LL are now finding. Depending on tenants to pay rent is not a sustainable business model if the LL doesn't have sufficient reserves to cover long void periods. Many LL will need to review the risks to their particular BTL business model. I predict a massive contraction in the leveraged LL sector. The levels of average leverage are simply unsustainable. LL need to be at no more than 50% LTV and even then at that level with multiple properties a LL would struggle to have the reserves to cover 6 months of voids. LL will need to gauge the level of financial resilience they need or want. They will need to adjust their portfolios in accordance with such financial resilience. Most LL could achieve this by selling off most of their properties leaving a few lightly geared or even unencumbered properties. There will be another CV19 similar crisis in future years. LL need to prepare for such circumstances In light of the dysfunctional eviction processes LL would do well to remember that first thing tenants do when finances are negatively impacted is to stop paying the rent. There is no sympathy for LL in these circumstances by society at large. LL would do well to realise they are on their own. Adjust business models accordingly!

From: Paul Barrett 02 April 2020 08:35 AM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 27 March 2020 00:45 AM

Paul Barrett
Hmm!! Many LL will be seriously considering their position once this CV19 thing has finished. Does it make any financial sense to be a leveraged LL anymore!? Great when there are rent paying tenants. But under normal conditions 2 missed mortgage payments normally means a lender starts repossession proceedings. Of course we all understand the benefits of being a leveraged LL ;that is why many of us are. But then you have a situation like this come along it must call into question the very viability of the leveraged LL. Perhaps the investment capital should be used for just one property? Maybe even buying outright. Then no real financial stress. This is what I hope to do. The benefits of the leveraged LL are now tenuous to say the least! The globalised world has thrown into sharp relief how free movement is a threat to nation state economies and the world economy as a whole. Does anyone seriously believe that there won't be a similar thing as CV19 crop up again. It is air travel that is responsible for infecting the world with this virulent virus. Can you imagine if Ebola had got out of Africa? I'm afraid many LL will have to review their business models and severely de-risk them. It is pointless being a leveraged LL if all it takes is 3 months of rent default to destroy viability. Not many LL could support 5 property mortgage payments for 3 months in the absence of rent. Yet it seems to be presumed by many feckless tenants that it is LL that should take the financial hit for their fecklessness in not having made provision to pay rent if they lost their job etc. Surely it should be for the tenant to make such provision!? Why should the service provider be expected to subsidise the lifestyle of tenants just because they can't pay the rent. Tenants should offer to vacate to at least give the LL a chance to find rent paying tenants. It is outrageous that the Govt is effectively forcing LL to provide free accommodation. The cheeky buggers have even got the nerve to carry on with their bonkers S24 tax policy. So as well as free accommodation LL are still expected to pay tax on fictitious income with fictitious rental income!!! When will Govt realise that this S24 turnover tax is simply ludicrous made even more so by latest events. I simply cannot see many LL surviving this debacle. This must result in many more homeless tenants along with a much reduced PRS along with a massive reduction in BTL mortgage loans. The business proposition simply doesn't stack anymore. There can be no return to the relative normality of pre-CV19. There has to be a massive contraction of the PRS. That doesn't mean LL will be worse off. They will achieve the same net income from far fewer properties with considerably less leverage. Sort of what the Communist Tory Party has been trying to achieve!

From: Paul Barrett 26 March 2020 15:40 PM

Paul Barrett
Well I'm betting there will be a radical shakeup in the BTL mortgage market. To increase resilience for the future when another similar thing as CV19 could easily occur I believe lenders will reduce LTV to 50% maximum. They could even withdraw IO BTL mortgage products to C&R ones. You couldn't really blame lenders if they behave this way. LL would do well to lock into long term remortgage products as they will be pulled very soon. The requirement for far larger deposits will have a massive effect on the PRS. It should be OK for existing LL as far as increased rents would be concerned due to lack of supply. But with far fewer properties able to be bought for a given amount of capital potentially prices will soften considerably. It has been existing BTL LTV values that have facilitated the growth of the PRS to where it is today. Lenders will be running scared. So as a maximum I can see LTV being reduced to 50%.. This so if repossessions occur the bank should be able to sell even into a distressed market. It will be for the LL to take the total loss of all equity. I wonder if the requirement to have considerably more 'skin in the game' will deter many new LL? It would also restrict existing LL from expanding their business if they have to find additional capital for new mortgage products. The appetite for more BTL risk I believe will be considerably reduced. I consider that lenders will make far more effort to attract homeowners. The golden age of BTL I think has come to an end.

From: Paul Barrett 26 March 2020 09:45 AM

Paul Barrett
@karen letherby Yep you are totally correct I am far from happy being a LL or more ESPECIALLY an AST LL. Didn't mind that much up until 2015 and then dopey Osborne went and ruined everything with S24!! I consider tenants a necessary evil. If I could make the same returns on property without them I would. As such tenants I have are respected if they comply with their AST.. Not all of them do! Getting rid of them is a time consuming and costly exercise. This is why I intend to become a lodger LL. I will make roughly the same returns but with none of the hassle of a tenant. Getting rid of dud lodgers is easy. Plus no silly S24 etc; etc. Having over a £million of leverage is a lot of debt to support at the best of times. It really isn't worth the hassle. I am of course a brilliant LL or so my tenants say! But I've had enough of being attacked by dopey Govt legislation. Being a good LL has got me nowhere due to rent defaulting tenants. Costs are increasing all the time and quite simply the figures make it not worth the hassle anymore. If I had a 30 year investment timeline available I may stay the course. But.I only have a few years of investment timeline remaining. My domestic circumstances facilitate becoming a lodger LL. I could let 4 rooms at about £600 pcm each. I would have the Room for Rent Allowance available of £7500 which is something. I am able to be a guest elsewhere so I will attend my home to collect mail etc and see how my lodgers are doing. There is no law that requires a live-in LL to have a bedroom. A sofabed will suffice! No mandatory HMO licensing required as only 4 occupiers. Have thought about possibly doing AirBnB but would struggle to do this legally so have discounted the idea. So I will be a LL hopefully once I have stopped letting to tenants and got rid of all my properties. Just my new occupants will be lodgers who are far less hassle in a nice big 4 bed house. But I doubt this will ve achievable due to the price of such properties. So I will remain a guest occupant for the foreseeable future. I won't miss being an AST LL at all!! .

From: Paul Barrett 18 March 2020 21:27 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 18 March 2020 16:10 PM

Paul Barrett
These comments are ENTIRELY realistic. Being a LL especially a leveraged one is a very hard-nosed business. That isn't through choice it is just the simple reality of being a leveraged LL. Such LL very much operate a just in time business model. That is the rent is paid and then the mortgage is. Few leveraged LL are able to offer any forbearance. Of course if LL are offered mortgage holidays then most LL will pass on that facility to Tenants. But and it is a big but LL will be extremely concerned about the effects on their credit files should lenders report missed mortgage payments as would normally be the case. Missed payments would severely impact on the credit status of LL; the damage of which would last for years and would severely impact upon the LL future business possibilities. Business is business; it is nothing personal. Leveraged LL have little alternative than to behave in hard nosed business fashion. 50% of the PRS uses leverage and are most unlikely to be in a position to offer forbearance. That is the WHOLE point of the BTL mortgage market. It is based on rental income criteria NOT LL personal non-rental income. If Govt facilitates mortgage holidays for LL then most would pass on that forbearance to tenants. LL that are better able to offer forbearance are those LL that comprise 50% of the PRS that are not leveraged. Though many of these LL rely on the rental income as their sole income. So many of these leverage free LL are NOT in a position to offer forbearance. In light of the current situation perhaps there is a social and business case for restricting any future BTL lending to a maximum of 50% LTV. A 50% mortgage would be a lot easier to service than a 75% LTV one which is currently the industry standard LTV. Of does Govt ban BTL mortgages which will destroy the PRS and probably cause a property crash!? Possibly there could be a case made that from now on no new IO BTL mortgages will be advanced. So for all new BTL mortgages to be no more than 50% LTV and must be on C & R basis. This would substantially de-risk the PRS and require considerably more investment to achieve a BTL property. When tenants could struggle with rent payments if LTV were lower this would reduce the financial stress on LL. Consequently even with shortfalls on rent there would still be sufficient to pay the mortgage. Of course the elephant in the room here for sole trader LL who comprise about 25% of the PRS is that they have such mortgage interest regarded as INCOME!!!!!!!!!??? Courtesy of the most bonkers tax policy ever introduced by a Govt with the possible exception of the Window Tax; namely S24!! Mortgaged LL now need to pay more tax with fictitious income. NOT easy for such LL to offer any form of forbearance in such circumstances! The business model for mortgaged sole trader LL is a very tenuous business. Few such LL have cash assets to subsidise a tenant. Therefore come what may tenants must pay rent and if not they should vacate. Then it will be for LL to source tenants who can and will pay rent. Obviously that won't be easy. But that is the business mortgaged sole trader LL are in. They understand the business risks of being such a LL.

From: Paul Barrett 18 March 2020 08:07 AM

Paul Barrett
How very twee! At what point do you consider you reach a greedy level!? Also who decides what a greedy level may be!? Do you consider market rents as greedy!? Not sure if you understand the business of being a LL ESPECIALLY if it is your sole income. If you choose not to charge market rents that is your problem. I always charge market rents and only two tenants have ever vacated as a consequence. I replaced them with higher rent paying occupants. It is your choice to restrict the income you receive. Don't think that anyone will thank you. To many you are still a snivelling parasite though of course you and I clearly aren't as we provide a much in demand service which nobody else is providing. Your fantastic tenants DON'T pay the bills if the rent they pay leaves you struggling. You should at least increase rents to market rents. Have you not been a victim like many other LL of all the bonkers anti-LL regulations!? Your costs must surely have increased. Perhaps you need to reconsider your business methods in light of everything that is occurring to ensure you are more financially resilient!? It is unreasonable for even fantastic tenants not to be paying the going rate whether considered greedy or not. Look after no 1; that's YOU!!.................NOT your fantastic tenants. I imagine your insurance is RGI in which case will only work if your tenants default on rent. You CANNOT initiate a RGI claim UNLESS the tenants default. Very shrewd of you to have RGI. But once claimed on your tenants will be eventually evicted. Might take many months but you will not be able to retain them if you needed RGI on them in future. They should know that many future LL will reject any tenants who can't qualify for RGI.

From: Paul Barrett 17 March 2020 18:27 PM

Paul Barrett
All the current incumbent Labour Party Mayor is espousing as far as rent controls are concerned is Labour Party policy. It should be no surprise therefore that wherever the Labour Party holds sway they will try their damndest to impose such bonkers Labour Party policies on the local electorate. Amazing therefore that so many Councils turned Labour. They will do whatever it takes to introduce SOCIALISM through the back door. Landlords should hardly be surprised that any Labour Party political entity will attempt by whatever means to put LL out of business. The Labour Party is ideologically opposed to the mere concept of the private LL. Their policies therefore as far as the PRS is concerned is that they would prefer it didn't exist!!! This is why they had their even more ludicrous expropriation policy of forcing LL to sell their properties to tenants at knockdown prices paid for by loss of the LL equity however that was achieved. Make no mistake rent controls are Labour Party policy. Had they attained power it would be a nationally imposed policy. The threat of expropriation and rent controls is just another reason of so many that I am getting out of being an AST LL. If there was just the threat of rent controls that would be bad enough although of course all that would happen as has been intimated that a black market would develop with cash being handed over to LL to achieve a tenancy. This would immediately have a tax hit for Govt as no LL would declare more the controlled rent amount. No tenant could ever prove cash in excess of the controlled rent was being paid to the LL. Of course many LL would need to become self-managing as no LA could legally receive more than the controlled rent amounts. That would bankrupt many LA! There would also be an issue for property values. A BTL lender could only base a mortgage offer on the controlled rent amount even though they would know the true black market rate would be substantially higher. LL who are buying would be required to put down a massively higher deposits as a Lender could only base a mortgage offer on the supposed controlled rent amount. That would cause a massive decline in LL being able to buy. It would also affect those with existing mortgages which are supported by existing rents. If theses are forced to be reduced then technically the LL won't have sufficient rental income to pay the mortgage. This would result in breaching PRA and LTV requirements etc. LL would be bankrupted. There would be a property slump probably leading to a UK wide depression. The Labour Party is a serious existential threat to the UK economy. This threat will revisit the UK at the next GE. I simply cannot risk being an AST LL with the threat of a possible Labour Govt. Forget the days of the fairly benign Blair Labour Govts We now have the fully paid up looneys in charge of the Labour Party. As such they are a continuing threat to any LL. LL need to consider do they wish to gamble with their business that a bonkers Labour Party won't attain power next GE. Personally I'm no gambler which is why I intend over the next 4 years to ensure that my business and its assets are put beyond the reach of an expropriating Labour Party. LL have at least the cushion of a fairly benign Tory Govt for the next few years to get their house in order if the threat of a Labour Party in power comes to pass. London is now a self serving immigrant town who vote Labour. Hopefully the Tory Govt will be able to restrain the London Mayoralty from imposing its bonkers Communist policies on London LL. If I was a London LL I would be selling up and investing outside London. Rent control threats are a threat too far!

From: Paul Barrett 07 March 2020 17:18 PM

Paul Barrett
Deposit changes should be reversed. Indeed Govt should introduce a 2 months of rent as maximum deposit amount. The reason for this as Govt and EVERY LL should know that having more than 2 months rent at the outset of a tenancy produces a Premium Tenancy and NO sane LL would want an AST converted to a Premium Tenancy. I would NEVER take more than 2 month's rent. It seems many don't understand what a Premium Tenancy can do to a LL. Having a maximum 2 month's rent as deposit would give LL the opportunity to take on pets and would prevent them inadvertently creating a Premium Tenancy. A LL could take 6 months rent in advance providing the AST stated rent due in full for one payment every 6 months. Add 2 month's rent as a deposit which might include within it a pet deposit and you have a near perfect solution though I would prefer a max deposit of 2 months rent with a separate pet deposit of no more than £500. If the tenant complies with their AST contractual conditions and their pets do then they should receive all deposit amounts when they vacate. Many LL would accept 5 weeks deposit plus a specific pet deposit. This would prevent many pets from having to be killed because LL are NOT prepared to risk them without suitable pet deposits. This is a great shame because pets can be an anchor to keep a tenant due to the inability to source other LL prepared to take them on. But no way will LL risk this without at least some sort of decent amount as a pet deposit. Perhaps pet insurance should be more viable though any insurance obtained by a tenant cannot be guaranteed to be purchased annually.. In that event what should the LL then do!? All very difficult and it is the poor pets that end up suffering sometime terminally. All this as a result of a bonkers anti-PRS ideology by the Tory Govt. But LL and tenants should realise by now that the warped Govt will continue with ridiculous PRS policies which negatively impact on all participants. Expect nothing to change or rather get worse!!

From: Paul Barrett 05 March 2020 00:43 AM

Paul Barrett
@andrew townshend No of course NOT. This Govt is simply NOT for turning. It needs a scapegoat for its dysfunctional housing policies. Attacking LL will never be that electorally damaging for Govt. So LL will continue to bear the brunt of approbrium as to why there are housing issues in the UK. It would mean a massive loss of face for Govt if they were finally forced to admit that their policies on housing and especially the PRS were bad for the economy as a whole. Personally I do NOT intend to remain a whipping boy for the Govt so I will be giving up on the AST lettings market. It no longer makes any business sense. Ultimately of course when many LL have gone it will be the tenants that will suffer. This is what has happened in Ireland. Rents have increased by 50% and homelessness is now endemic. Social housing could house those that LL used to house but there is no seeming ambition to build the millions of social homes that are desperately needed. All I know is I will be sitting on the sidelines immune from all the anti-LL legislation as I hope to be a lodger LL in my hoped for PPR. My lodger income will NEVER exceed the current RFRA of £7500 whether I have 1 or 3 lodgers. This as including me I will avoid Mandatory HMO Licensing for my PPR which will hopefully have 4 bedrooms. If Additional Licensing ever came to be imposed on PPR then I would only have myself and another lodger..........................................officially anyway!!!! LL can expect a lot more attacks on them from Govt as attempts to eradicate small LL continue.

From: Paul Barrett 24 February 2020 21:09 PM

Paul Barrett
Allegedly HS2 is required for capacity rather than speed of journey. If it takes 30 mins less to reach London just means 30 mins extra in bed for a commuter from Birmingham. Not worth billions in taxpayer funding. Capacity is a different argument and could be considered ample justification for such vast expenditure. But clearly it is bonkers to build on areas prone to flooding. It is only because of excessive immigration and indigenous population growth amongst non-traditional British citizens that is causing exponential demand for housing especially in the SE. The UK needs a vastly smaller population such that building in flood prone areas is stopped. There is no space for building as most areas that remain available are subject to flooding. It is impossible to prevent flooding which is increasing as the climate changes which is NOTHING to do with man. It is just the climate..........it changes as it has done for aeons. Man will just to decide how much to spend on flood measures It is ultimately an economic choice. Rail travel is clearly the most effective way to move people around. The issue with rail is the horrendous cost of it which forces people to use cheaper flying and driving methods. There should be a national infrastructure policy to vastly increase and restore the rail network to pre-Beeching cuts. An affordable subsidised comprehensive rail service is what the UK needs. Consign cars to the driveway. I can't believe they built a housing development on an area they called Fishlake Surely to a developer and planners the clue was in the placename that there might be future issues with the wet stuff!!! LL need their heads examining if they stay invested in flood prone areas. They are not covered by Flood Re unlike residential homeowners. Flood Re is the only way to make it viable to insure residential properties in flood areas..

From: Paul Barrett 21 February 2020 19:33 PM

Paul Barrett
It is really pointless being a LL if ever it is required to repossess a property and it continues to take so long to recover a property. Most repossessions are caused by rent defaulting tenants who refuse to vacate until an eviction is enforced by a bailiff. It is these type of wrongun tenants that cause over £9 billion of losses to LL every year. It is simply not viable for LL to have this risk unless they can afford to pay the costs for every eviction or they have RGI which is rarely achievable. The whole point of being a LL is to receive rent. The current dysfunctional eviction process prevents that occurring. It is scheduled to become even more difficult to get rid of rent defaulting tenants. So what is the point of being a LL in light of these circumstances? The risks of ending up with a rent defaulting tenant are simply too high. No LL can guarantee they WON'T end up with a wrongun tenant but if they do there must be a far more effective process to get rid of them. Otherwise the financial risks for the LL especially a mortgaged one are simply too much to bear. Knowing what I now know about how dysfunctional the eviction process is there is no way if I was starting out again I would do as I did. My total investment strategy would have been entirely managed through the prism of the eviction process. The effect of that would have been investment in only one property in an area where RGI could be obtained on the tenant demographic. Over the years I have only found 5 tenants who could have qualified for RGI. It makes investing as a LL a highly tenuous experience! With the eviction process scheduled to become even more difficult the risks for me are simply too much to bear and so for this and many other reasons I intend to gone as soon as I can. BTL is a highly risky gamble when all the odds are stacked against the LL with the law of the land very effectively encouraging non-payment of rent with very little effective recourse to ever recover the rent for a service that a LL is forced to provide until eviction occurs.

From: Paul Barrett 14 February 2020 10:31 AM

Paul Barrett
2000 LL have already exited the AST sector. Some of them may have diversified into other forms of letting though how they manage to do this with existing BTL mortgage terms and conditions beats me. Some will have sold up completely. As far as I am aware most standard BTL mortgage conditions specify letting on AST of no more than 1 year at a time. Some lenders have relaxed this requirement but I know of no lender that will allow a standard BTL mortgage to be used for AirBnB; SA or FHL. Not sure as to the viability if even possible to convert a BTL mortgage to one; if it even exists that allows this sort of change of use. Fools rushing in are what new entrant LL are. If I was starting out again no way would I do as I did. If I was doing so now I would in invest in one BTL house very lightly leveraged based on 1 AST or individual AST for no more than 4 single occupiers. I would only invest in areas where I was certain of acquiring tenants who could qualify for RGI. If I wasn't able to achieve this then I would simply not invest in AST lettings. I would also avoid investing in any Selective and Additional Licensing areas Perhaps FHL a better investment so as not to be subject to S24. I would not wish to invest as a small corporate LL due to the difficulty and expense of extracting monthly income. I expect the PRS for AST lettings to continue to shrink rapidly. Unfortunately for the bonkers rabid Guardianistas this won't generally mean LL selling up. LL are extremely reluctant to do this as it usually crystalises largish CGT bills. So they tend to adjust business model even if it means breaching BTL mortgage conditions. It seems Govt is coming after wealth and so many LL will be endeavouring to protect their wealth as that is the wealth that Govts go for first as it is easy to tax. A shrinking PRS isn't good for the economy at all when residential property is unaffordable for millions of citizens. Govt seems determined to preside over a shrinking PRS for AST lettings in spite of the exponential demand. Just doesn't seem to be any logic to bizarre Govt behaviour.

From: Paul Barrett 13 February 2020 13:12 PM

Paul Barrett
What GR wants is to convert private LL into quasi social LL charging social rents. Like that was or is ever gonna happen!! They delude themselves like most socialists that they can control what people do with their capital. Without private capital there would be millions of homeless. It has been LL private capital that has very successfully housed millions of people in the absence of sufficient social and private housing provision. The PRS has done all that has been asked of it and now because it has been so successful in doing so it is now being pilloried for that success!! Wish the PTB would make their bloody minds up. Do they want to house the nation with taxpayer funds or do they want private capital to do it!? If they want to take over LL properties I'm sure many LL would be prepared to sell at full market price with a reduced CGT bill The normal one that everyone except LL can pay! The PRS has become a victim of it's own success. Govt incompetence will result in mass homelessness and a PRS the same as the 60 and 70's Can't see tenants liking that The Irish GE has resulted in a tie partially because of the Irish S24 which has now been abandoned but has left a legacy of vastly increased rents and homelessness due to LL exiting. The same will occur on the mainland Govt has to realise that it doesn't need to appeal to the whiney GR metropolitan elite anymore. It doesn't need their votes. But what it does need is affordable housing for tenants. Only the PRS is able to bring supply to market nearly instantly. But will only do so if worthwhile. Currently it isn't!

From: Paul Barrett 09 February 2020 17:33 PM

Paul Barrett

From: Paul Barrett 09 February 2020 13:21 PM

Paul Barrett
Forcing LL out of business will NOT rebalance the property market as LL do not prevent anyone from buying. There are plenty of properties to buy and few of those being forced sold by LL will be purchased by FTB or former or existing tenants. Simply put aspirant homebuyers do not have the resources to buy for a wide variety of reasons Mostly caused by fecklessness and spendthrift habits and refusing to consider buying in affordable areas. It is upsizers and downsizers who are buying the properties LL are being forced to sell due to the recent bonkers legislation. Govt actions is gradually getting rid of leveraged sole trader LL which comprise about 25% of the PRS. Such LL are selling up or converting away from AST lettings so still a total loss as far as AST rental stock is concerned. With abolishment of the AST and S21 more LL of all types will move away from AST lettings. However it is achieved many more LL will stop letting on a normal letting contract. This can only lead to ever increasing rents for those LL prepared to engage in long term lettings. Govt for some very strange reasons is trying to eradicate long term lettings. It is achieving this by all these bonkers new regulations. Any leveraged LL will be taking a massive risk letting to long term tenants especially if RGI on the tenant isn't possible. It is no surprise that LL are exiting long term lettings. The exodus from such lettings will continue. It won't happen instantly but every tax year LL will get rid of one property if choosing to sell up. It is wise to dispose of investment property one per tax year which is why it won't be particularly noticed that rental properties are being sold until about 5 years from now when suddenly it will be noted that for some reason there DOESN'T seem to be as many rental properties around................................funny that! This Govt is simply idiotic and hasn't a clue what it is doing with the housing market. It will need to reach the same situation as occurred in Ireland before the Govt recognises they have royally f####d up! Then severe back-pedalling will be required. But that won't work as few LL will be enticed back. The damage to the PRS will be long-term which is very bad news for tenants who only have fewer rental properties and increased rents to look forward to. The really bizarre thing is that all these attacks on the PRS will not garner any more votes for the Tories. Which is really the reason for all the Govt attacks on the PRS. The political naivety of the Govt is staggering. Tenants under 30 will not vote Tory so why bother chasing the tenant vote when it is pointless doing so?

From: Paul Barrett 03 February 2020 20:50 PM

Paul Barrett
Unfortunately for us LL the Govt has NO intention of making it easy to get rid of wrongun tenants. Most of these default on rent. If LL were able to get rid of rent defaulting tenants quickly then they would NOT suffer the average £9 billion of losses caused to the PRS. Such losses would be borne by Councils and then some in TA costs. As it is Govt facilitates such losses for LL by the dysfunctional eviction process scheduled to become even worse when the AST and S21 is abolished. Currently it is the LL private capital that subsidises free accommodation for rent defaulting tenants until EVENTUALLY evicted. No way would Govt wish to pay for such TA costs in their £billions. Far better to have the proverbial and inevitable GREEDY LL to suffer the losses. There of course being no other type of LL apart from a greedy one!! LL have to accept that NO Govt will ever assist private LL to attain fast repossession of rental properties from rent defaulting tenants. LL need to factor in at least 1 1/2 years to evict rent defaulting tenants when S21 and the AST is abolished. Govt refuses to accept that massive losses are caused to private LL because of dysfunctional regulations. LL need to accept that things will be getting far worse than they are now. As such LL need to seriously consider the viability of taking on any tenant who can't qualify for RGI. Without RGI it is the LL that will suffer the personal losses caused by rent defaulting tenants. It is this dawning realisation that is causing many LL to appreciate that losses caused by ONE rent defaulting tenant could destroy the personal domestic finances of LL. Is the game therefore worth a candle if no RGI is possible!? I think NOT which is why I aspire to become an ex-LL in the next few years!!

From: Paul Barrett 28 January 2020 22:07 PM

Paul Barrett
S21 is only being abolished as it goes with the AST which is being abolished. However Govt could retain a FAULT based variant of S21 for RENT ARREARS ONLY. Rent arrears by their very nature are a FAULT based reason to evict. However even if such a S21 variant was possible it would still be inadequate as it already currently is. Such a changed S21 process would require that a LL need not have to use a County Court to get rid of a rent defaulting tenant. Just a 2 month notice which would be 1 month and 1 day of 2 months rent default where rent paid in advance. The following day the LL should be allowed to remove the tenant and his goods with Police assistance if necessary to prevent a Breach of the Peace. Retaining a revised S21 process for Rent Arrears only would I suggest prevent 95% of all current S21 and S8 cases. It is a fact that Rent Defaulting is the largest cause of homelessness. The problem is LL can't easily get rid of rent defaulting tenants EVEN with the current S21 process. Making it even more awkward to get rid of rent defaulting tenants will just cause even more LL not to let to those tenants especially those in receipt of HB who will be declined by LL. I refuse to let to HB tenants preferring to keep a property empty until I am able to source tenants who don't need HB. Mostly irrelevant anyway as no HB tenants can afford my rents; but even if they could I would still decline them as I can't easily get rid of them if they rent default. It must be obvious to Govt that LL don't readily choose to evict tenants for no fault. It is rent defaulting that causes most evictions. Govt making it even harder to evict rent defaulting tenants will cause many LL to get out of conventional AST lettings. This issue is just one of many which is causing me to get out of AST lettings. The risks of not being able to quickly get rid of rent defaulting tenants is a business risk that I and many other LL are not prepared to take anymore.

From: Paul Barrett 27 January 2020 19:50 PM

Paul Barrett
Govt isn't concerned with the effects of its bonkers anti-private LL policies. It is trying to eradicate them anyway so simply doesn't care about the woes of the LL or for that matter the tenant. Of course such a policy begs the question of where all the tenants currently housed by small LL are supposed to live? But of course Govt is too thick to appreciate this will occur. As rents increase in reaction to the increasing cost burdens being imposed on LL there will be an increasing clamour from the usual suspects for rent controls. Such controls are already being impised in Scotland. Imposition of such controls will simply accelerate the departure of even more LL from the sector. Rent controls would massively effect property capital values Rental cover would be degraded to the point where most LL would be in breach of LTV covenants causing many lenders to require mortgage debts are reduced to the rental cover at the controlled rent levels. Any LL wishing to buy would have to put in massive unsustainable deposits. LL would struggle to achieve current market value in the event they chose to sell if rent controls come in. Better to sell NOW before all the imperatives of rent controls are realised. Rent controls would destroy all the efforts of LL over the past 20 years. Better to get out now while the going is relatively good and there are mug buyers wishing to get into the LL game along with homeowner buyers. The writing is on the wall. The Tories will with political imperatives in mind introduce rent controls. Not just yet. About a year before the next GE. Look upon the next 4 years as an excellent opportunity to escape the PRS with most of your CG.

From: Paul Barrett 22 January 2020 11:17 AM

Paul Barrett
@ dannielaprovvedi Oh dear how wrong you are! It is the idiot SNP Govt that is causing the problems. They are forcing LL to give up letting in Scotland The lunatic PRT and other ridiculous PRS regulation is damaging for tenants. There is no way I would ever countenance being a Scottish LL so ridiculous are the SNP inspired regulations. They are not far behind what the even more ridiculous potential Labour Govt was proposing. Thank God we got Boris. Though even that is a nightmare just less of a nightmare than the SNP and Labour. Stop obsessing about independence You will now do as you are told by the UK Govt. Doesn't matter how many seats the SNP has you will not be getting another indy referendum. For a start you couldn't afford it as Scotland would need to finance its share of the National Debt which is currently about £7.5 trillion. Included in that debt is the bail out costs for the bankrupt RBS. Scotland should forget independence but should continue with more devolution short of actual independence. But the Socialist SNP is trying to destroy the small Scottish LL. Socialism simply doesn't work The only use the SNP are is to prevent a Labour Govt so thanks fir that. It has been Scottish Labour seats that have caused Labour UK Govts. So us English who aren't idiot socialists will ensure Scotland never achieves independence so the UK won't have a Labour Govt again. The idiot SNP are simply making it unviable to be a Scottish LL ably assisted by the the stupid English S24. It is just an unmitigated disaster for any LL. I don't believe the UK and Scottish Govts will be content until every private LL except the big corporates have been eradicated. Scotland is just further ahead in eradicating LL introducing even more bonkers policies.

From: Paul Barrett 21 January 2020 23:45 PM

Paul Barrett
It is simply a fact that most LL need to evict because of rent defaulting. The PTB do their level best to ensure it takes the maximum time to allow a rent defaulting tenant to remain in occupation until the LL EVENTUALLY manages to evict They simply aren't interested in how much money the LL loses before successful eviction occurs. It is a most bizarre system which effectively promotes theft from LL of contractually due rent. I don't know of any other business in the UK that is forced to provide a service without any payment before the user of the rental property may be removed. It is a really weird business model. When the tenants pay then great. It all goes horribly wrong when they stop paying. It is just a shame that LL cannot obtain RGI on every tenant. I don't see why underwriters don't write such RGI business based on a bit like how car insurance works. I'm sure if the 9 million tenants all had RGI on them insurance companies would make fortunes. But I suppose a bit of a fly in the proverbial ointment is that tenants cause LL£9 billion of losses per year to LL. I guess the insurance industry doesn't wish to underwrite such losses especially with the eviction process due to become even more dysfunctional than it already is!!! I just can't see anything changing to enable LL to get rid of rent defaulting tenants. As a consequence of these circumstances LL need to be aware of the extreme financial hazards for them caused by wrongun tenants. It is for these and many other reasons I am getting out of the AST lettings market.

From: Paul Barrett 17 January 2020 22:10 PM

Paul Barrett
Totally correct. The attacks on LL surely border on racism. In the media greedy and LL are always put together. Nobody ever defines what greedy is. Personally I attempt to achieve the maximum rent for my property rental assets. That is the whole point of being in business!! It is hardly my problem if tenants can't afford my rents. Funny there is always someone who does. If I didn't achieve this I would have to reduce my rents. Every year I increase them. Still got tenants I'm afraid there is an anti-semitic trope that is being assigned to LL. How long before LL have to wear a fabric shape on their clothing to indicate they are a societal leper to be castigated by prejudiced society. Such approbrium resulted in pogroms for the Jews. I'm sure there are many in society that would wish the same for LL. It is time LL are not attacked for being responsible for all the ills of society. For these reasons amongst many others I am getting out of the AST PRS. The societal attacks on LL eventually evidence themselves with the bonkers Govt policies that are occurring. I can't wait until we reach a tipping point where it is obvious that the reduction of LL properties is causing real and obvious societal distress. For the general public and even the likes of the despicable Shelter and GR to be campaigning for policies to encourage LL to return to invest in the PRS for the good of all tenants as a whole. But you and I know know none of this will ever occur. It is clear Govt wishes to get rid of ALL small LL leveraged or otherwise. That is the direction of travel and LL must understand that nobody will be helping them. LL need to be realistic that nobody will thank them for the vital service they provide. Providing LL are aware of this and can grow a proverbial thick skin plus have extreme financial resilience in their business model then they should be able to survive. No private LL would walk down their local High St wearing a T-shirt stating on it I am a private LL and proud of it!! .........which tells you everything you needed to know about how society views what it considers are pariahs of society!

From: Paul Barrett 17 January 2020 13:03 PM

Paul Barrett
What you state is largely correct IF you are a cash buyer. If mortgaged it is not viable. This is why mortgaged sole trader LL are selling up. One property sale per tax year is the way to get out of AST lettings. There will be many LL who invest in a residential property and take in lodgers. A Live-in LL can be at his main home once per tax year if he wishes. That makes the property his PPR for the Room For Rent Allowance facility. For many LL with about 4 rental properties they would be better off investing in a residential property where they notionally live. This might mean retaining one of the rental properties and converting to a resi mortgage. S24 makes having multiple mortgaged rental properties pretty pointless. Of course if Boris increases the HRT threshold that would largely negate the effects of S24 for many LL. Personally I can't see him doing this as he needs every penny he can to 'buy' the Northern votes for the next GE. That being the case it makes no business sense to remain a LL subject to S24. Lodger income can a achieve just as much yield if not more than conventional lettings. Obviously not having multiple rental properties means no CG on them apart from the one residential. However I would gamble on CG being minimal over the next 10 years and so it is yield that needs to be concentrated on. Lodgers are looking for properties compared to being tenants . Becoming a lodger LL can be far more profitable than conventional AST lettings. Yes it means having to share a home with what are strangers. But no law makes a homeowner stay in their home. They can be a 'guest' elsewhere. About the only requirement is to maintain residential insurance a homeowner can normally be absent for no longer than 30 days at a time though residential insurers may have conditions that allow a homeowner longer periods away. Providing a resi property isn't in an Article 4; Selective or Additional Licensing area then a live-in LL can have 3 lodgers with NO Mandatory HMO licensing required. Of course if the rooms could comply with HMO regulations then residential properties could have more rooms. However another factor is that some lenders have restrictions as to how many lodgers they will allow. Obviously if no mortgage then the homeowner can have as many lodgers as they want subject to any prevailing council requirements which seem to vary across the UK. But there is no doubt about it becoming a lodger LL is now a far more attractive business proposition to running four AST properties. A return of the Rigsbies! Cash rich LL can continue to invest in AST properties as losses caused by rent defaulting tenant is just annoying rather than devastating for a mortgaged LL. I predict the numbers of sole trader LL apart from unencumbered ones will substantially reduce. Rich LL may take up some some of the slack but overall I predict 25% of the PRS disappearing As you intimate that will be good news for those LL able to hang on in there. It will of course be utter misery for tenants but Govt doesn't care about them. All Govt wants is fewer small LL. It is simply not interested in the woes of tenants if this situation ever occurs. But yes for rich LL I can see things will be very positive in the future. You are welcome to it. I'm one of the S24 LL selling up to become hopefully a lodger LL. Of course lodger LL will cause a severe dent in HMO demand. But as yet there are insufficient live-in LL to meet the demand that currently goes to HMO. I believe this will change in the next few years. LL watch out the lodger LL will be coming to your local rental market very soon!

From: Paul Barrett 08 January 2020 14:33 PM

Paul Barrett
Currently I see no lack of supply. ALL the local LA to me have pictures in their shopfront windows of available properties. Until there are no pictures then we will have sufficient supply. I believe from my own anecdotal information that these properties are available because LL are becoming far more choosey as to what tenants they take on...............and who can blame them!? I know few LL are prepared to let to anyone in receipt of HB. Endeavouring to source tenants who can qualify for RGI might be another reason properties are vacant. Holding out for a good RGI tenant is worth the risk of voids. Without RGI a LL is pretty much defenceless with the current dysfunctional eviction process which is scheduled to become even longer. So from my perspective there is still too much supply to have any real upward pressure on rents. Until we get to the stage of tenants having to submit sealed bids for rental properties then there will remain sufficient supply. Ideally LL want 20 prospective tenants viewing all with their own Tenant Referencing Passport all capable of RGI. This isn't the case currently. It will be ages before this situation ever occurs. Tenant demand seems to be the same. The problem for many aspirant tenants is they can't afford where they want to be. Very few of them are prepared to adjust their desires to what they can afford. Of course that is when you get the clarion calls for Rent Controls which everyone knows would simply make a bad situation even worse. Reducing demand is the only way to reduce rent costs. Building property can never cope with ever increasing demand. Border control is the key to this. But no Govt is prepared to restrict migration even of illegal immigrants. Apparently the new woke descriptor for these is undocumented migrants FFS!! Even with a massive social housing building strategy and enhancing planning permission for more private home development it will be decades to achieve the homes required and that is only if the borders are closed today!!! In the meantime there is a PRS that has proven able to house those that wanted housing. Unfortunately Govt seems hell-bent on eradication of the small LL who has been the major component of the PRS housing all these tenants in the absence of sufficient social and private housing. Govt has a really weird distorted ideology seeking the destruction of those who are doing and have done the most to supply the rental housing that has been in so much demand.

From: Paul Barrett 06 January 2020 13:55 PM

Paul Barrett
Govt simply doesn't care as it believes LL will stay in the game come what may. It would like to get rid of EVERY leveraged LL and will continue working towards this end. It also wants to reduce the numbers of unencumbered LL. LL might be practically needed but politically Govt doesn't want small LL to exist. I didn't appreciate this but apparently the Housing Act 1988 which introduced the AST was intended to encourage corporate investment in residential rental property. Unfortunately for Govt at the time returns on commercial property was far superior and so the hoped for investment that Govt desired failed to materialise. Instead small LL started investing in residential property for rent. As far as Govt is concerned it needs to redress the situation that has occurred which is why it is trying to eradicate the small LL. The fact that small LL have housed millions of tenants who would otherwise have been homeless means nothing to Govt. They are NOT interested in the well-being or efficacy of the small LL. They want us gone irrespective of the effects on people. So don't expect any thanks or help for being a small LL. Just know that Govt wants you gone as a business. If you are prepared to suffer everything the Govt might throw at you then you might survive but DON'T expect any assistance from Govt to achieve this. The PRS along with the Drug Trade are two businesses that Govt wishes to put out of business. They are successfully getting rid of lots of small LL like me who are giving up. The Drug Trade continues to greatly prosper. Make of that what you will!!! It seems perfectly acceptable for Cabinet Ministers to fess up to illegal drug taking. Few if any would admit to being a LL!!

From: Paul Barrett 02 January 2020 14:22 PM

Paul Barrett
The way to prepare for S21 abolishment is prepare to sell up. If there is no fast track S8 process then it is game over for leveraged LL. Few will be able to afford the inevitable longer eviction process. The final insult for leveraged LL who are mortgaged sole traders will be they will have to pay TAX on fictitious income as no tenant facing eviction ever pays their rent. So as well as still having to pay the mortgage without rental income they will have to pay tax on the mortgage interest courtesy of the ridiculous S24 of the Finance Act. Then of course there are all the eviction costs. I simply cannot see there being an equally as effective revised S8 eviction process as S21 as that would somewhat defeat the whole point of abolishing S21!!! With no further significant investment in County Courts I simply cannot see how even an enhanced S8 process would be more speedy than the current S21 process. The main issue for LL is getting rid of rent defaulting tenants. That is why most LL used S21. I would suggest that if a reason was asked voluntarily from the LL as to why S21 had been issued it would have been Rent Default Of course S21 was also used as a standard way to terminate a tenancy on the basis that if the tenant failed to vacate at least the LL could submit a PO application the next working day. Most S21 notices were far from NO FAULT EVICTIONS. I'm afraid the two fundamental underpinnings of the PRS since 1996 have been the ability to obtain mortgages based on rental income and to be able to offset mortgage interest against rental income and the S21 facility. Both of these will have effectively been removed shortly. Leaving behind a dysfunctional S8 process and a 20% tax credit. The business proposition for AST lettings no longer stacks up. I should perhaps qualify this by referring to mortgaged sole trader LL. Also mortgaged corporate LL will be affected by S21 abolishment. Time to leave Dodge!

From: Paul Barrett 31 December 2019 09:45 AM

Paul Barrett
There are still too many rental properties available. Until there are blank space in LA windows rents won't appreciably increase.......................................unfortunately. There is still too much supply. Hopefully this will reduce with all the anti-LL attacks by this stupid Tory Govt. I will be one of the LL leaving the AST sector forced out by bonkers Tory policies. So that will be 5 properties lost to future tenants as none of my properties will be bought by LL or existing or former tenants or FTB. What is happening is that the rental stock that is available the LL of those properties are becoming a lot pickier over who they take on as tenants. Previously you just needed a pulse and most LL would take you on. What with the totally expected and predicted UC debacle along with the other bonkers PRS regulations LL are naturally very careful over who they take on to the point they would rather a property empty than take on anything other than a quality tenant. I know for a fact that there are at least 30 aspirant tenants with even more arriving in January; all Ryanair cabin crew who cannot find a LL prepared to take them on. I have taken on some of them but have run out of available properties to let to them. There are plenty of properties available but for some reason LL don't wish to let to cabincrew! So these cabincrew are paying £112 per week for hotel accommodation. Surely a missed opportunity for LL. I have found 99% of the time that Cabincrew are OK. So it is the case that good tenants are being refused by LL who are suffering void properties. Don't understand why. So it is all very well having available stock but if it isn't used then that puts further upward pressure on rents. It would seem the old simplistic ways of letting have now gone and that there are far more nuances to LL behaviour than used to be the case. They can hardly be blamed for such changed behaviours based on the bonkers regulations that have been introduced since 2015. These silly regulations are only going to get worse and so more LL will withdraw from the AST market or continue to be far more selective as to whom they take on as tenants. It will not be very pleasant for LL but will be far worse for tenants who only have dwindling rental supply and increasing rents to look forward to!!!

From: Paul Barrett 30 December 2019 10:31 AM

Paul Barrett
Got nothing at all to do with being savvy. LL are under attack by a stupid Govt. The Irish Govt did the same thing and it took them about 3 years to realise the policy mistakes they had made. But all this was at the cost of great Irish homelessness and rents increasing by over 50%. Well now the UK Govt is trying the same stupid ideas but much worse. S24 being the most ridiculous of them which the Irish Govt only enforced for new BTL properties. Only the most stupidest Govt would have introduced S24 for BTL properties purchased 15 years previously. But that was Osborne for you............................a very stupid man! LL can be as savvy as they like but stupid Govt policies undermine any savviness. Along with the still pathetic dysfunctional eviction process as it is now being a LL is a very risky business where there are mortgages to pay. The least risky way to be a LL is to be unencumbered. 50% of the PRS needs a mortgage to provide rental accommodation. That is the very risky part of the PRS. Then you have the poorly thought out UC process which has resulted in LL refusing to take HBTenants on and get rid of existing ones. I'm afraid the PRS will continue to come under attack by an increasingly stupid Tory Govt though less stupid than a Labour one would have been and consequently savvy LL will continue to leave the PRS or rather letting on AST. Tenants are suffering because of these stupid Govt policies. Govt shows no signs of understanding anything about the PRS. This is evidenced by their intention to abolish S21 failing to understand that it was a major reason for lenders to lend and LL to invest. Govt simply fails to understand or even comprehend the business imperatives of being a LL. It consequently makes ridiculous policies which ultimately cause massive detriment to tenants as LL continue to divest. This looks like continuing the same if not worse for the PRS. Savvy mortgaged LL will be getting out out of AST lettings market. They don't have much choice the way this Govt is behaving.

From: Paul Barrett 25 December 2019 05:14 AM

Paul Barrett
AHH!! that old chestnut of rent control. Why can't they control the prices of Rolls-Royces then I might be able to afford one. Simply not fair that some people can afford them and I can't. A bit like rental property in certain areas!! In my ideal world which the Labour Party inhabits I would be able to have lots of free or very cheap stuff. Of course I would expect people with money.....................you know those rich b######s like LL to subsidise my lifestyle. After all why should they have money when I don't have enough to meet my aspirations!? Rents should be cheap enough so that I can live in Mayfair. It is an affront to common decency that I can't afford to rent or buy in places like Mayfair. In fact I can't afford anywhere on the Monopoly board.............so unfair! Surely those evil capitalist LL should subsidise my renting lifestyle in expensive areas!? What gives them the right to make PROFIT out of my domestic circumstances. Unfortunately those who wish for rent control essentially wish to steal from the service provider's pockets. I seriously doubt that if a service provider is essentially being robbed every month that they will bother continuing to provide that service. Just imagine Harrods being forced to sell their goods at Woolworths prices!!!! They would go out of business pretty soon. For some bizarre reason the idiot socialists believe that other people's money should be used to provide subsidised private rental accommodation..............that is subsidised by the provider!!! A most bizarre business concept. Don't these idiots realise that most LL are in the game to make as much PROFIT as they can!? Without the possibility of PROFIT it is pretty pointless being a LL. It is surely inevitable that with rent prices being controlled there would be reduced or zero profits. As that Swedish economist once stated that rent controls are the surest way to destroy a city beyond that of bombing it!!! The mere threat of rent control will see LL selling up in their swathes. It seems that PRS has a bit of a breathing space now that it has swerved the Corbyn bullet. But with the repeal of the FTPA the risk of a bonkers Labour Govt raise its ugly head. This could be at anytime of the PM's choosing. A far too risky proposition on which to base a long term lettings business. The expropriation and rent control rabbits are now out of the hat. As such they remain an existential threat to the PRS. Inevitably at some point there will be a Labour Govt. It is highly unlikely that the Labour Party will have given up on its bonkers Marxist ideology and as such remains a threat to LL profitability whether in power or not. The only way to control rents is to allow the market to set them. To achieve reduced or stable rents there needs to be a lit more property building and massively reduced demand. Govt's AREN'T prepared to control the UK borders and as a consequence migrants illegal and otherwise continue to flood into the UK. This is simply unsustainable. Controlling rents would mean even fewer LL offering far fewer rental properties as there is certainly no capability for most who rent to be able to buy. Even if social housing was expanded very few of those in the PRS would qualify for it. 1 in 5 of those on Council waiting lists ISN'T a British National!! Since when have foreigners taken precedence with social housing over British citizens. Are UK taxpayers supposed to house the world!? Rent controls would utterly decimate the PRS as if the current policies are not doing a pretty good job of achieving that already!! I intend to still let but not to AST tenants. Lodgers will be my income earners where Govt can't interfere in the rents I will set though they would still be controlled by the market which is fair enough. Not many Live-in LL will take on lodger families. I will only be taking on singles. No more than 3 to avoid Mandatory HMO Licensing. I will make more net income from 3 lodgers than I currently do from my existing properties. So for me lodgers are the way to avoid the horrors of the PRS. Of course it is always a possibility that Govt might try to control lodger rents but I don't believe that would be so easy to achieve. The threat of rent control is no longer an esoteric threat. It could have happened very quickly had Labour won the GE. Such a threat is more than sufficient to undermine the business viability of many in the PRS. As such many LL will be considering their position in light of the rent control threat plus the expropriation one. Dodgy times ahead for the PRS!

From: Paul Barrett 20 December 2019 21:45 PM

Paul Barrett
Yep and that is precisely the point isn't it! The horses are proverbially s######g themselves! How can any LL build a successful business when there is a risk of every 5 years of a Marxist Labour Govt willing to expropriate property asset value from LL!? A major bullet was swerved this time. We can thank the BrExit effect for this. But in 5 years time that is highly unlikely to be a factor in a GE. The electorate will return to traditional tribal voting patterns. There is also the very real risk with the abolition of the FTPA that a PM can call a GE anytime they like. That just makes LL business sentiment even more uncertain. I'm surprised that BTL lenders were not concerned by the possibility of this mass expropriation possibility. The ramifications for the lending industry would be enormous. Basically they'd go bust as LL lost their equity and fell into negative equity as every LL bailed. Such expropriation would ultimately cause a UK wide depression. It is property rights that supports the general economy. Without them you have an Emperor without any clothes on!!! As an aside I am concerned you don't seem familiar with what are very common acronyms in the LL industry. Perhaps you aren't as engaged with things as you should be. Well never too late to start and by being so engaged you will pick up and under stand what is being stated. So just a little help FTB ......First Time Buyer PRS......Private Rented Sector FTPA.....Fixed Term Parliament Act PM.......Prime Minister GE....General Election LL....... Landlord BTL.......Buy To Let

From: Paul Barrett 19 December 2019 12:52 PM

Paul Barrett
I understand the potential efficacy of utilising an existing tenant. The problem though as you well intimate is that the following LL is inheriting the previous LL due diligence as far as the previous tenant is concerned. There AREN'T many LL that would trust the DD of a previous LL. However I suppose there is nothing to prevent a new LL carrying out DD on that tenant. But of course with the TFA that now becomes problematic. Most LL would prefer to market a new rental property to the whole of the market to achieve maximum rents. There would be nothing to prevent a recently removed tenant from applying again and who may well be successful. But invariably the rent would be higher than an existing tenant would wish to pay. It is normally the case that LL attempt to sell with a sitting tenant as they know if they give NTQ to an incumbent tenant they could face a lengthy and costly eviction process with certainly massive rent arrears. LL are being very naive if they believe they can achieve the same market price with an incumbent tenant compared to a vacant property. Such LL have to accept that they will be screwed down on market price if they have a sitting tenant. Based on my experience of evictions I would suggest that at least £10000 off the market value of a property would occur. If the property can't achieve EPC C status then even more off the market price would be needed equal to the costs of improving to EPC C status. But the fact remains is that a sitting tenant can be more trouble than the supposed ostensible value of retaining an existing tenant. A void is a price worth paying for sourcing a new tenant.

From: Paul Barrett 17 December 2019 20:57 PM

Paul Barrett
There is no doubt that education is a Wonderful thing and that both the existing LL and tenants would greatly benefit from it. BUT the vast majority of the PRS is satisfied with the PRS offer. There is of course a very small minority of LL and tenants that behave in criminal fashion. Councils should be rigorously enforcing existing regulations which are more than sufficient to get rid of criminal LL. Lack of enforcement is a national disgrace. Councils have stupidly responded by introducing even more ridiculous regulations which again will fail to be enforced. Nobody is suggesting for one moment that Councils do not face very difficult problems in trying to enforce existing regulations. But difficulty is no excuse to then come up with even more useless regulations that WON'T be enforced. Enforcement costs a lot of money and clearly the funds for Council enforcement HAVEN'T been there. Ring - fenced funding for Councils is required to endeavour that the PRS complies with regulations. Give Councils the opportunity to carry out relevant enforcement and the minor issues there are will be addressed. Unfortunately the PRS is a political football and too many wish to use it for perceived political advantage. The likes of GR and Shelter should be sidelined as they have caused much damage to the PRS. Most tenants receive an acceptable service and clearly nothing more needs to be done as far as that goes. It is reckoned that about 2% of the PRS provides a less than adequate service bordering on the criminal. This situation obviously needs to be addressed BUT not at the cost of the 98% of the PRS. Both the the LL and tenant should be treated fairly. This does not happen all of the time though mostly it does.

From: Paul Barrett 17 December 2019 17:57 PM

Paul Barrett
Most of these repossessions will have been caused by rent defaulting tenants and then the ridiculous time it takes to evict. Very few LL appreciate the gamble they take when taking on tenants without RGI. Unfortunately it only takes one rent defaulting tenant to bankrupt a LL. Not many LL have the resources to cover the mortgage payments with no rent coming in. I myself am in a parlous position as I haven't been paid HB for over 1 year now plus I have 3 vacant properties. Only my savings are preventing bankruptcy. Lodgers recently ran off having defaulted on a portion of 5 months rent. I will have new occupants soon but RGI ISN'T possible. If IR were higher then I would be bankrupted. This game is far too risky for me which is why I am getting out as soon as I can. Currently I am paying 3 lots of Council Tax bills and 3 mortgages with no rent coming in. LL need to be sufficiently financially robust to stay in the game. There of course is the added humiliation that even without any rent coming in S24 taxes are still due!!! It is no wonder LL are selling up and why many are having their properties repossessed. Quite frankly the risks of being a LL no longer stack up compared to the potential losses that can easily be incurred. I know I've had enough and advise my occupants that I will be selling up over the next 3 years. Doesn't deter them as they know they won't be staying that long! I'm afraid that a tipping point has been reached and it means it is no longer worth the risk of being a LL. This is even before S21 abolition and the threat of a Labour Govt now or in 5 years time. Repossessions are set to substantially increase as long as the useless eviction process remains as dysfunctional as it is.

From: Paul Barrett 25 November 2019 12:34 PM

Paul Barrett
It should be understood that while it can take an inordinate amount of time to achieve eviction the S8 process does NOT require there to be 8 calendar weeks of rent arrears before a S8 may be served. This would only apply if the Tenancy Agreement stated rent paid in monthly arrears. As most TA are for monthly advance rent then only 2 missed rent payments are required to allow a S8 to be served. That means a S8 could be served the day after the 2nd full rent payment hasn't been made. So 1 month and 2 day equals two missed rent payments This is something that few understand especially Councils. It is IRRELEVANT if HB is paid in arrears. It is what the TA states that is the template for S8 action. Another factor which I experienced was that FORTUNATELY I had RGI on a rent defaulting tenant. Now the RGI companies are pretty shrewd as they usually give up to 90 days to submit a claim though I would vehemently recommend NOT to leave it to the 90th day to submit a RGI claim! So as good LL we usually work with tenants to ensure they have caught up with rent arrears by about the 85th day of first rent default. The RGI companies hope that having that 90 day claim period will prevent most claims occurring as things will have been resolved. The tenant knows that once the LL has submitted the RGI claim then the tenant will need to be evicted. There is no possibility of the tenant remaining after a claim has been submitted even if arrears are no longer existent. This means that the tenant will be unlikely to qualify for RGI ever again. But from personal experience you are looking at more like 10 months to evict. I would have been bankrupted had it not been for RGI which paid out over £10000. It is clearly unviable to be a LL if you cannot self-insure against every tenancy to the tune of at least £10000. RGI is obviously a lot cheaper at about £100 per year but few tenants are able to qualify for it. This makes being a mortgaged LL a very risky proposition which I confess I never realised. I do NOW!!😢 The facts are that if you cannot afford a rent defaulting tenant every tenancy then you shouldn't be a LL. Very few LL are able to be viable in this worse case scenario. So most mortgaged LL are gambling that their tenants will pay rent. That is far from assured irrespective of how robust a referencing process a LL may have. Getting rid of rent defaulting tenants is the biggest risk to a LL income. The various court processes are NOT fit for purpose and invariably result in LL losing huge amounts of money. Without an effective eviction process the PRS is doomed. The only reason I invested was I knew that with S21 I could always get rid of an unsatisfactory tenant. Without an effective eviction process I simply wouldn't have bothered becoming a LL. There will be no enhanced S8 process if S21 goes. It will just mean it could take 18 months to evict. That would simply be unviable and would surely mean many more LL giving up and leaving the PRS like I am doing. I'm afraid the game is up for the leveraged LL. Far too risky. The PRS will return to the province of the wealthy as it was before 1997. Where all the millions of homeless tenants will go beats me. This as there simply AREN'T enough wealthy people to replace the leveraged LL who comprise 50% of the PRS.

From: Paul Barrett 15 November 2019 11:11 AM

Paul Barrett
It is ridiculous for anyone to consider that London is representative of the UK as a whole.......................it ISN'T! Those who desire to live in London must surely be aware of the horrendous costs of doing so. Nobody NEEDS to live in London. It is a conscious choice to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world. People WANT to live in London to enjoy all the dubious delights of it. They have to pay the price. Normal people with normal lives can't afford plus don't want to live in London. Property ownership is beyond those with normal wages.. Shared ownership is just a smokescreen for ownership. Far better to purchase outside London and take in lodgers and rent a property in London or commute. It is perfectly possible to be a homeowner and tenant at the same time. Such a tenant/homeowner may visit their PPR once per week to collect any mail and deal with any issues at their HOME. The lodger rents would go a long way to paying for some of the rent that the tenant) homeowner will be paying. So the best of both worlds. Unless wages rise substantially .........which they won't then only the rich will be able to afford to buy in London. All it means is that wealth is required not just to live in Central London but now more general parts. For example a 2 bed terrace house in Walthamstow now costs about £410000. It takes about 35 mins Tube journey to reach Central London. The same house can be had in Southend for about £260000 within 10 mins walk of Southend stns. It takes about 45 mins by train to reach Central London.. Those who wish to live in Walthamstow make a choice to live in an expensive area when for an extra 15 mins train journey they could save themselves at least £150000 on property purchase cost. It is all about CHOICE. We really require that public policy is NOT determined by the very parochial interests of the London bubble. Anything to do with London should really be removed from ONS figures to give a true indication as to what is occurring in the UK. Living in London has always been for the rich even more so now. Only the rich and feckless welfare scroungers can afford to live in London.

From: Paul Barrett 13 November 2019 10:54 AM

Paul Barrett
There is a massive problem with fraudulent LL who need to be put out of business so that competition is fair. There are millions of tenancies where HB tenants are taken on in compete breach of mortgage conditions. This might be considered a minor fraud but it is still unfair competition. Allowing fraudulent LL to operate depresses rents. Getting rid of all the disparate licensing schemes for ONE National LL Licensing scheme would make eminent sense. To operate as a LL in the UK each rental property as well as each LL would require a licence number. Such numbers would be a requirement to be listed with any web portal or any LA. They would also be detailed on any AST. Any prospective tenant would be able to access a LL data and property base to ascertain the veracity of the LL and the particular rental property. Any Property advertised without a LL licence and property number would be a de facto illegal letting. It surely wouldn't be too long before any LL trying to let a property without the relevant licence numbers would be detected with relevant enforcement action as required. No good and legal LL would have any objection to such a National LL licensing scheme. Wrapped up in the licence could be property redress. The scheme would be very cheap. £50 per property every 5 years would suffice. It is most unlikely that rogue LL would register for National LL Licensing. Those licenced LL would always be liable for inspection by local council housing enforcement teams. No good LL would object to having their properties inspected to ensure licence conditions are being adhered to. Enforcement action would then be better directed against those LL that are not licenced But it seems rogue LL will continue to provide unfair competition if no National LL Licensing scheme is to be introduced. Most disappointing!!

From: Paul Barrett 08 November 2019 13:32 PM

Paul Barrett
So as many including me have predicted LA etc are having to combine with eachother and other industry participants and downsize to cope with the effects of the TFA. This might be considered to be a good thing in forcing out the less robust operations. But it is clear than many LA were dependent on tenant fees for business viability. Whether that should have been considered as a viable business model is up for debate. This is the equivalent of S24 for LA. I am not interested in supporting LA at all as they showed no support for LL with the JR over S24. So much like with S24 LL being forced out of business so now are LA due to the TFA. However it could well be that the LA industry becomes a far more robust; effective and efficient employing far fewer. But this situation just shows how fragile the business model of the PRS can be undone by a changed Govt policy. The two most significant new policies being S24 and the TFA. There could be other similar policies that could equally damage the PRS. We haven't even considered the evil Labour Party plans for LL expropriation on what must be the most lunatic policy proposal ever seen of RTB for private tenants. Property rights are sacrosanct in Western democracies. Any undermining of such rights will devastate the economy. One interferes in the value of property at your peril. It is tenants who should be s######g themselves that their LL will sell up to avoid expropriation. It would be madness for a LL to remain so if this Labour RTB policy is ever introduced. That would result in mass homelessness and plunging property values across the whole UK. This would immediately increase LTV on all mortgaged properties and would require many LL to pay cash to banks to reduce LTV to cover covenants. This would be impossible for most LL to achieve. Banks would then call in mortgages which would result in a run on the banks as property values exponentially decreased. Banks are so dependent on the property market to sustain their business. Any reduction in the underlying asset value of properties will cause a UK wide recession possibly leading to a depression. Vote Labour at your peril!!

From: Paul Barrett 07 November 2019 00:30 AM

Paul Barrett
@Sarah Sarah Oh dear Sarah It was nothing personal Probably most EU migrants from the A8 countries are hard working. The problem is they are a burden on public services so that by the time you factor in all the additional costs to provision services for them they are of NO net benefit to the UK. So for the UK pretty pointless them being here. The low quality jobs that these migrants are prepared to do should be done by our feckless unemployed.. But they work the system so they remain on welfare and earn more on that welfare than hard working EU migrants The problem is with the bleeding hard liberals iof lovidom that won't conscript the feckless unemployed into working for their welfare. We have fe UK fields of rotting produce because the feckless won't work. Migrants have done those jobs but they shouldn't be needed if our feckless were forced to work. The UK needs high quality migrants..So if their are 30000 Romanian nurses who can meet NHS requirements then come over to the UK. What we DON'T want or need is Romanian car washers; Big Issue sellers or scrap metal collectors.. All designed to milk the Welfare system. Had the A8 countries not been allowed Free movement the UK would be a more amenable place to live. The migrants themselves AREN'T to blame in any way. They perfectly reasonably took advantage of a system. It is the politicians that are at fault for their incompetence in allowing so many EU migrants to come to the UK without a firm job offer. EU migrants have depressed UK wages and have stopped British companies from investing in their workforces. The UK is short of 50000 LGV drivers. So EU nationals are imported keeping wages lie the same as they were 15 years ago .There is also the problem of UK welfare benefits being remitted to hone countries so a total kiss to the UK economy Over £35 million of child benefit was remitted to Poland for children not even in the UK!! The UK has been forced to leave the EU because it is not allowed under EU law to controls it's borders. Unless everyone has equal then free movement is a very bad idea.

From: Paul Barrett 01 November 2019 02:38 AM

Paul Barrett
Nothing wrong with these BTR developments if built to correct building standards and financed based on turnover rather than profit after costs subtracted. After all fair and open competition is to be encouraged and facilitated. Oops!! Silly me no fair and open competition if you are a mortgaged sole trader LL!!! So these BTR merchants won't have pesky sole traders to deal with. They can charge corporate rents. That means NO DSS. Wonder how the BTR mob will market their products. They won't be permitted to state No DSS. Can you imagine DSS scum in these nice new shiney towers!? The last thing that the developers will want is any inkling there are DSS dross mixing with those paying a fortune in corporate rents. Can you imagine some fat pramface mother with kid in tow on the gym running machine beside you stinking the place out. Yuck!! So none of these BTR places will be letting to the feckless lower social orders. Normal private LL are now choosing not to let to them. No social housing. Even more LL selling up. So where are the DSS lot gonna be housed!? It seems a use has been found for all the empty containers left in the UK from China as we don't export much back to China, lots of TA cubicles to house the feckless rather than decent quality social homes. BTR is a drop in the ocean and will NOT meet the demand for rental properties as they just can't build fast enough There are simply too many feckless tenants being created that can be housed. Why doesn't Govt just allow Councils to buy on the open narket. They could buy back the 2 million council homes lost to stupid RTB for a start and then while they are at it buy another 2 million So an instant 4 million social homes charged at social rents only. That would reduce the size of the HB bill. I'm sure there are LL out there with 4 million properties between them that would love to sell at full market price to Councils. The Govt borrowings for this would be spread over 60 years. Once paid for the properties remain as aporeciating State assets for use by the low waged. Of course none of this will occur and LL will be blamed for hiking up rents because of scarcity of rental property...................caused by the idiot Tory penal tax policies like S24 aimed at putting leveraged sole trader LL out of business. Then hanging over the PRS is the prospect of that evil Marxist Corbyn clown and is evil mate McDonnell attaining power and introducing their bonkers expropriation and rent control of LL private properties. Don't these idiot BTR operators realise that all their developments might be subject to RTB if Corbyn gets in with dividend earnings will be slashed due to rent controls. It seems very few of those in the PRS have read the Communist Land for the Many report Any LL reading that will be wishing to sell up ASAP as I intend to do. Investing in AST letting to single households is simply not worth doing while the threat of RTB expropriation exists. Not sure if the idiot BTR mob have realised Corbyn could destroy their businesses. Guess time will tell!.

From: Paul Barrett 26 October 2019 00:04 AM

Paul Barrett
@m Goe The point you make is extremely pertinent especially for those who can't or won't qualify for social housing. As you suggest without a property with the mortgage paid off they are at the mercy of market rents. Very few of the retired will be able to afford market rents on the usual small pension in the location they desire. Those qualifying for social housing will effectively have more net income and facilities than those who have a SMALL private pension. Perhaps more should be made of what so pertinently point out so that buying a home is seen as a way of being able to afford to reside where you wish without being at the mercy of PRS rents. Yes you may not have much income but you can get by but at least you have no mortgage or rent to pay. It is precisely for that reason that I consider mortgage free homeownership vital and is entirely the reason that motivates me to have an ultimately unencumbered Residential property. I don't believe these GR snowflakes have any thoughts about this.. I started planning to address the issues you have highlighted when I was 13. Had I not done so I would not have been able to afford my first property. It may not seem much but by participating in a Govt initiative for FTB I eventually received a grant of £110 and an Interest free loan of £600 for 5 years. Back in 1983 that made all the difference!! But I started thinking about what you have mentioned at 13 years old. Unlike snowflake GR I was able to easily consider what my circumstances might be 45 years later and I planned accordingly!! Such thought processes are I believe above the comprehension of your average GR snowflake. Of course being a bloke meant for me very little chance of marrying into property which is what must women rely on to achieve homeownership. It is a fact that only 10% of women ever buy in their own name on their own. So it is us chaps that end up providing the free nest for the female of the species!!! Being mindful of all that motivates me to achieve mortgage free homeownership.

From: Paul Barrett 23 October 2019 10:39 AM

Paul Barrett
Perhaps this situation will 'encourage' LA to ensure that their LL clients have all the requisite licencing etc up to date. If they don't they could find such LL clients costing them an awful lot of fines etc. No LA could risk that so they would have to dump LL who won't bother becoming compliant. Sort of this is 3 months notice to terminate our contract with you unless you the LL can validate to us that you are fully compliant especially with any local licensing schemes. Obviously a big risk as LL might go ahead with the contract termination. But for LA would they really wish to have the financial risk of retaining such LL clients? I doubt it and suggest that LA will dump those sorts of LL But quite frankly why not every LL or property be licensed. £100 per property every 5 years. Without a National Licence number assigned to that rental property then it can't be let. If it is £30000 fine for the owner straight away. Problem solved apart from the mass homelessness that would result from LL failing to licence their properties. After all it is a lot easier to detect a property being rented which doesn't have a licence compared to checking drivers if they have a valid licence. Property DOESN'T tend to move around much!!! Very difficult to illegally let property on the major web portals if a licence number is required and the LL DOESN'T have one. Even rogue LL need to market their properties though I guess a lot of it is facilitated by word of mouth. But the threat of big fines if detected would surely persuade even the rogue LL to get licenced. But never going to happen so the rogues will continue competing unfairly with decent and compliant LL. There will of course be far fewer of those as they are forced to exit the PRS due to S24 etc; etc.

From: Paul Barrett 22 October 2019 12:05 PM

Paul Barrett
Your assessment of things as you have mentioned are very realistic. Sort of proves that without a decent chance of CG there isn't much point gambling on yield. Such yields as are being achieved were already struggling before all the latest bonkers anti-PRS policies had been introduced starting with S24. When you factor in all these cost burdens compared to what they were before 2015 the yields are inadequate to keep a property viable. This situation has been in a low interest environment. If IR increased there is no way any of my properties would be viable. Mind you that situation probably is the case with many homeowners. Everything is on a knife edge. I don't believe that tenants have any comprehension as to how close they are to their LL selling up so finely balanced is the business proposition because of all the ridiculous penal policies being imposed on LL. The threat of a Labour Party with expropriation and rent controls is just too much to bear It makes rental property as an investment class completely pointless. Only a fool would remain invested in assets with the risk of the asset value being stolen every 5 years and for any income achievable to be restricted. It simply makes no business sense whatsoever. Of course the bonkers policies of a Marxist Labour Govt may never come to pass. But that is a big gamble over a 30 to 40 year investment timeline. To be in a potential situation where all one's efforts could be stolen every 5 years makes it pointless bothering in the first place. The eviction laws are a major impediment for LL who AREN'T able to resource RGI. Without RGI a LL is pretty much at the mercy of the tenant. That makes taking on a tenant without RGI a very risky gamble. All these factors have led me to determine to leave the PRS. I like the idea of lodgers or FHL though those two possibilities require a lot more capital and to be more hands on so hardly a passive investment. But it does seem from your figures that BTL is a barely viable investment class. It probably isn't anymore due to all the recent bonkers policies. I'm not too sure that many new entrant LL have a clue about any of these issues. They still think it is like 1997. How wrong they are!

From: Paul Barrett 18 October 2019 21:38 PM

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