x

Jo Westlake

1541 Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Jo's Recent Activity

John - in some respects you're right but should people face eviction simply because they've worked hard and got a pay rise? Wouldn't that give even more people a reason to work part time? Wouldn't a better solution be to charge closer to market rent? Low income tenants would be able to claim LHA so it would have no impact on them. Higher income tenants would simply be paying a fairer rent that would enable Councils to maintain and increase their housing stock. If they don't like the idea of paying a bit more because it's a Council house they have the option to either buy somewhere or move into the private sector.

From: Jo Westlake 24 April 2024 16:52 PM

The thing I don't get is why Council houses are so cheap to rent. Back when I was a Council tenant in the 1980s the rent wasn't significantly cheaper than private sector. I was working with a bloke who is the same age as me last night. We both left school in the early 1980s. He has worked in the same job for 29 years and lived in the same Council house for 32 years. He earns somewhere around £28K plus overtime. His wife also works. Their rent is £124 a week for a 3 bedroom house. How can the Council maintain the house and pay their admin staff to manage their estate on such ludicrously low rent? LHA for a 3 bed is currently £218 a week? What justification is there for Council rents to be lower than LHA? Surely someone in a long term, stable job, earning somewhat more than minimum wage has broad enough shoulders to pay a realistic rent for a permanent home. Why are other tax payers subsidising people who really don't need subsidising? When the Right to Buy was first invented it was a means of offloading some maintenance nightmares. They weren't nice, well maintained houses. Very often the cost of remedial works were more than the discount. Things moved on, standards improved, discounts were reduced for a while and then somewhat bizarrely increased again. The concept of RTB is basically good but the price needs to be sensible. It used to be the case that a house couldn't be sold for less than it had cost the Council. That meant newly constructed houses didn't get much discount regardless of how long the occupants had been Council tenants. It does seem that Council tenants are double dipping. Half price rent and a huge discount. Why does the discount get bigger the longer they have paid cheap rent? It doesn't make any kind of logical sense. Surely the real point of Social housing should be the security of tenure, not huge subsidies and discounts at other people's expense. Putting covenants and occupancy restrictions on RTB properties would be hugely problematic. Mortgage lenders already hate Section 106 restrictions.

From: Jo Westlake 24 April 2024 06:48 AM

I've only ever used an agent once and it was a very disappointing experience. A combination of SpareRoom and OpenRent with referencing by the NRLA, OpenRent or Vouch works well. I usually like to meet my tenants and make my own decisions. The house next door to mine is let by a local agent and this time round it's been a very long void (about 10 weeks). Tenants finally moved in two days ago. The landlord said there had been multiple people the agent wanted to let to but he had rejected for various reasons (too young, unmarried, tight on affordability). It was probably priced about £150 a month more than anything similar, which now looks like it may have been quite an expensive mistake.

From: Jo Westlake 23 April 2024 17:14 PM

That would be too sensible. At least it is a tax deductible cost. I think the bit a lot of people aren't prepared for is that it can take a huge amount of time to learn how to use some of the programmes and input the necessary data. Once you've got used to it it can save time and make information easier to store and find. A lot of them go way beyond MTD and it's hard to know what is necessary, what is helpful and what is completely surplus to requirements. It hadn't occurred to me that sending tenants invoices would be useful. I'd managed perfectly happily for about 25 years without. Sometimes I had to remind people rent should have been paid a few days ago but now it's very rare as the system I'm using sends out an invoice to remind those who don't trust Standing Orders. Turns out some of the tenants like the invoices as a way of proving payments when applying for credit. If anyone is thinking of doing a trial for any of the systems I would suggest starting it about now (near the start of the tax year). By the time I started playing with some of them mid way through the tax year the amount of data was immense. Some of them will automate moving forward but not from dates already passed. Be prepared for a lot of frustration and swearing and try and find one with good customer support. It's amazing how people who develop these systems seem to assume an awful lot of knowledge people who didn't do computer studies at school simply don't know. There also seems to be an assumption we have far more accountancy skills than a lot of us have.

From: Jo Westlake 22 April 2024 16:31 PM

I've spent the last 18 months trying out landlord software that is supposed to be MTD ready. None of it seems to be able to deviate from absolute vanilla. My accountant says he hasn't yet found one that is capable of encompassing my business structure. It's not especially complicated. One of my properties is owned 40%/39.75%/20%/0.25%. The system I'm using can't cope with anything past the decimal point, so the 4th owner either has to own 1% or nothing. It completely conflicts with the Deed of Trust. Presumably programming a system to cope with a couple of decimal places isn't difficult. They just haven't got past the point of assuming everything is either solely owned or jointly owned 50/50. Another of my properties is owned 67%/11%/22% by myself, my husband and my son. I put in most of the deposit so pay a lower percentage of the mortgage. The program can't cope with that. Surely it's a fairly standard scenario where one of the owners chooses to pay down their share of the borrowing while the other owners don't? Isn't it totally normal for different owners to be in different tax bands and therefore have different attitudes to mortgage debt? I know if owners are married to eachother the tax office treat everything as equal but when there are more than 2 owners or it's parent and child that doesn't apply.

From: Jo Westlake 22 April 2024 11:55 AM

The rental industry is so fragmented it's questionable if consistency can be achieved or would be desirable. Self managing landlords are going to put far more care into tenant selection than someone earning little more than minimum wage working for a letting agency. That doesn't necessarily mean our criteria will be the same or more stringent, just different. Many of us have decades of experience as landlords. Whereas referencing and a computer says no approach is paramount for an agent (largely so they can sell rent guarantee insurance), not all tenants can pass referencing. Should they be expected to live on a park bench because they only earn minimum wage? Very often someone who fails affordability checks will be an excellent tenant purely because they can't afford much of a social life so their home is incredibly important to them. In turn this means some of the numerous regulations are poorly thought through and impede our ability to appropriately manage our properties. Why do tenants have bedroom entitlements whereas homeowners don't? Why is it preferable for a single dad to share a hotel room for month after month with his 3 children than rent a 2 bedroom flat? Why does it take months to evict a rogue tenant when there are so many people living in temporary housing? Why are we supposed to allow tenants quiet enjoyment but then be blamed if they fail to ventilate the property and fill it with mould? Why aren't HMOs automatically licensed for the maximum number of tenants they have sufficient amenity for? The most effective way to fix the housing crisis is to stop over taxing landlords and to force planners to grant planning permission for far more retirement housing. Almost every person who moves into a retirement flat or bungalow will move out of a family size house. Maybe introduce some kind of Help to Buy for second hand FTB properties. Create an environment that allows people to move into appropriate housing - either owned or rented.

From: Jo Westlake 22 April 2024 01:14 AM

I agree with a lot of what he says. Home ownership is fine if you're firmly rooted in an area and have a secure job with adequate pay to cover building maintenance or service charges. Renting is more suitable in most other circumstances. New relationship, rocky relationship, lack of income to cover property maintenance, job mobility, job insecurity, growing family, etc. Buying and selling costs a fortune in fees and has no timetable certainty. Renting is financially easy in, easy out and a much more certain timetable. The other real bonus with renting is if life goes pear shaped LHA exists for tenants to at least cover some of their rent. There's no equivalent for homeowners.

From: Jo Westlake 20 April 2024 12:25 PM

That is a truly bizarre argument. ASTs have been 6 months minimum for decades. Domestic violence has existed for centuries. People stay with violent or abusive partners for a whole assortment of reasons, some financial, some emotional. Been there, done it, got the T-shirt. The length of time left on a tenancy agreement comes a very long way down the list of reasons for staying or going. If the government wants to clamp down on Airbnb style letting don't expect landlords in the long term lettings market to accept anything less than 6 month ASTs.

From: Jo Westlake 19 April 2024 01:38 AM

Even minimum wage increased by 10%. As rent is usually less than 30% of someone's pay and other expenses such as food and utilities are dropping in price a rent increase really shouldn't be a problem for anyone who lives in an appropriate house. Having said that my April rent increases were between 3% and 8% for existing self funding tenants. Mainly because if I pushed it up any higher they would start looking around. Right now I've noticed a real lack of my usual type of HMO tenant. There's lots of much older people looking for rooms but noticeably fewer in their mid 20s. Maybe something to do with lockdowns in their university years or WFH in entry level graduate jobs? Those who are looking often say they like to keep themselves to themselves and their main hobby is gaming. It's really sad that they've lost the ability to interact.

From: Jo Westlake 18 April 2024 10:23 AM

Shelter are using some interesting and misleading language. When they say "‘unwanted’ private rental moves" do they really mean the tenants didn't adhere to the tenancy agreement and because of that the landlord wouldn't renew it? No landlord wants to lose good tenants. Voids between tenancies are expensive. Fees for getting a letting agent to find a tenant are expensive. Taking time off work to conduct viewings ourselves is expensive. We would far rather renew tenancies for good tenants. They then say "135,000 were informally asked to leave by their landlord". What does that even mean? Nothing to do with Section 21. Not even the initial Section 21 notice presumably? In reality there seems to be a whole lot of confusion surrounding eviction largely caused by Shelter, Generation Rent, etc. There seems to be a general lack of communication between landlords and tenants. A number of tenants don't seem to realise they can renew a fixed term tenancy. They just think they have to leave. Every year I make a big thing of asking my students if they want another year in the house and every year at least one of them will say they hadn't realised that was even possible. A great many tenants don't ask for advice and just behave irrationally.. I've recently had 2 friends decide they were going to be evicted and moved house without even asking their landlords what their plans were. The sold board on one of the houses may have been a bit of a clue but as no eviction notice had been served the landlord clearly hadn't thought through the logistics or legalities of gaining vacant possession. The other one made her decision on the strength of a throw away comment made by the letting agent that the landlords mortgage was going up. She interpreted that as the landlord would have to sell. I interpreted it as the letting agent was preparing her for a rent increase. Both of those people got hugely stressed by events and have been telling everyone they know that they were being evicted even though the landlord hadn't served an eviction notice or even informally asked them to leave. Neither of them were willing to go to the Local Council or CAB for any advice or financial help.

From: Jo Westlake 18 April 2024 08:13 AM

With mortgage rates more than doubling the quoted rent rises are actually quite modest. Throw Section 24 into the mix and the increases really are staggeringly low. I'm sure a great many homeowners are extremely envious that tenants have had a less than 10% rent increase. Five of my mortgages came off their previous fix last year and the increases were all over £500 a month. To cover a £500 increase in mortgage payments the rent would have to increase by £667 (due to Section 24). In reality the rents in those properties have risen by around £180 per month, which is about £45 per person or less than 10%. Fortunately LHA rents have risen by around 15% to 18% on other properties I have, so that helps across the portfolio.

From: Jo Westlake 18 April 2024 00:26 AM

I don't see why anyone should feel guilty about not financially helping or that they should inappropriately pressure their kids into homeownership. Things have changed massively since we were their age. The standard of rental properties is much, much higher. The cost of buying and selling is much higher. Making a mistake and buying the wrong property is financially catastrophic these days. Equally though, a lot of us have a choice of helping our kids while we're alive or knowing the government will take vast amounts of IHT when we die.

From: Jo Westlake 17 April 2024 09:17 AM

I've never known any tenant want a 5 year tenancy. Some stay a lot longer than that but they certainly don't want to commit to such a long contract. Any of life's major events can happen - birth of triplets, death of partner, infirmity of parents, inheritance, divorce, redundancy, fantastic job offer, etc. One of the main attractions of the PRS is the ease of ending a tenancy and moving within a few weeks.

From: Jo Westlake 15 April 2024 11:58 AM

The perceived best tenants tend to be far more transient which means far more voids. I've had generally positive experiences when I've let via Council schemes. As long as the property is in location that doesn't involve the tenant paying for a lot of transport it can work well.

From: Jo Westlake 15 April 2024 10:19 AM

I agree that local Councils can be far more realistic than central government. When I house people via one of the local Council run schemes they provide full details of the applicants income and expenses, a 5 week deposit or 2 month bond plus at least a month's rent upfront to correlate with the applicants UC payment date. The Council fully understands the idea of a 5 week wait for UC for someone who is weekly paid simply doesn't work. They also understand LHA is nowhere close to enough for even the cheapest properties in the area for a new let and that rent is paid in advance, not 5 weeks late. I don't know exactly how my tenants fund the shortfall. It may be from their own resources or it may be from DHPs. All I know is the tenants pay me the full amount at some point. One on time and in full, the other in installments through the month as he gets paid fortnightly (which makes his UC very unstable).

From: Jo Westlake 15 April 2024 10:11 AM

There's very little difference in profit on a standard let and an HMO unless they are a student let or at least 6 bedrooms or in an area with an Article 4 Directive preventing more HMOs. If I let one of my 4 bedroom houses as a family let it would achieve just under £20K a year rent. As an HMO it gets £28K but Council Tax and utilities have to be paid out of that. Last year that was nearly £6K. It also has to be furnished. Usually about £1000 a year for replacement appliances and furniture. So we're down to about £1000 difference, most of which would go in higher mortgage interest payments as most mortgage lenders either load or don't lend on HMOs. The main difference is voids are usually less painful with HMOs. That's assuming you carefully select your new HMO tenants to try to find ones who will be reasonably compatible with the existing household. On the other hand major improvements or maintenance are far more difficult in an HMO as it is never naturally vacant.

From: Jo Westlake 15 April 2024 09:12 AM

He really should stick to a business he knows about. He may have founded a good hi-fi business but some of the stuff mentioned above shows very little awareness of the PRS or housing in general. Accreditation schemes are only worth being a part of if they are recognised by the Local Authority and gain discounts on HMO or selective licence fees. As LAs only currently recognise a few of the existing landlords association accreditation schemes, what is the likelihood they would recognise one run by a bloke who founded a hi-fi business?

From: Jo Westlake 15 April 2024 00:40 AM

They need to define affordable. Do they mean LHA or do they mean cheapest 30% of available properties? There's probably about £150 to £500 a month difference depending on the size of the property. If they are going to support people by bridging the gap between LHA and reality with ongoing DHPs they need to clearly say so. There is a general shortage of rental properties and landlords usually have multiple applicants willing to pay market rent. However, there are some properties that are a bit harder than others to let. One of mine is a great flat but has awful access and no parking. I've let it via a Council scheme for just over 4 years. My main criteria when I first approached the Council was I didn't want anyone who would whine about the lack of parking (like the previous tenants did). They found someone who couldn't drive. The flat is in the main shopping street in the town centre so it's the perfect location for a non driver.

From: Jo Westlake 12 April 2024 01:18 AM

It's not just that the Benefit System encourages and rewards people not to work. When people do well at work the government takes far too much off them in tax and clawbacks. Not increasing tax thresholds is now causing people at what should be their peak earning years to go part time or move abroad. If they make the mistake of working too much the only way to salvage some of the income is for someone to pay into their SIPP. Money that is put into SIPPs is locked away for years instead of sloshing around the local economy. The Child Benefit clawback, loss of personal allowance, loss of childcare, etc are such a huge disincentive to those people who actually get off their backsides and pay the tax that supports all the people who sit there with their hands out. My son is probably fairly typical of someone just being caught by the punitive tax system. He works in the construction industry, has spent years earning very little, has big credit card debts, has received Tax Credits for years, has recently got a few extra qualifications as a crane operator, unexpectedly earned just over £60K last tax year after a couple of job changes and pay rises and because of the Tax Credit and Child Benefit clawback thinks the only way to feed and house his family is for him to work in Saudi for a year. How is it in any way right for the tax system to be constructed in such a way that family men have to work on a different continent just to survive the clawbacks?

From: Jo Westlake 10 April 2024 22:13 PM

The only way to stop the upward pressure on rents is to abolish Section 24, bin the RRB and generally stop attacking landlords. Reinstating taper or indexation relief would also help to encourage landlords to stay in the industry long term while allowing them a retirement route when the time comes. Without a sensible exit route why would anyone enter the industry? Without a steady flow of new entrants a shortage of supply leads to higher rent.

From: Jo Westlake 08 April 2024 00:16 AM

The easiest way to minimise rent increases would be to abolish Section 24. Portfolio landlords are only acting as unpaid tax collectors for this tenant tax. The few landlords who manage to keep below the higher rate threshold and the unencumbered landlords may not pay Section 24 tax but if they price their properties in line with market rent are still charging the tenant tax.

From: Jo Westlake 06 April 2024 11:22 AM

There are numerous software packages offering the ability to upload and store all the safety certificates, insurance details, EPCs, etc relating to each house. Some are supposed to be able to do an information pack for new tenants with the relevant information. The biggest problem is how they want the stuff uploaded. Instead of just doing a bulk upload from Google Drive or Dropbox or wherever you normally keep such stuff they want you to enter all sorts of information from each document manually before uploading each document individually. Does anyone really care what the name of the EPC assessor was who did the last EPC several years ago? If so why aren't the programmes smart enough to extract the information from the uploads? Something that could take a few minutes per house turns into a marathon. I've tried various software such as Landlord Vision, Lendlord and NRLA Portfolio and tend to upload information for 2 or 3 houses and then decide there's absolutely nothing wrong with Google Drive.

From: Jo Westlake 05 April 2024 13:33 PM

When there is such a shortage of Social Housing it's interesting that Housing Associations are selling off ex Council flats at auction. I looked at one a couple of weeks ago that was in reasonably good condition. A refurb for about 20K would have made it very nice. It sold at auction for £80K. An identical one 2 floors below is on Rightmove at £150K. At £150K it's one of the cheapest one beds in the city. There's something seriously wrong with the Social Housing business model if they're having to sell decent stock at below rock bottom prices.

From: Jo Westlake 05 April 2024 00:33 AM

I haven't seen the current CGT proposals but at the last General Election the Labour policy was to charge CGT at your marginal rate on an indexed gain. 40% of an indexed gain is way, way less than 28% of the whole gain as it takes inflation into account. It was the only policy either party had that I really liked.

From: Jo Westlake 04 April 2024 17:31 PM

No mention of age. Renters tend to be younger and lower paid than home owners. Younger people seem to be far more aware of their mental health than previous generations have been. Employers now have notices plastered all over the workplace advising people about mental health issues and where to get counselling. There have been numerous employment tribunals relating to mental health and how employers should accommodate it. Mortgages are usually fixed for 5 years so less than half of people with mortgages are likely to have experienced an increase in payments yet. Some will have had decent pay rises since taking out their current mortgage so can easily cope with an increase.

From: Jo Westlake 04 April 2024 02:16 AM

No mention of Section 24 which artificially pushes landlords into a higher tax bracket. That in turn denies them Child Benefit and to only half as much tax free interest on savings. Very few landlords would be able to increase rent by enough to cover the extra mortgage interest and extra Section 24 tax. To cover a £500 increase in mortgage interest rent has to be increased by £667 for a 40% tax payer to stand still. That gives them nothing to go towards higher insurance or maintenance costs. Landlords who have high levels of mortgage borrowing must be having real difficulties if they haven't had chunky pay rises in their day job. Even then subsidising BTL from a day job isn't a long term solution.

From: Jo Westlake 04 April 2024 01:56 AM

I suspect a lot of it is due to the value of the property and the cost of carrying out improvements. A house in an old mining town in County Durham can cost as little as £25K. How much does a terraced house cost in London? Installing a heating system, double glazing or insulation is going to cost roughly the same all over the country. In the South it is far more likely that carrying out improvements would increase the value of the house by more than the cost of the improvements. It is also more likely a house in the South will have sufficient equity in it for it to be possible to obtain a further advance to fund such improvements. In certain parts of the country it is far less likely improvements would make economic sense. Even looking at it from a working tenants perspective the economic argument is questionable in the North. The amount rent would need to increase to cover the cost of eco upgrades far exceeds the relatively small amount they're paying extra for the 4 or 5 months winter utility bills. I'm not convinced licensing makes much difference in terms of decent homes standards. Some houses have always been well presented, others squalid. Licensing schemes aren't especially interested in the general presentation, just the amenities. As landlords we go through the checklist and carry out all the required work. We install fire doors with self closers (which the tenants hate and wedge open). We install full fire alarm systems (which tenants don't understand and 'accidentally' deactivate). We have licensing notices displayed in communal areas regarding clear fire exit routes (so they fill the hallway with bicycles and shoe mountains). We install trickle vents to provide ventilation and help prevent mould (so they keep them shut). We provide suitable heating systems (which they may or may not use). We have complied with the terms of the licence but whether it has improved anything for tenants is questionable, especially the fire safety aspects. The kit only works if it is used correctly and that is something no licensing scheme can guarantee. There is also the argument that while Environmental Health Officers are inspecting licensed properties that are likely to be compliant they aren't available to inspect seriously problematic properties. There is already a system of fines in place for substandard properties, so wouldn't it make more sense to have a very light touch on the decent properties to free up time for the substandard ones? Most HMOs are owned by portfolio landlords and the Councils are fully aware of which landlords need most input.

From: Jo Westlake 03 April 2024 11:20 AM

It's not just "can't", it's don't want to or not ready to yet or won't be in the area long enough to justify the buying and selling fees. Everyone seems to ignore the fact vast numbers of PRS tenants rent from choice. They don't want to commit to an area or specific property long term and they certainly don't want to jump through all the hoops for Social Housing.

From: Jo Westlake 02 April 2024 09:11 AM

That's actually quite a good idea as an insurance policy. Especially if you explain to your tenants exactly why you have issued it and that it is a 3 stage process. Going to step 2 is your choice and doesn't have to be done immediately the 2 months notice is up.

From: Jo Westlake 02 April 2024 07:42 AM

The best way to ensure people have a home is to ensure landlords can make a reasonable profit and not face punitive fines for minor errors. In the majority of cases landlords and tenants are a mutually dependent partnership. Just let us get on with it. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a robust method of reporting and sanctioning the few rogue landlords that exist rather than devising such a complex, unprofitable system the good landlords are leaving in droves? Good landlords don't evict good tenants without good reason, so the whole Section 21 thing is a bit overblown. A good reason for evicting a tenant is to sell up, which is what numerous landlords are doing either because of the RRB proposals or the effect of Section 24.

From: Jo Westlake 02 April 2024 00:38 AM

I definitely preferred the NLA. The accreditation scheme was vastly superior. The landlord library was an excellent resource. The NRLA just seems to offer a very poor experience compared with what we previously had. It's more about dreaming up ways of charging landlords for stuff that used to be included than actively campaigning on our behalf.

From: Jo Westlake 31 March 2024 07:42 AM

Hi Margaret Very flattering, especially the amount of likes yesterday. The biggest problem we have is the industry is completely fragmented. Somewhere close to 3 million private sector landlords in the UK and only 100,000 belong to the biggest landlord association. There are numerous other landlord associations scattered around the country doing whatever they do. Some of them have some pretty good ideas but they're not recognised by Local Authorities outside their immediate area. There are also a few individual landlords who are now regularly quoted in the press. I especially like the stuff Mick Roberts in Nottingham says. But it's taken more than a decade of him being pretty vocal before the national newspapers discovered him. I guess the majority of landlords with only one or two properties don't want to pay the membership fee or can't justify the expense or don't regard it as relevant for people like them. With such a small percentage of landlords belonging to any kind of organisation we're not going to be heard. Especially as the NRLA seems to have become very middle class. It's all awfully nice and polite and wishy washy. Maybe we would all feel more represented if the NRLA used the same techniques as Shelter and Generation Rent?

From: Jo Westlake 30 March 2024 17:31 PM

It probably works in London but elsewhere is questionable. One that opened near me in September was still 70% unlet in February according to a local newspaper. A comment on a review site said "Prison cell sized rooms at well over a grand a month and minimum salary requirement of £41k or requirement of rich guarantors". Having looked at the floorplans they were exaggerating a bit about the prison cell size but none of the rooms include any form of comfortable seating and most didn't appear to have enough space for even a compact armchair without having to constantly move it around the room. They have got a few very small studios at around £900 a month for key workers earning below £37K. One of my HMO tenants who currently pays £545 a month went to view it and came back incredulous that they were charging over £1300 a month for something that wasn't that special. It's got a gym (without a treadmill) and a cinema room but how many people would pay more than £200 a month for a gym membership and a few trips to the cinema? Bearing in mind there are 2 proper cinemas and a recently built state of the art leisure centre with swimming pool within a few minutes walk of this co-living development it seems a bit unnecessary to have wasted space on mini versions. I theoretically like the concept of co-living developments but the price point and communal facilities have to make sense. Also the mix of people. Unless the sound proofing is top quality (which apparently it isn't) imagine having shift workers coming and going at all hours, mixed with people staggering in at 3am from a nightclub.

From: Jo Westlake 30 March 2024 10:57 AM

I've licensed some of mine 4 times as that was a national policy. You're right about the SDLT only applying in some parts of the country. It was interesting watching a property auction earlier this week. Stuff in the North East seemed to sell easily while quite a few in London and the South West failed to sell.

From: Jo Westlake 28 March 2024 16:57 PM

My flats are various ages. One is less than 2 years old. Two are ex Council and the other two were converted in the 1980s. I have extended the leases on both of those. One was a negotiated extension and kept the £30 ground rent. The other was a statutory extension because the freeholder refused to even speak to me, never mind negotiate. The ground rent was extinguished as part of the lease extension. None of them have leisure facilities or any fancy extras. Outside London there are huge numbers of flats like mine. I fully accept London is different in many ways but London only has a relatively small percentage of the total UK housing stock. Housing policies need to be appropriate for the majority not just Londoners. Far too many policies are totally London centric and don't translate well to the rest of the country.

From: Jo Westlake 28 March 2024 11:54 AM

Ground rent isn't the biggest problem for leaseholders. A great many leaseholders pay virtually nothing in ground rent. I have 5 leasehold properties and pay £0, £0, £10, £10 and £30 ground rent. There may be some merit in capping ground rent at maybe £500 a year. Plenty of people who extended leases had various choices of paying higher ground rent in exchange for a lower lease extension payment. Or a higher extension payment and lower ground rent. They often extended the lease in order to sell the property so didn't care what they lumbered the next owner with. That's not quite the point though. The freeholder offered the choice and will lose out if ground rent is scrapped. Service charges are the big issue. Freeholders and management companies constantly commissioning expensive surveys for work they know will never get done purely so they can add on their override. Also management companies trying to change the terms of the lease. Demanding payment in advance for work that may not get done when the lease clearly states payment is due after work has been carried out.

From: Jo Westlake 28 March 2024 01:22 AM

Of course rents have risen. The government are pocketing huge amounts of the rent in tax. Local authorities are taking a slice as licensing fees. Tradespeople need to be paid to perform the numerous safety checks. Mortgage rates have risen hugely. Section 24 is just hideous. RRB is making some landlords sell. There's a huge lack of rental properties and high demand. House prices have risen significantly in the last 10 years so of course rents have risen. However, wasn't there an article yesterday saying renting was currently cheaper than buying in almost the entire country? So clearly prices haven't spiralled as much for tenants as for owner occupiers.

From: Jo Westlake 28 March 2024 01:09 AM

Is it the smart meter or the In House Display unit that doesn't work? I'm not a fan of smart meters in general but do have them in 4 houses. I think the IHD works in one house. The others either won't work at all or don't acknowledge the solar tariff we're on. The billing is fine on all of them at the moment.

From: Jo Westlake 27 March 2024 09:28 AM

Be careful what you wish for on that one. I still remember when there was a choice of lower standing charge, higher unit price or higher standing charge, lower unit price. You had to be a very low user to be better off with the lower standing charge option. I agree the Standing Charge is unfair. It's especially unfair that a chunk of it is to cover the energy used by people who don't pay their bills. Quite why it's considered acceptable to charge everyone else more because utility companies can't manage customer debt effectively is beyond me. I already pay staggering amounts of tax so people who can't be bothered to work get UC and Cost of Living handouts which are supposed to pay for utility bills. I fail to see how it is justifiable to charge me sky high Standing Charges because they have chosen to spend their tax payer funded handouts on tattoos, alcohol, false nails, hair extensions, cigarettes, etc. Surely the best option would be for far more pre payment meters to be fitted so the utility companies get their money upfront and don't have so much customer debt. Especially now the prepayment tariffs are cheaper than standard billing. One of my UC tenants has a prepayment meter and he keeps his flat at tropical. His app tells him when he needs to top up the meter. No big bills to derail things later. I guess it also makes it easier to get his adult children to pay for some of the top ups.

From: Jo Westlake 27 March 2024 09:19 AM

Tricia - it could be argued that only the wealthy can use what they WANT now. Most people have seen eye watering increases in their utility bills and have tried to cut back. If it's half price to do your laundry outside the peak times surely that's a good thing. Very few people NEED to run their dishwasher, washing machine or tumble drier between 16:00 and 19:00, which seems to be the peak time the utility companies are most concerned about. Obviously people want to cook at peak times but most days it's something quick in the air fryer or on the hob or has been previously batch cooked and just needs reheating or has been sat in a slow cooker all day. How many people regularly do a full blown multi appliance dinner when they get home from work?

From: Jo Westlake 27 March 2024 08:54 AM

There seems to be quite a bit of negativity about time of use tariffs but once you engage with them the savings can be significant. I've had Economy 7 in my house in France for 20 years and I've had solar panels on my house in the UK for 12 years and it's just a question of using appliances at the most advantageous time. I now have the Octopus Go tariff at home and use at least 65% of my imported electricity in the 4 hours when it's 9p per kWh. One of my HMOs has solar panels, battery storage and the Octopus Flux tariff. I've asked the tenants to try to avoid using the washing machine, tumble dryer and dishwasher at peak rate time between 16:00 and 19:00. I don't know if they always remember but even in winter we're importing virtually no electricity during the peak 3 hours. Now we need some innovative tariffs for people who don't have solar panels or battery storage.

From: Jo Westlake 27 March 2024 00:58 AM

Surveys usually show over 80% of PRS tenants are happy with their home and landlord. Why would satisfied customers have any awareness of the RRB?

From: Jo Westlake 27 March 2024 00:31 AM

The buyers solicitor is never going to believe anything provided by the sellers solicitor without double checking it for himself so both sides will be paying for a duplication of work. The supply side will suffer enormously, which will increase prices. How many people put their house on the market to see if it will sell? If they get a good offer and a sensible timeframe they will go ahead. If not they will keep it. Those houses simply won't get listed if the sellers have to shell out up front. Isn't that mainly why the HIP was scraped?

From: Jo Westlake 25 March 2024 09:03 AM

Builders can only build what they can get Planning Permission for. I used to spend quite a bit of time looking at new developments and chatting to the sales staff. Again and again they complained about the Planning department refusing to allow them to build the type of houses they could easily sell and woefully inadequate parking provision. Planning departments have some truly bizarre ideas. A house behind one of mine had all sorts of structural issues and a planning application was made to demolish it. Application refused. My son owns a house in a parking courtyard that was built in 2007 and by 2010 was featured in the Local Authority Supplementary Planning Document as an example of "a lost opportunity to create an attractive mews character". It's supposed to be a 3 bed but only one of the bedrooms is large enough to satisfy the LA current guidelines on room sizes. He submitted a planning application for a bedroom over the garage which would rectify all its shortcomings and create the mews style the SPD had said was missing. Application refused. In other countries property is so cheap it isn't worth upgrading it. Far easier to just abandon old buildings and build a new one. Areas of France have numerous beautiful abandoned houses that no one wants. It simply isn't economically viable to modernise them.

From: Jo Westlake 25 March 2024 08:56 AM

I have solar panels on 5 houses. 3 lots were installed 12 years ago and easily paid for themselves within 7 years. I will receive the Feed in Tariff for another 13 years. Not only do I receive the FIT they also provide a significant amount of the electricity used in those houses. I had 2 other houses done last year complete with batteries. One of them has produced far more electricity than the house has used. The Octopus Flux tariff is very clever. The real downside is that while electricity bought from the grid is a tax deductible expense in an HMO there are no tax breaks for solar installations. The other one is a smaller array and the jury's out on its efficiency.

From: Jo Westlake 22 March 2024 14:23 PM

Older tenants get all sorts of income that younger tenants don't get. State pension, workplace pension, SIPP income, investment income. Some of them may not have adequately prepared for retirement but they have access to means tested top ups or DHPs. How many are occupying inappropriate properties? Owner occupiers often have to sell much loved homes because they simply aren't practical in old age. Why should tenants expect to remain in no longer practical homes? With an aging population there probably should be more focus on building Social retirement flats and of course just about every retired person who downsizes frees up a family size house for someone else.

From: Jo Westlake 22 March 2024 09:54 AM

In France they have huge amounts of Social Housing and seem to be building more at a very rapid rate. They also have much, much smaller apartments. 20 square metres isn't uncommon in the French PRS. 40 square metres is considered spacious. The overall standards are far more basic. A kitchen may only have a sink. If you want cupboards or worktop you provide your own. It's cheap for a reason.

From: Jo Westlake 22 March 2024 09:44 AM

I just don't see how totally abolishing Section 21 is helpful to either landlords or tenants. Fault or no fault doesn't matter if the end result is homelessness and a bill for moving or storage costs. Section 8 needs to be seriously strengthened so rogue tenants can be swiftly evicted. The likely consequence of that would be a number of tenants would decide not to breach their tenancy agreement to avoid being evicted. If so that's a win, win situation. The proposals to allow eviction when the landlord wants to sell, move back in or let it to a family member are all well and good but does nothing for the totally blameless tenant who is being evicted. As far as I'm concerned it's this group who needs practical assistance. How often do landlords evict good tenants? How much does it cost if the tenant chooses not to move out in the 2 months notice period? How many sales fall through because the tenant hasn't vacated? How much lower is the sale price when a cold, tired, empty BTL is marketed instead of one that looks like a home? (Last one of those I bought was £10K below a lowish asking price. Nothing wrong with it that cleaning and decorating wouldn't solve but FTBs just didn't like it). How much does the void cost while waiting for the sale to go through? (7 months rent in the above example, so around £5500). Wouldn't a better solution be to give long term blameless tenants 2 months rent refund along with their deposit if they move out within the notice period? It would certainly prove how rare it is for genuinely good tenants to be evicted and ultimately landlords only sell a property once. Most of the time they would wait for it to become vacant due to natural tenant turnover.

From: Jo Westlake 22 March 2024 09:34 AM

For me the only time a series of fixed term tenancy agreements are appropriate are for students, purely because the academic year exists. For everyone else it's an initial 6 months AST and then let it roll on to periodic. I can see why Letting Agents want everyone on fixed terms so they can charge renewal fees to the landlords and hope tenants move out rather than commit to another 12 months, which then generates every fee they can dream up. In real life things don't happen in convenient 12 months chunks. Relationships form or break up, job offers happen, babies appear, etc.

From: Jo Westlake 22 March 2024 08:35 AM

People don't have to be on the Social to get Social Housing. Different areas have different income and savings criteria. Some have £27K income for a single person and up to £86K for a family with a 4 bedroom entitlement. Others have £50K as the maximum income or savings. A Section 21 eviction used to be a fast track route to Social Housing but it rarely works now. Councils are far more likely to try to place people in the PRS whenever possible.

From: Jo Westlake 21 March 2024 08:31 AM

BRMAs need to be much, much smaller. It's a nonsense basing LHA on a 500 square mile area when most of the jobs are in a 20 square mile area. Giving people the choice of paying way more than LHA to live close to work or pay cheap rent and high travel to work costs is ridiculous. Either way that extra money is coming out of the food, clothing or emergencies part of their income. LHA needs to be based on the 30th percentile of housing within a 5 miles radius of major employment areas.

From: Jo Westlake 21 March 2024 08:23 AM

LHA is still way below the cheapest available properties in my area. Even though LHA has increased and the rent of my UC aided tenants has increased accordingly all it really means is that rent increases for my self funding tenants have been a bit lower this year.

From: Jo Westlake 21 March 2024 08:15 AM

Firstly not everyone wants to own a house. Maybe they do at some point in their lives but not right now. All these think tanks and activists need to acknowledge most people reside in the PRS for some part of their life from choice or circumstance. While they're at university, when they first leave home, while they're waiting to meet their life partner, when they're trying out a new relationship, when they want to be able to accept job offers in a geographically wide area, when they get divorced, etc. it's perfectly normal behaviour for the vast majority of people for a period of time. If they want to aid people's ability to save a deposit abolish Section 24 and most of the rental specific regulations. Why should rental properties be treated differently to owner occupied properties? There's nothing stopping owner occupiers putting 2 sets of bunk beds in a room but in the PRS it's overcrowding. Prospective FTBs already have access to huge amounts of tax payer funded assistance such as LISAs and previously HTB. Giving Council Tax discounts would be wide open to fraud and over complicated administration. If the government really wanted to encourage banks to lend to a wider range of buyers they would reinstate a form of housing benefit for homeowners. Just to go towards the interest element of the mortgage. It would lower the risk for the banks and cost peanuts. Borrowers would still need to meet lending criteria in the first place but it would give far greater certainty to the lenders, which should translate as lower borrowing costs for all mortgaged home owners. Why should people who live in expensive houses pay higher Council Tax? They are already paying far higher mortgage payments and don't receive any extra services from the Council. In a great many cases their disposable income will be lower than someone on UC.

From: Jo Westlake 21 March 2024 08:06 AM

Section 24 is ensuring rent increases are baked in for the foreseeable. Until October 2022 I almost never increased rent for existing tenants. Due to initially the utility price rises and now huge mortgage interest rises plus Section 24 rents have to increase by whatever the market will stand. The increases aren't actually covering the increased costs and extra tax and it's going to take several years before they might.

From: Jo Westlake 20 March 2024 07:25 AM

The Guardian article seemed to completely overlook the fact that historically there was no limit on the number of people who could occupy a house. Of course there were enough houses if unlimited numbers of people could squeeze into them. Back in the 1950s my mother was a midwife. During my childhood she used to talk about the families living on one of the local Council estates with 13 or 14 children. Those houses have only ever had 2 or 3 bedrooms and today are deemed to be suitable for a maximum of 6 occupants. It also completely overlooked the fact that PRS tenants often want the ability to up sticks within weeks and move if a better job presents itself. It is the only tenure that allows such mobility.

From: Jo Westlake 20 March 2024 07:15 AM

Simon A chunk of retirement income will be used to maintain and insure the house. A mortgage is nowhere even close to the whole cost of homeownership. How many pensioners get ripped off by rogue builders and other scam artists? For some homeownership will be the overall cheaper option but not necessarily by as much as people would like to think. For others owning a house will be an absolute millstone. Some will want greater mobility in retirement, especially if they want to easily move closer to family or friends. There isn't a one size fits all answer.

From: Jo Westlake 16 March 2024 20:11 PM

Renting works for some people and isn't necessarily a pathway to a sad, miserable retirement. Some will need the mobility renting allows to pursue career opportunities. In many cases they will invest in other assets and have a very comfortable retirement pot. I hate to think how much I have spent over the years on estate agents fees, SDLT and solicitors bills every time I've moved house. It would certainly have been a major boost to my pension pot if it had all gone in there. The argument that mortgage payments are cheaper than rent is only part of the story. The actual mortgage interest may be lower but the interest that isn't being received on the slice of deposit or equity is conveniently ignored, as are the insurance and maintenance costs. Even the increase in value is illusionary until you either significantly downsize or die. Then there are people who have never earned enough to clear mortgage lending criteria. It's all a bit of an irrelevant argument for them. They either live in an expensive part of the country or work in a low wage industry (often as a key worker). Renting is just a fact of life and shouldn't be regarded as an inferior option. It's the only option in those circumstances. The people I know in that situation don't tend to live lavish lifestyles and seem to be far more knowledgeable about their pensions than I am about mine. Millions of Gen X and Millennials are likely to inherit at about the time they hit retirement, so that will change any projections HL choose to make.

From: Jo Westlake 16 March 2024 11:41 AM

Why? They're only entitled to LHA for a one bedroom property. Maybe a DHP if they apply for one and if it is granted. UC for a single person without dependant children is incredibly low. Most will have the State Pension plus at least a small workplace pension, which will all erode their entitlement to means tested benefits.

From: Jo Westlake 16 March 2024 11:14 AM

All of mine were 5 year fixes except one tracker. Five ended last year and have gone onto new 5 year fixes. The fees and rates for 2 year products were insane. I managed to shuffle some of the borrowing onto non HMO properties, which helped a bit, but it was still massive increases. My next batch of low rate fixes end in 2027. Section 24 is making the whole situation so much worse. To cover a £500 increase in the interest payment rent needs to be increased by £667 just to cover the extra interest and tax. However, increasing the rent puts me into the 60% tax band so rent needs to increase by £1000 to cover the extra interest and tax. Roughly 50% of PRS tenants are housed by portfolio landlords so this is affecting millions of people. Obviously we can't actually increase rent that much in one go so it is baking in annual increases for the foreseeable. Landlords certainly aren't benefitting from the rent increases. We mainly can't increase rent enough to cover the extra cost and are just acting as unpaid tax collectors.

From: Jo Westlake 14 March 2024 10:54 AM

One of the biggest problems is the 5 week wait for UC. It's not such a problem if someone needs to move after going on to UC because the Local Authority will do whatever it takes to get a new tenancy up and running with rent in advance as per the tenancy agreement. There is a huge amount of help and support to ensure those tenants receive every handout available. It when previously self funding tenants moved onto UC that problems occur. Firstly the 5 week wait with rent paid in arrears, secondly a far higher risk of sanctions for minor errors with the online journal as they are not experienced claimants, thirdly a massive drop in income compared with when they were working and difficulty renegotiating contracts for mobile phones, broadband, gym membership, etc for several months. The lack of support is staggering and it's easy to see how debt problems occur. One real issue is that the landlord is pretty much excluded from any process that may exist so it's a bit ridiculous saying we should offer more help. A lot of us would be far more willing to give previously good tenants a bit of slack if we weren't expected to behave as charities. The government needs to recognise a tenancy agreement is a contract and rent must be available to be paid as per contract.

From: Jo Westlake 14 March 2024 00:47 AM

Why are Social rents so ludicrously cheap when there are no real financial barriers to applying for Social housing? Higher rate tax payers can certainly be Social tenants. Low income households would qualify for LHA so I can't think of a single valid excuse for Social Housing being cheaper than LHA. How are Social Housing providers supposed to maintain their stock without adequate rent coming in? Also with such clearly demonstrable poor standards in Social Housing maintenance what exactly qualifies Councils to run licensing schemes and issue fines to PRS landlords? Until they can demonstrate superior skills (or at the very least adequate maintenance of their own stock) perhaps all licensing schemes should be halted?

From: Jo Westlake 13 March 2024 11:25 AM

Aren't houses in the South West worth considerably more than houses in the North East? Don't decarbonising measures cost pretty much the same all over the country? Even though yields may be higher in the NE in general much smaller numbers are in play. For the cost of one house in Bath, Bristol or Exeter you could buy half a street in parts of County Durham. In the SW spending £20K on upgrades may make sense in terms of increasing the value of the house by at least a corresponding amount. In the NE it's far less likely to be able to recoup a similar cost. Then there's financing these upgrades. There's far more likelihood of having sufficient equity for a further advance in the SW.

From: Jo Westlake 12 March 2024 00:38 AM

A great many energy saving upgrades require the occupant to adapt their behaviour. Without the full understanding and cooperation of the tenant some "improvements" can result in mould and damp issues. Too many influencers are giving completely half baked money saving advice which tenants take as gospel. It doesn't matter how many leaflets we give them on the subject, TikTok must be right. How many of us have tenants who refuse to open windows, shut trickle vents, never use extractors, dry laundry on airing racks, don't understand their heating controls and then whine about mildew in the wardrobe? How many of us have tenants who scream about January's gas bill being unaffordable but forget to mention the summer gas bills were less than £30 a month? I'm all for energy saving measures where they are going to be beneficial but I'm not convinced about upgrades in houses where tenants clearly don't understand the basics about heating and ventilation.

From: Jo Westlake 09 March 2024 10:53 AM

Paul - that's a whole load of very valid points. There are a significant number of seasonal workers who do the summer season abroad as holiday reps or the festival scene in this country and then rent a winter let somewhere and work in retail, delivery or warehouses for the Christmas run up and after Christmas sickness season. Where are they going to live if 6 month winter lets become problematic? How will the companies that rely on these staff cover the peak period? They already struggle to recruit seasonal workers. People who are permanent residents tend to want a year round job.

From: Jo Westlake 08 March 2024 11:43 AM

I'm curious about the retirement flat and Firstport. I can't get much sense out of estate agents on the subject. I've read the Firstport information which seems a bit unclear and I've read their fairly bad reviews. The question is can you buy one of their leasehold flats and rent it out to someone who is over 60? The estate agent says absolutely not. Firstport's information indicates it may be OK. I'm fully aware of the ground rent, service charge and short lease but the prices seem to reflect that.

From: Jo Westlake 08 March 2024 09:50 AM

It was always insane that traditional BTL was saddled with Section 24 while holiday lets enjoyed far more traditional taxation. One is essential, the other a luxury. Punishing the holiday let industry does nothing to improve the supply of long term PRS properties though. How many traditional BTLs converted to holiday lets because Section 24 made them unviable as a long term let? With Section 24 still in place and much higher interest rates they're even less able to return to the long term market. There are many different factors that the government seem to completely ignore. A lot of holiday lets either can't be let as long term homes as the planning permission stipulated they could only be used as holiday accommodation or would be awful to live in year round. Maybe with a very low EPC. The quaint fisherman's cottage that's lovely for a week in August probably wouldn't suit many people for the winter. There tends to be a lack of employment out of season in tourist areas. In season a lot of tourism jobs are low paid.

From: Jo Westlake 08 March 2024 09:34 AM

I bought a coach house in 2019 and let it to a couple with a dog as there's a myth that pet owners are more long term than non pet owners. They stayed 9 months. The carpets smelt really doggy when they went and even with professional cleaning with odour neutralising cleaner still smelt awful. So I specifically tried to find another pet owner on the basis they might be nose blind. They stayed 10 months. Again heavy duty doggy smell, more professional cleaning and really hard to re let. I finished up with a high risk tenant with a love of air freshener. He failed referencing and it clearly pushed him to the limit financially. He was actually a very good tenant but only stayed 9 months. This time round it smelt a lot better. The current tenants have been there 2 years now and have 2 guinea pigs which live in a very elaborate cage in the second bedroom. So far more tenant turnover than any of my other properties and far more voids. In my experience letting to dog owners is an expensive mistake even if the dog isn't actually destructive.

From: Jo Westlake 08 March 2024 09:12 AM

Blatant discrimination against landlords who house the most financially challenged tenants. Of my 16 BTLs only one household may earn enough to be able to buy the property they currently rent. The likelihood of them wanting to buy that property is about zero as it doesn't have a garden. The rest are either HMOs occupied by students or young professionals or small flats and houses occupied by UC tenants. Most years at least two of my HMO tenants will buy houses but they certainly couldn't buy the HMO they're living in.

From: Jo Westlake 08 March 2024 08:36 AM

I've never had anyone request a 2 or 3 year tenancy. Apart from students all of mine start on a 6 month AST and then roll onto a SPT. I'd like to see Section 8 made more functional because as others have said "No GOOD landlord gives NOTICE to a GOOD tenant without a GOOD reason."

From: Jo Westlake 07 March 2024 21:07 PM

24% is still eye wateringly high for those of us who have owned houses for a long time. Without indexation relief it's still a huge amount of tax which basically amounts to the theft of a couple of bedrooms. Sell a 5 bed and finish up with enough money to buy a 3 bed. As houses can't be sold off in nice CGT friendly parcels like most other assets can, it seems bizarre that CGT is charged at a higher rate on houses than on other assets.

From: Jo Westlake 07 March 2024 00:18 AM

It was certainly underwhelming. The commentators afterwards were interesting. A housing woman from Newcastle was absolutely gutted that nothing was done for housing. The only mention the West Country seemed to get was the Cornish and North Devon MPs getting their way on messing up holiday lets. On a positive note one of my sons will be about £5K better off due to the Higher Income Child Benefit change and NI. He's an exception though as he has 5 children and next year will earn best part of £60K. Very few other people will get much.

From: Jo Westlake 06 March 2024 17:44 PM

Ellie - that's the whole point of LHA and UC. So low paid workers can afford to live in areas they couldn't otherwise afford. There are all sorts of arguments about sending them to live somewhere cheaper but ultimately a lot of them are essential workers who get paid very little. The clue is in the word "essential". Pushing them miles from their workplace and expecting them to pay high travel to work costs is a complete non starter. It's not a perfect system but no one has come up with a better alternative. Regional pay has been suggested but would be problematic. Whenever anyone trys to change anything someone starts screaming about child poverty. It's largely up to us how much rent we choose to charge or the type of people we let to. I choose to do some LHA level rent for various random reasons. All 6 of those properties would rent for significantly more to other people. They wouldn't necessarily be much more profitable though by the time voids had been factored in. You've previously mentioned a few things about the type of tenants you prefer. What you choose to charge them is up to you and as long as you don't feel exploited or taken advantage of then it's a win, win situation.

From: Jo Westlake 05 March 2024 17:59 PM

Ellie - if you're Central London it looks right. If you're one of the Inner London areas it may be slightly different depending which area and size of property. The rates have increased quite a bit but they had been frozen for a very long time. They're still low compared with market rent and some of the London ones have been set at the LHA cap rather than the 30th percentile. For example the 30th percentile for a 4 bed in Central London is £1150 a week. The new LHA rent is capped at £704 a week.

From: Jo Westlake 05 March 2024 15:25 PM

But are they social tenants? Of my 6 UC tenants 2 came via the Council Housing Options scheme so I'll concede maybe they could be classed as social. Another one didn't have enough priority to even get his name on the Council waiting list. Another has been a homeowner twice with 2 ex wives. Divorce and age has left him as a PRS tenant. Another one grew up in her parents mortgaged house and has been a PRS tenant since leaving home. The final one grew up in a Council house but has lived in the PRS since leaving home at 16. Is it really cheaper to house people in Social Housing or is it just subsidised from a different budget? Social rents clearly aren't sufficient to cover the maintenance and admin costs so they're being subsidised somehow.

From: Jo Westlake 05 March 2024 13:13 PM

I have 6 tenants on UC and LHA. All 6 pay me direct. I tried getting payment from DWP for one tenant about 3 years ago and it was a complete nightmare. Hopefully never again. 4 of my tenants pay on time and in full every month without exception. The 5th one pays 3 days after the due date and is a month in arrears (because of the 5 week wait when he first started claiming UC). The 6th one pays in installments. He gets paid fortnightly so finds it works best for him if he pays half a month's rent every fortnight. His UC payments are quite unstable because his pay is fortnightly, so some months have 2 pay days while others have 3 pay days. Sometimes he's a bit in arrears, sometimes a bit in advance. DWP paying direct to the landlord would only work for unemployed tenants. Most UC claimants have at least a part time job. Very often their benefit top up is less than their rent.

From: Jo Westlake 05 March 2024 11:31 AM

Margaret - I actually applied to be the local NLA rep a few years ago and got turned down. I'm probably too opinionated and working class.

From: Jo Westlake 05 March 2024 11:13 AM

I have owned 2 of my HMOs since before they had to be licensed, so I'm now on the 4th license for both of them. When I bought the biggest one it had just had squatters evicted and needed a complete refurb. Back then there were 40% grants available if you did every single thing on the Councils extensive list or I could have just done a standard refurb which would have cost a lot less. Back then it was too small to need a license. Fortunately I did the full monty refurb so when licensing was introduced a few years later that house was already fully up to standard. My three storey 5 bed got caught up in the requirements change fiasco. It's a student house so although we were given 12 months the works had to be done in August. In the winter we were told what to do (fire doors, self closers, full wired fire alarm system, etc) then in June that year the government relaxed some of the requirements. The Local Authority said they would think about whether they would go with the new version or stick with the original but in the meantime we should carry on with the work as previously specified. They had us over a barrel. We could cancel the tenants for that year and lose 11 months rent, or we could do nothing and risk a big fine or we could spend loads on work that was probably going to be unnecessary. Great choice! So I spent about £20K getting all the work done. In the October (about 3 weeks after the new students had moved in) the Council announced they were adopting the new requirements, so a lot of the work we had had done was unnecessary. Since then the way rooms with sloping ceilings are measured has changed so I have had to widen the dormer in one room. While that house has cost a lot to make compliant it is one of my most profitable houses. My 2 storey 5 bed became licensable 6 years ago and had its licence renewed last year. It's been inspected a couple of times and I had expected a big list of things the Council wanted doing. They came up with 2 very minor things that cost less than £100 to do. They send out the renewal pack months in advance and we can get a discount if we're accredited. So far I haven't had any problem renewing but maybe that's because I do it at the earliest opportunity.

From: Jo Westlake 05 March 2024 11:00 AM

That all sounds incredibly over complicated. Discounts and sliding scales! What on earth makes him think using a managing agent enhances the experience for anyone? Home buyers have been priced out by the current interest rates. Nothing to do with anything landlords have done. We tend to look for completely different things to the average home buyer. They want to love it, we want location, location, location, decent room sizes, never mind it's kerb appeal or questionable decor. I'm completely neutral on licensing. It's just another cost to pass on to the tenants. I am licensed as an HMO landlord. It's not really a big deal apart from the cost (which is bundled in with the rent). Tenants have never seemed remotely interested in the subject. Renewing annually would be excessive. Councils struggle to keep up with renewals every 5 years. I don't imagine tenants in self contained properties would want a licence to be prominently displayed. I think quite a few like to give the illusion of being homeowners and wouldn't want to advertise the fact they're not. Enhanced tax relief for energy efficiency upgrades would be nice. I can see where he's coming from with the idea of tapering tax according to the length of the tenancy but it would be an administrative nightmare. How would it work in the situation where one of this years students wants to stay and has 3 friends to join him? Is that a one year tenancy or two years. Then next year 2 of them stay to do PhDs and have 2 different friends join them. Messy and wide open to interpretation. It would be far more beneficial to bring us back in line with every other business and abolish Section 24. Reinstating taper relief on CGT would make BTL a more attractive investment. Not sure it would beat the stock market or other investments in the current climate though. Cutting the amount of regulations would also help. How many times have new regulations been invented when there were already perfectly functional ones doing exactly the same thing already in existence? Until Councils can charge sufficient rent to be able to properly maintain their housing stock is there really any point in them building more? I'd like to see more retirement Council housing dotted around on existing Council estates, so people can downsize but stay within their community. Every Council tenant who downsizes escapes the bedroom tax and frees up a bigger Council house for a family to move into.

From: Jo Westlake 05 March 2024 01:23 AM

The new rates are still miles below the cheapest available properties on Rightmove. The following are the new figures for April. Cheapest available property on Rightmove within 5 mile radius of the main city in brackets. One bed LHA £628 (£725) Two bed LHA £792 (£850) Three bed LHA £947 (£1000) Four bed LHA £1296 (£1350) So in all cases the new LHA is below the price of the cheapest available property. It certainly isn't anywhere close to the 30th percentile rent. The main problem is the size of the BRMA. The very few houses that come in at LHA rates are 25 miles from where most people work.

From: Jo Westlake 05 March 2024 00:38 AM

You're right to a point but there are other issues. Recruitment based on diversity box ticking is a major problem. I work for a company that has been an integral part of the UK for 500 years. It was standard working class employment for the indigenous population (especially men) for about 490 years. Now it's all about ticking diversity boxes. Never mind if they can do the job or not. Just make them a manager if they can't do anything useful. Productivity has dropped off a cliff. Morale is rock bottom. It's like watching something in slow motion a lot of the time. I see a lot of people who are very enthusiastic when they first start on a ZHC and are deluded enough to think if they work hard and impress the managers they will get a proper contract. They are bottom of the recruitment heap no matter how competent they are simply because they don't tick the diversity boxes.

From: Jo Westlake 02 March 2024 12:15 PM

I'd like to see the cliff edges addressed. Losing Child Benefit at the same time as starting to pay 40% tax is very, very painful and a complete disincentive to do any overtime. One of my sons has 5 children so will be paying 87% tax on a slice of his income. When you take into account the employers NI the government will be getting pretty much 100% of what he earns on the bit over £50K. He can't avoid working his contracted hours but he can turn down overtime. It needs to be remembered the take home pay on £50K is only £38771 (£745 a week), while on £60K it's £44603 (£857 a week). Take away the CB of £4555. Effectively he will be working for about £2.50 an hour if he does any overtime minus his extra travel to work costs. If he was only paying 40% tax and 2% NI he would max out his hours because that would genuinely benefit his families standard of living. Another son has a partner who only works 4 days a week due to wanting to keep below £50K. She would happily work 5 days but a combination of losing CB, extra childcare costs and tax means there's no real point in doing an extra day. Instead of trying to get untrained, poorly educated people into minimum wage jobs wouldn't it make more sense to incentivise people who are already employed, trained and productive to work to their potential. 40% tax should be ample to take off anyone. Taking the CB is just counterproductive greed. The same applies at £100K. Taking the personal allowance and access to childcare funding is counterproductive politics of envy. Obviously I'd like to see Section 24 abolished so landlords can expand portfolios to their hearts content without worrying about paying tax on interest payments. I'd also like to see indexation relief on CGT. Even if Capital Gains were taxed at our marginal rate after indexation relief was applied it would be far better than the blatant theft we experience now.

From: Jo Westlake 02 March 2024 11:17 AM

He's quite right on most points. There is a complete lack of availability of one bedroom self contained properties. However, that's largely because a one bed only costs fractionally less than a 2 bed to either build, buy or rent. A 2 bed does give a lot more choices (lodger, live in carer, office space, etc). The government needs to reassess how it regards the PRS. Right now it seems to feel we are an evil presence that should be eliminated. In reality almost everyone will be a PRS tenant at some point in their lives. When they're at university, when they graduate and realise the job they want is nowhere near where their parents live, when they want to try living with a partner to see if they are compatible, if they get a fixed term work contract in a different area, if the house they own needs major building work, when they get divorced, etc. The PRS is a quick solution to all those housing needs. Social housing was never intended for any of those situations. It's a simple fact that some people want and can afford the stability and certainty of homeownership. That's great if they are rooted enough in an area and have a stable enough income to make a long term commitment to a property. Other people want Social Housing and are willing to jump through the necessary hoops to obtain it. Years on a waiting list, constantly bidding for houses in a geographically large area, maybe months in a hostel or hotel room with no cooking facilities while waiting to be allocated somewhere. The PRS is the middle ground. Far more accessible than either homeownership or Social Housing. As such it should be nurtured and allowed to florish. It would be incredibly simple to boost the supply of PRS housing with a few tweaks to taxation and regulation. Reinstate taper relief or indexation relief on CGT. (Without an exit route why would anyone enter the industry)? Abolish Section 24. Tax us in the same way as every other business. Stop all the nonsense about classifying BTL as a business for some purposes and a passive investment for others. Refund the extra 3% SDLT after a property has been let as a standard BTL for 3 years. That would give a lot of us the ability to go out and buy more properties ASAP. That last sentence assumes regulations are culled to something sensible. The RRB needs to be scrapped. Evictions need to be far quicker for rogue tenants. More needs to be done to help the very few genuinely good tenants who face eviction. Licensing schemes need to be closely examined and a cap of £500 needs to be put on the fees. Have licensing schemes actually achieved anything other than increasing rents? The Councils already had numerous ways to improve standards or close down substandard rentals.

From: Jo Westlake 02 March 2024 10:39 AM

Depends when and how money is passed to them. If people wait to die before wealth is distributed the IHT bill will be horrific for some. Assuming they haven't used loads of money for old age care. Shovelling surplus income towards other generations seems to be gaining traction as a way of minimising IHT. Whether it will be Millennials or Gen Z who benefit the most remains to be seen. There's very little point in leaving a decent inheritance to someone who is on the verge of retiring just so it can be hit with another slice of IHT in a few years time. I'm quite a fan of contributing to other people's SIPPs, especially grandchildren. It's a regular payment, so immediately outside the scope of IHT and by the time they're able to claim the money I won't be around to see if they waste it. My husband is more in favour of paying for courses and activities for the grandchildren when they're the right age to do them. He wants them to have the skills to be able to grab whatever opportunities come their way.

From: Jo Westlake 01 March 2024 16:08 PM

You're right if it's a standard PRS tenant being replaced with another standard PRS tenant. However, some landlords are selling. If it's a small property being bought by someone to be their primary residence that doesn't really matter as the same number of occupants have a roof over their head. However, if it's an HMO being sold to a family that's more of a problem. Potentially multiple people suddenly homeless. If it's because the landlord is keeping the property but switching from traditional BTL to holiday lets that's no longer a home for anyone. With increased immigration and a tax and benefit system that actively incentivises couples to split up we need far more houses anyway. But there also needs to be more thought about how to best utilise the existing housing stock. How many people would downsize if there were suitable properties to downsize into? How many of us would sell traditional FTB and second stepper properties if we weren't so heavily penalised by CGT?

From: Jo Westlake 01 March 2024 10:43 AM

Instead of all these complicated tax payer funded schemes that very few people know about or engage with why not use the same tax payer funded pot to pay an equivalent of LHA to homeowners who fall on hard times? The advantage would be that lenders could more confidently lend at lower rates as there would be less likelihood of non payment. Lower risk equals lower interest rate. Obviously with caps and limits in place. Maybe to cover the interest element of the 30th percentile house of whatever size? Only on the interest element of the original purchase price (not on any further advances). Only after someone has been a homeowner for at least 2 years. To become a home owner in the first place people usually need a good job. These are people with marketable skills and a work ethic. Providing a bit of tax payer funded incentive to lenders to make getting a mortgage a bit easier would probably be far cheaper than the cost of LHA and temporary housing.

From: Jo Westlake 01 March 2024 09:56 AM

Lots of different issues there. Rough sleeping and homelessness aren't the same thing in most cases. The majority of homeless people aren't rough sleepers. They're sofa surfing or in temporary accommodation. Some rough sleepers find it impossible to comply with any rules they would have to follow to access accomodation. The drop in house purchases is almost entirely due to increased interest rates and mortgage stress testing. With houses prices dropping there's no rush to buy. Down valuations are also destroying some transactions. The rise in homelessness can 100% be attributed to government acts of hostility towards landlords. Section 24 has forced many landlords to sell. The RRB is terrifying some and making them sell. Many bailed when they realised getting to EPC C simply wasn't economically viable. Charging 3% extra SDLT was specifically designed to stop landlords buying houses. What did politicians think was going to happen when they were congratulating themselves on coming up with ever more harmful policies? Planning departments don't help. All the extra fees developers have to pay makes it financially unviable to build bottom end housing. The insistence on putting more emphasis on exterior appearance than internal functionality is ridiculous.

From: Jo Westlake 01 March 2024 00:33 AM

Good tenants don't get evicted for no good reason. A landlord wanting to sell is a good reason but the RRB is doing nothing to help genuinely good tenants in that situation. Some form of financial assistance would be far more use than the complete nothing the RRB proposals are offering. It would be an absolute bargain for landlords if there was a clearly defined system for when they want to sell. Right now tenants get all sorts of bizarre ideas in their heads and can behave very unpredictably, which can result in a significant loss of income for the landlord. If long-term tenants were entitled to two months rent to be refunded along with their deposit if they moved out within the defined period on the eviction notice it would avoid a lot of stress for all parties and keep most of those evictions out of court. Landlords saying they shouldn't have to compensate tenants just because they want to sell the house should think logically about it. You only sell the house once. You may have had dozens of tenants live in it during your period of ownership. It's only the final ones that may get any compensation. It's a bit questionable how many tenants actually get evicted at all. I've recently seen 2 people I know get in a complete panic because they THOUGHT they were going to be evicted. Neither have actually been served with any kind of eviction notice but both are going around saying they were being evicted. One of them had had a vague conversation with the letting agent who said the landlord might have to sell because their mortgage was going up. Was that just an attempt to get them used to the idea of a rent increase? Anyway even though she had lived in the house for 5 years and had a pretty good relationship with the landlord she got it into her head she was being evicted and has rushed out and found another house miles from where her children go to school and £600 a month more than she was previously paying. That's left both her and her previous landlord in a fairly unfortunate situation. Whichever way you look at it the landlord has an unexpected void at a really inconvenient time depending on exactly when the mortgage fix is ending and the tenant now has to drive her children 6 miles each way to get to school. The other one has decided he is going to be evicted imminently because a sold board has been put on the house. He hasn't had any communication from his landlord on the subject. He has sold all his possessions and given away his cat and is now really depressed and anxious. He can't get any help because he hasn't got an eviction notice. It's uncertain if he's a lodger or a tenant so may or may not be entitled to notice. He started out as a lodger with a lodger agreement stating he would be given 180 days notice if the landlord wanted him to leave. The landlord moved out of the house over 2 years ago and he's lived alone ever since. He's just desperate to feel settled somewhere and will take pretty much any property anyone is willing to let to him. Again it leaves the current landlord potentially facing several months without rent while they wait and see if the house sale actually completes. It's also a terrible utilisation of housing stock and must be adding to the overall shortage of rental properties.

From: Jo Westlake 29 February 2024 01:21 AM

Rent can only be increased once a year after a tenancy rolls onto a SPT. I've never been asked for a series of fixed term tenancies and apart from students always let it roll onto SPT. Obviously the student market needs to have fixed tenancies as the academic year is a fixed concept. Most other tenants prefer the flexibility of being able to give notice when they need to. When they get a new job in a different area, want to move in with their partner, buy a house, etc. They don't want to have to plan their life around fixed tenancies.

From: Jo Westlake 28 February 2024 08:42 AM

What could possibly go wrong? Have Councils actually got any spare money to fund this sort of thing? I thought loads of them were on the verge of bankruptcy. There's no mention of interest charges. What a fantastic deal if the Council stump up the money now, attach the debt to the house and you eventually repay it at today's prices in maybe 30 years time. Or would having a debt attached to the house make remortgaging difficult? Councils have a very poor track record where cavity wall insulation is concerned, so why would anyone trust them with getting a competent job done that won't cause damp problems? I have 2 ex Council flats with the wrong type of insulation in the wrong type of cavities. It's supposed to be getting sucked out and replaced at some point. We've been waiting years for the job to be done and are still way down the list even though the insulation is sopping wet and we have water ingress every time it rains How many inappropriate upgrades would be forced on landlords with no thought to the consequences? Internal insulation reduces space which can make small flats too small to be main stream mortgageable. Poorly installed cavity wall insulation in narrow or debris filled cavities causes cold spots and damp. How many loft insulation installers only do half a job because they know most landlords will never check or certainly not until the company has ceased trading?

From: Jo Westlake 27 February 2024 00:37 AM

I don't understand the obsession with paying off a mortgage. From an IHT perspective it's often better to die with some mortgage debt, especially if it has allowed greater amounts of money to be invested outside the scope of IHT in pensions. As long as there is investment income to service the mortgage in retirement what's the problem? I loved interest only mortgages. They allowed families to buy big enough houses when they needed them. Self cert interest only was even better and only went wrong when banks stopped demanding a 25% deposit. Circumstances change. People get pay rises and promotions. Actually paying off a mortgage should really be a matter of personal choice.

From: Jo Westlake 26 February 2024 12:52 PM

Annoyed Landlord Does she want to totally stop RTB or just address the level of discount? Those discounts have changed at various times over the years. In the late 1980s it was between 30% and 70%. In the early 2000s it was a maximum of £30K. In the 80s some of those houses were in a dire state.. The discount may or may not have covered the amount of work needed to bring them up to a decent standard. Obviously some people who bought were tradesmen who could do most of the work themselves, so didn't have to pay for labour costs. If the Council hadn't sold them they would have had huge maintenance costs to bring them up to any kind of suitable standard. Things moved on, Councils did some maintenance work, discounts were lowered for a while. Right now discounts range from 35% to 70% with a maximum discount of £127900 in London (£96000 outside London). It's right to question why those discounts are quite so high, especially as those tenants who can access those discounts have been paying staggeringly low rent. I'm a huge fan of the concept of RTB but the numbers have to be right. A combination of half price rent (regardless of income) and a huge RTB discount is insanity. Something like LHA or market rent and a maximum discount of 25% (subject to the condition of the property) would be far more equitable to all parties (especially the tax payer).

From: Jo Westlake 26 February 2024 12:20 PM

When she bought her RTB she was working as a care worker and Union rep. She was a bog standard Council tenant at that point. She wasn't elected as an MP until 2015, at which point she sold the ex Council house. Why does that make her hypocrite? She used a scheme that the government had created to make a better life for herself and her family. Maybe she didn't 100% play within the rules, although does anyone who is criticising her actually know what the specifics of those rules were regarding letting your RTB or allowing family members to live in it after purchase? I'm not a fan of Angela Raynor but aren't people with her sort of background and life experience exactly what we need in politics? Haven't we got far too many over privileged, public school educated blokes who know nothing about how the majority of people live, stuffing up every policy they come up with? When MPs are elected shouldn't we just accept they may have stuff in their past that might be a little bit grubby? It would certainly bring more balance to politics if they didn't have to hide everything or be persecuted for their former life choices.

From: Jo Westlake 26 February 2024 11:04 AM

It's not a 1% interest rate, it's a 1% deposit.

From: Jo Westlake 26 February 2024 08:19 AM

RTB discounts have changed many times over the years and there have been restrictions on exactly how much discount can be given on newer properties. When I wanted to buy my Council house I couldn't get a discount on the one I was living in as it was only a year old and the Council wasn't allowed to sell it for less than it had cost them to build it. That seemed fair enough so I exchanged it for one that I could get a discount on. That one had been seriously neglected by the Council and needed full renovation (which actually cost slightly more than the discount). The bit a great many people have never understood is that a lot of RTB properties were in desperate need of renovation after years of neglect by the Councils. They weren't nice, well maintained properties. The original RTB allowed Councils to offload some maintenance nightmares, raise some cash to use to maintain their remaining stock and allowed practical, aspirational people to become homeowners. At times the level of discount has been bizarre but that's been down to government policy. The thing I find especially ludicrous is the insanely low rent Councils charge. No wonder so many are facing bankruptcy. I can see no justification to charge less than LHA especially when Councils are busy upgrading as many of their houses as they can, while simultaneously neglecting basic maintenance on their leasehold stock. On a big 1930s Council estate near me all the Council houses have just had their roofs replaced again and had solar panels added. Private sector houses on that estate rent for around £1300 a month, Council houses for about £500. LHA is £825. If they're going to give RTB discounts they could at least charge proper rent in the first place. I don't see what the fuss is about Angela Raynor making a £48K "profit" on her RTB. Over an 8 year period house prices go up. It was a Victorian house so the likelihood is it was in a pretty grim state when she bought it. There's no mention of whether she renovated or upgraded anything in that 8 years but the likelihood is that she would have needed to do a fair bit of work to it. My Victorian ex Council house needed fully rewiring, a central heating system, new windows, kitchen and bathroom. It was also riddled with dry rot. So while other aspects of Raynor's RTB may be a bit shady the house selling for £48K more than she paid for it after 8 years of ownership doesn't strike me as in any way unusual or excessive.

From: Jo Westlake 26 February 2024 01:08 AM

The big problem with previous schemes has been that they have only been available on new builds, not traditional FTB properties. This proposal isn't making clear if it is yet another new build only offer. Several of my tenants bought under the HTB scheme and it always seemed to be a compromise. They had to buy miles from where their life, friends and work were purely because that's where houses were being built. The only properties they could buy were around double the price of traditional FTB properties with the added expense of a daily commute. Financially it was OK while interest rates were rock bottom but once the first five year fix was up monthly payments soared. Presumably if people are only putting down 1% deposit the interest rate is going to be pretty hefty. What kind of stress testing will be used? What happens after the initial fix if the property value has dropped a bit? It comes as a bit of a shock to a lot of second steppers just how much the fees are for moving house. Is it really responsible to make it quite so cheap for FTBs to buy a property that in a lot of cases will be unsuitable when their thoughts turn to having children? I still remember whole decades where people were trapped in houses that were too small with negative equity.

From: Jo Westlake 26 February 2024 00:29 AM

Robert - the problem with working more hours is the huge tax take. People working in industries such as construction or road haulage are now looking at losing their Child Benefit if they get a payrise or do any overtime. One of my sons is facing an 87% tax bill on his recent payrise. His employer is constantly asking him to do overtime but what's the point if he only keeps 13% of the extra pay? Especially if he has to pay an extra days travel costs to get to work. He was earning around £50K a year. He will be on just over £55K. So on some of it he will be paying 40% tax plus 2% NI and he will lose some of his CB. He has 5 children so will lose £455 for every £1000 he earns over £50K. That's a total of £875 out of every £1000 that the government will take off him. Because he's a homeowner he isn't entitled to any UC. If he was a tenant he would get £610 a month UC. He also wouldn't have to pay thousands a year to maintain or insure a house as that's all included in rent. This government has absolutely screwed young, aspirational families with their obscene tax policies. Our generation didn't have such blatantly vicious treatment or the same barriers to financial security.

From: Jo Westlake 24 February 2024 16:17 PM

Robert - you're quite right. People COULD work more hours. I certainly used to work 84 hours a week and do up houses in my spare time. I didn't get to see much of my children though. Some people prioritise spending time with their families. I was never very good at that bit. I did the downsizing thing about 12 years ago when the Council introduced an Article 4 area. We lived very close to a university in a 5 bedroom bungalow and knew if we didn't sell when it still had the right to let it would be virtually impossible to sell. So we downsized into a modern 4 bedroom detached house with my husband's dream garage. It's a 5 minute level walk to a railway station and Tesco. Straight staircase for a stair lift should we need one, etc. We looked at dozens of properties to downsize into and anything smaller just didn't have the non-negotiable stuff like a utility room, study or good parking. I am firmly of the opinion that building desirable properties for people to downsize into would go a long way to resolving the housing situation. Freeing up well established family size housing close to existing schools has got to be better than building further and further from existing amenities. But that housing has to be attractive for older people. It not the same as FTBs are willing to buy. A poky little bungalow by the sea that previous generations of pensioners aspired to isn't good enough to get us out of our family sized houses. I'm sure a great many older people would love to lose a couple of bedrooms and a big chunk of their garden but they don't want to lose the rest of what goes with a family size house.

From: Jo Westlake 24 February 2024 14:29 PM

John - what your niece has done is fine for anyone who has reasonable practical skills, plenty of spare time and who doesn't mind living in a building site. I imagine that's exactly what several of us have done but most of us are property people. It doesn't mean it is what most young families would choose to do or would have the skills or time to do. Upsizing or downsizing both cost huge amounts in fees. It's only FTBs that don't have many costs mainly because they aren't selling a house and get much cheaper SDLT. Everyone else is paying a lot of fees. It's those fees that are the real dead money in the housing market.

From: Jo Westlake 24 February 2024 14:02 PM

Not moving is really the crux of it. How many FTBs can afford to buy their "forever" home? Last time I moved (downsized) the combined cost of SDLT, estate agents fees, solicitors and removal company was £25K. One of my former tenants is hoping to move soon but needs to find £40K to make it happen. It's certainly put one of his former housemates off the idea of buying any time soon.

From: Jo Westlake 24 February 2024 12:19 PM

Why the obsession with trying to coerce people to buy houses they can't realistically afford? Affordability multiples dictate a person can afford to rent a vastly superior property to one they would clear mortgage lending criteria on. The standard rental affordability multiple is annual salary must be at least 30 times monthly rent. So a couple on minimum wage (£10.42 an hour) each working 37.5 hours a week would clear affordability for £1354 rent a month. At 5 times salary for mortgage purposes that would allow them to borrow £203K. Locally £1354 a month will get a modern 3 bedroom house with a garage and parking in a nice area. Those houses sell for around £300K. £203K would buy a 2 bedroom flat in a decent area with annual service charges of around £1500. Or an ex Council 3 bedroom maisonette. The other downside with buying something that really pushes finances is if circumstances change. Add a baby and the desire to cut back to part time hours due to the cost of childcare or the sheer exhaustion of trying to do everything and for homeowners things get very tight. Tenants have access to UC so have far more choices regarding working hours.

From: Jo Westlake 24 February 2024 11:17 AM

He's totally correct. Taxing us in the same way as every other business would make a huge difference to viability. For many landlords the choice is either holiday lets or sell up completely. The tax situation with traditional BTL is completely untenable for many landlords now interest rates have trebled. According to my landlord software between the 3 owners of my portfolio we have a traditional profit of around £90K. But it then goes on to say we will be taxed on a completely fictious amount of £154K. Obviously quite a bit of that will be at 40%. Rent increases have to be so much bigger than they otherwise would be to cover the extra tax. The problem then is I'm likely to hit the 60% tax bracket (we don't equally own the portfolio). Also market forces dictate the maximum rent, so it isn't possible for all landlords to increase rent enough to remain viable. Which is when they turn to holiday lets or sell up and make the whole housing crisis even worse.

From: Jo Westlake 23 February 2024 00:30 AM

I would like to see an exact example of what a MTD submission is supposed to look like. There are numerous software packages claiming to be MTD ready but some of them get awfully carried away with other landlord stuff while others aren't really set up for landlords at all. It takes a huge amount of time to become familiar with whichever package you choose, especially if you're older and didn't do computer studies at school . Then there's the possibility the company will completely change it.

From: Jo Westlake 22 February 2024 12:08 PM

Andrew - the HMOs are market rent. The 2 bed is maybe £200 below similar properties currently listed on Rightmove. Those properties seem to be sticking though so are maybe priced a bit high? When I first bought the property I had 3 different sets of tenants in less than 3 years. The current ones seem to be long term so no voids to factor in. Robert - there is a father around. The kids spend half the week with him and he pays £300 a month child support. The eldest child is doing an apprenticeship and pays £80 a week rent to his mum, even though he spends at least half the week with his dad. She is on an incredibly cushy number but that's just the way UC works.

From: Jo Westlake 22 February 2024 10:07 AM

I house several NHS workers in bills inclusive HMOs. Their rent is between 18% and 25% of their salaries. That includes gas, electric, water, Council Tax, broadband and TV licence. Once they meet a partner there are 2 salaries to consider. I rent a 2 bedroom flat to a couple who both work for the NHS. The rent is just under 25% of their combined salaries. I also rent a 4 bedroom house to a single mum who works part time as a nurse and receives a huge UC top up. She could work full time but would be barely any better off so why bother? Her rent is probably around 85% of what she actually physically earns but that's because she chooses to work part time.

From: Jo Westlake 22 February 2024 09:20 AM

With BTL interest rates at 5.49% without a huge fee or a bit lower with a massive fee it's virtually impossible to find anything that stacks. By the time SDLT, conveyancing and light refurb costs have been added in it really doesn't stack. Every day properties on Rightmove are reduced, reduced, reduced. So right now is not the time to buy anything mainstream. Maybe at auction would stack? There's one house I would buy if it came on the market even though it probably wouldn't quite break even. It fits my portfolio and I want it. Other than that I'm not buying. I'm also not selling. Last year I reduced overall mortgage debt significantly and shifted what I could from the HMOs onto the standard residential properties to get the lowest possible rates. Now with decent interest rates on ISAs and savings accounts it makes sense to save money to pay down the next batch of mortgages when they come off their current fixes in 2027. That's money that would normally have been used as deposits to buy more BTLs.

From: Jo Westlake 22 February 2024 08:49 AM

The simplest way to bring short lets back into the long term market is to abolish Section 24 and strengthen eviction rights for landlords. Landlords need 2 things: 1. Profit 2. Good tenants The current housing crisis is largely down to over taxation and forcing landlords to retain bad tenants long after a functional eviction system would have got them out. If long term lets were financially viable how many landlords would bother with the hassle of holiday lets? Constantly making sure every item of furniture is in top condition and worrying one bad review will destroy their business?

From: Jo Westlake 21 February 2024 08:40 AM

Not much of the article is applicable to landlords. Can't divide a house into nice CGT friendly slices. Can't put a house in an ISA. Can't pay rental profits into a pension. Not your own pension but there is plenty of scope to contribute to other people's pensions. I currently have a ZHC job mainly for exercise and pay all of the income into my SIPP. I also have a directors salary which ensures I get a NI credit. This also goes into my SIPP. Then I contribute £100 a month into SIPPs for 5 grandchildren plus I've recently started making regular payments into my eldest son's SIPP to help protect his Child Benefit. I was horrified to discover he was facing an 87% tax take on a slice of his earnings.

From: Jo Westlake 17 February 2024 11:44 AM

SDLT for owner occupiers isn't really a big deal outside London Zero on up to £250000. 5% on the next big slice. Someone downsizing into one of the most expensive 2 bed flats in this area would pay £7500 SDLT on a £400K property. Most flats are much cheaper than that and retirement ones start at £60K for resales. The extra 3% SDLT is more problematic for landlords and means properties that may otherwise have fitted within market rent and lending criteria simply don't anymore. Section 24 is the big one for portfolio landlords. The whole combination of different tax ideas coming together has caused huge problems for portfolio landlords. Being taxed on fictious profit, losing Child Benefit and suddenly losing personal allowance makes it incredibly difficult for professional landlords to justify keeping all of their current portfolio nevermind expanding. CGT on inflation is just theft. Why would anyone get into the industry when there are far more tax friendly alternatives?

From: Jo Westlake 10 February 2024 11:29 AM

I'm not necessarily inclined to vote Labour and live in a part of the country that is almost certain to retain a Tory MP, so my voting intentions are fairly irrelevant. However, I don't think Labour could make a bigger mess of housing than the current government. BTL was highly successful for both landlords and tenants under the Blair government. It was something the working class in grubby hands-on jobs could buy into. I was a single parent taxi driver when I got into BTL. A significant number of my colleagues had BTL portfolios. Just about every tradesperson had already bought or was in the process of buying multiple BTLs. It was a great alternative to a traditional pension scheme for the self employed. It's bizarre that it florished under a Labour government and has been largely destroyed by a Tory one. Corbyn's proposed CGT policy was vastly superior to the current system. Ultimately people need a roof over their heads. Different types of housing tenure suit different people. There's plenty of demand for PRS, Social or owner occupied housing. All 3 types are equally valid and largely feed from eachother. Before the war on landlords phase one of new developments were largely bought off plan by landlords. This provided the ability to raise funding to build the Social Housing on the new estates and provided something tangible for prospective owner occupiers to see. A great many people can't afford or don't want the commitment of buying a house. Affordability multiples mean they can afford to rent somewhere bigger and better than they could get a mortgage for. Not everyone wants to be a Social Tenant. Spending years on a waiting list or accepting a property miles from work, schools and family doesn't appeal to a lot of people. That leaves the PRS. Bigger and better homes on someone's income and available within weeks instead of years, in a location that suits. Whichever government we get needs to realise it's an industry that should be nurtured and encouraged, not bled dry. It's financially illiterate to over tax us to the point we have no choice but to sell and then pay significantly more for hotels and temporary housing.

From: Jo Westlake 10 February 2024 11:07 AM

Generation Rent and other activists have largely caused the destruction of the PRS. All the anti landlord campaigning and encouraging the government to tax us out of existence has clearly been very successful. Where exactly did they think tenants would live if landlords weren't able to make a living out of being landlords?

From: Jo Westlake 09 February 2024 00:55 AM

If they're so accurate how come the estate agents assessor came in with EPC F25 while a highly experienced independent assessor made it G14? Nothing had changed between assessments. Both times it had single glazing, no heating, no insulation and the only source of hot water was an electric shower. In both assessments it scored full points for low energy lighting.

From: Jo Westlake 07 February 2024 08:05 AM

The whole article is nonsense. Average rent price's are based on the average price of rent for property of all sizes. A young single person is highly unlikely to rent a whole multiple bedroom house just for themselves. Someone renting a multiple bedroom property is likely to have either a partner to share the cost with or children and a sizeable UC entitlement. They won't be funding it on a single salary. I have somewhere around 30 tenants living in HMOs aged between 20 and 30. Their rents range from £490 to £693 a month including bills. Their income is mainly between £25K and £45K. For several their next home will be one they buy.

From: Jo Westlake 03 February 2024 13:38 PM

If Social Housing rent was somewhat more financially realistic would we have such a housing crisis? Why is Social rent so ludicrously cheap? Local authorities are in severe financial difficulties with some facing bankruptcy and yet they still hand out Council houses for half price rent. It's not even that Council tenants are necessarily on a low income or receive benefits. If Social Housing was charged at LHA or above Social Housing providers would be in a financial position to properly maintain the stock they have and buy or build more housing. Anyone on a low income would receive LHA to cover or go towards their rent, so would be no worse off. People who earn more may have to contribute more but it would still be very cheap compared with open market rent. Instead of making wildly unfounded, alarmist statements about the use of Section 21 more research should be done. I suspect we have a whole catalogue of issues that have simply come together and were almost all entirely foreseeable if anyone had put any thought into it. 1. Landlords are getting old. Many are over retirement age. A certain number each year will decide to sell up and properly retire. 2. Section 24 was pure evil when interest rates were rock bottom. Now a certain amount of landlords are paying tax on a loss. If they don't have a sufficiently well paid day job to cover that tax bill they have no choice and have to sell. Why should they work all hours just to pay interest and tax to allow someone else to stay in a rental property (often at below market rent)? 3. Abolishing taper relief largely removed BTLs attraction as an alternative pension provision. With taper relief it's an ideal pension vehicle especially for the self employed. Without taper relief it's far less practical. Landlords have to sell more frequently to keep the CGT bill sensible, which means serving more Section 21s. The cost of selling one BTL and buying a replacement is huge. How many people will bother? 4. Pushing landlords towards incorporation is off-putting for newbies. Decisions, decisions. Something that used to be straightforward is now complicated. A certain amount of people who would have given it a go now won't simply because they can't decide if they should buy in personal names or as a limited company. 5. Increased legislation and huge fines for minor mistakes. It's scary for those of us who have been in the industry for years and have a good relationship with our Local Authorities. It must be terrifying for potential newbies. How many Section 21s are because landlords can't cope with the stress?

From: Jo Westlake 02 February 2024 10:29 AM

I would love to buy more houses but simply can't make it stack with the current taxation and interest rates. I know 2 people who are in the process of being evicted due to their landlords selling. In previous times I would have bought suitable properties for both of them. Both are long term, clean living tenants. One coming up to retirement and the other a single mum with 2 children. One of the landlords is living in rented with her partner and now wants to buy a house with him. As she doesn't want to pay the 3% extra SDLT she has to sell her previous house that she has rented out for 5 years and evict a young family in the process. Even though the tenant is willing and able to pay an extra £500 a month there is nothing available that she clears affordability multiples on and we can't buy anything that stacks. The extra SDLT and Section 24 if I buy in my name or higher interest rate on a ltd company mortgage make it impossible. If SDLT, Section 24 and CGT were all addressed in the budget I would be seriously tempted to expand.

From: Jo Westlake 29 January 2024 01:59 AM

All great for people with 'earned' income but largely impossible for a great many landlords. Our profits are deemed to be 'unearned' investment income, so we can only get all the pension goodies on £2880 a year if we don't have a 'real' job. Quite why landlord activities such as property maintenance and tenancy administration are deemed to be a hobby for the property owner but are perfectly standard forms of employment for tradespeople and letting agents is a complete mystery to me. Anyway, that's a different argument. If landlords want to enjoy the tax benefits of SIPPs they need to have a source of 'earned' income. I have a zero hours job for various reasons - exercise being one but the ability to pay all of the PAYE income into a SIPP being the main reason. This gets all the tax relief and gives real choices in later life. Maybe I'll use it as a pension, maybe it will be used by my children to go towards paying IHT. Incorporated landlords can be paid a Directors salary from their limited company and pay that into a SIPP or their company can just pay straight into a pension. Either way it helps reduce Corporation Tax and goes outside your estate for IHT purposes. The advantage of receiving some as a salary and then paying it into a SIPP is that you can get a NI credit. Just because I can't get all the tax relief goodies that SIPPs offer on my rental profits from my personally owned BTLs doesn't mean that money can't get tax relief for someone else. I currently pay £100 a month into Junior SIPPs for 5 grandchildren (which the government then tops up with another £25) and I'm just about to make regular payments into my eldest son's SIPP to help him retain some of his Child Benefit. Quite how someone can be classed as having a "high income" when they work on a construction site and their take home pay is only around £800 a week is bizarre. If he was a tenant he would be receiving UC but because he is a home owner he is only entitled to Child Benefit. To be hit with 40% income tax and the loss of CB at the same time is huge. If I pay into his SIPP it is classed as him having made the contribution and lowers his adjusted income. I'm a bit vague on the figures but I think it's something like for every £80 that I pay in the government put in another £20. Then his tax code is adjusted next year so he pays 20% PAYE instead of 40% on an extra £100 of his wages. He also retains about £29 Child Benefit. Because my contribution will be regular it's immediately outside the scope of IHT so that's another £40 potentially saved

From: Jo Westlake 27 January 2024 14:37 PM

Shane - this is the 4th accountant since I became a landlord and is actually the quickest! The first one was a small local firm. They repeatedly failed to submit the tax return before the end of January. The second one was a one man operation who decided to ease into retirement rather than deal with all the changes in 2015. The third one was a big company with fancy offices and prices to match. The current one is more of an expert on BTL than any of the others have been and regularly speaks at landlord events.

From: Jo Westlake 26 January 2024 12:41 PM

Accountants seem to take a very long time to produce tax returns. Mine had all the figures in May but didn't process them until about November. It took 3 attempts to get everything included. He'd missed off most of my SIPP contributions and one of my husband's sources of income. My son uses a much cheaper person to file his tax return and needs to wait for my accounts to be able to present his share of the BTL income to her. She didn't churn out the first attempt until gone midnight one night last week, which was so wrong it nearly gave him another heart attack. She had completely missed off his expenses from his CIS job and his mortgage interest on the BTLs. I think it's all sorted now and all 3 of us have paid but why couldn't it have been done way back last summer? Why do accountants take so long?

From: Jo Westlake 26 January 2024 08:43 AM

In many respects SDLT is the least awful tax. Mainly because we know about it before making a decision whether to purchase or not. Of course it makes a great many properties completely unviable for use as rental properties but wasn't that the main reason for the extra 3% landlords have to pay? The unintended consequence is possibly that we now buy much smaller properties and may be seen to be denying FTBs the opportunity to buy those cheaper units. The last 4 properties I have bought have been one and two bedroom flats mainly because the amount of cash needed up front for deposit, SDLT and fees was way too much for anything bigger. The current CGT and tax based on turnover are both worse than SDLT because they were suddenly invented after we had bought. Both have completely trashed our business plans and financial projections. Not allowing finance costs to be fully deductible was bad when interest rates were rock bottom, now it's just insane. To cover a £500 a month increase in mortgage payment most portfolio landlords would need to increase rent by £667 a month to break even. If by increasing the rent their fictitious taxable income goes over £100K they would need to increase the rent by £1000 to break even (£500 extra interest to the lender, £600 extra tax, £100 tax credit). While only 20% of landlords are classed as portfolio they own about 50% of rental properties, many of which are HMOs, so this impacts a huge number of tenants. It also means every landlord who charges market rent is charging their tenants for this extra tax whether they actually pay it or not. CGT in its current format punishes both landlords and tenants. The longer we own the higher the CGT bill and the bigger slice of our asset is stolen. To minimise this landlords need to sell up before the gain is too big and this means evicting totally blameless tenants. The whole point of taper relief was to encourage long term stability for tenants. Not having taper relief or indexation relief is a huge disincentive for anyone to enter the industry. There are far better investment opportunities that give much greater control on when to sell CGT friendly parcels of investment and don't phone up at inconvenient times wanting repairs.

From: Jo Westlake 24 January 2024 04:53 AM

As a landlord he has responsibilities but has communication got blurred as you are mates? Did you initially report the problem in a formal tenant/landlord fashion or casually as a friend? Has he got the 'he won't mind he's my friend' attitude or is he struggling to find tradespeople or pay for the repair? Do you pay full market rent or mates rate? Letting to friends or family can work well if everyone can work out what role they are playing at any given time - tenant/landlord or friends. He's probably feeling pretty hurt that you have involved the Council especially if the rent is lower than it could be. Maybe it would suit both of you better if he increased the rent a bit and paid for a British Gas Homecare 4 policy to cover all the plumbing and electrics?

From: Jo Westlake 23 January 2024 22:09 PM

I'd never heard of the Lennon dryer so I've just Googled it. Great idea but seriously expensive and I expect tenants wouldn't bother using it. One of mine left one of those heater drying racks switched on one day last week. I had no idea just how much electric they use. The solar panel app showed a very unusual electric consumption of 2.4kw per hour from 09:00 to 17:30. I assumed someone must have a 2kw convector heater running all day but it turned out it was the heated airer. I've pointed out the heat pump tumble drier uses a fraction of the electric to dry a load of washing and won't cause damp problems. It's staggering that these airers are being sold as a way of saving money. Just in one day it used about £4 more electric than the tumble drier would.

From: Jo Westlake 23 January 2024 13:56 PM

That was actually in Corbyn's manifesto. I'd really like to know the Reform party housing policy. Some of their other policies sound quite attractive but I can't find any mention of housing.

From: Jo Westlake 23 January 2024 12:40 PM

We also get a discount on deposit protection fees if we use the mydeposits insured scheme and a discount on HMO licensing if we are accredited. While the NRLA is certainly a very poor replacement for the old NLA being a member saves me far more than the cost of the membership fee.

From: Jo Westlake 23 January 2024 12:37 PM

At the last General Election the Labour policy was for CGT to be at your marginal rate on an indexed gain. That is far more palatable than 28% on the entire gain. For example a house I bought in 2000 for £80K is now worth around £450K. Partly due to being in an Article 4 area. It's indexed value would only be £277K. So under the current CGT system the tax due would be about £100K. The indexed version at 40% would be about £68K. Another one cost £66500 in 1991 and again is worth around £450k. Under current system CGT would be around £104K. Indexed value is £332K so indexed CGT @40% would be around £47K. In both of those examples Article 4 has caused a huge chunk of the gain. It feels kind of fair to be taxed on something that was pure luck but completely unfair to be taxed on inflation. Still a ton of money but much more chance of me actually selling at those levels.

From: Jo Westlake 23 January 2024 10:43 AM

It's an improvement on the original but no mention of pets. Interesting that they want to include one and two bed flats in the student thing. The larger student houses definitely need to be protected but small flats are more questionable. Prior to Article 4 students almost never rented small flats. Since Article 4 was introduced students have been keen to rent anything within a reasonable distance of the university. Small flats, ex Council, family houses just outside the Article 4 zone, anything that cuts down on their travel time and costs. It has completely distorted the rental market. Low paid city centre workers are forced to live further and further from their work.

From: Jo Westlake 23 January 2024 10:15 AM

Doing random EPC upgrades without the tenant engaging and using the house appropriately will cause more mold. Open fires, sash windows and wooden front doors provided natural ventilation. Central heating, uPVC windows and doors need the tenant to put some thought and effort into their behaviour. Trickle vents need to be open, extractor fans need to be turned on, pan lids need to be used, heating needs to vary by no more 5 degrees to minimise condensation, laundry drying needs thought. Shutting it in a bathroom with the window open or extractor running is just about OK. Hanging it on radiators all over the house will cause mold problems. It's totally different to an airer in front of an open fire (which caused huge air change).

From: Jo Westlake 23 January 2024 08:49 AM

The biggest problem for landlords of leasehold properties will be getting the freeholder to do anything. It takes forever to get any work actioned partly due to the legally required process for work costing more than £250. I have been trying to get water ingress due to failed pointing and lack of balcony drainage dealt with for over 3 years in one ex Council flat. Another ex Council flat has gaps around the window frames, poor pointing and damaged guttering which has been ignored by the Council for years. They occasionally send surveyors to look at both flats, say it's a big job and do nothing for another year. Another flat has water ingress from a chimney. The freeholder has known about it for nearly a year but can't find a contractor who is will to jump through their completely OTT Health and Safety registration procedures. The really frustrating thing is that I am perfectly happy to pay my share but can't get the freeholder or managing agent to make progress.

From: Jo Westlake 22 January 2024 00:30 AM

I don't think it would prompt a huge acceleration of LLs leaving the sector. It depends how it was done but if we used something similar to the French model CGT tapers to zero after 22 years and there are no Social charges after 30 years. Most landlords buy one house at a time. Of my 16 rental properties I've only owned one for more than 30 years. Another 4 for between 20 and 24 years. The other 11 for between 2 and 15 years. If I wanted to sell anything right now I would sell some of the more recently purchased properties purely because the CGT is much, much lower. In many respects that would be fairly stupid as the more recently purchased properties generally require less day to day input. The properties I've owned the longest are very well located bigger student houses and HMOs, which would sell to other landlords. With CGT as it is currently I'm not going to sell them. The CGT bill per house would be roughly £100K. That's theoretically half a million pounds the government won't be getting. If the French system was adopted I may sell them as they hit the 30 year point. Then the government would get SDLT and VAT from the new purchaser. VAT on my legal bill for selling. Shedloads of VAT and income tax from whatever improvements the new owner chose to do. VAT on whatever I spent some of the money on. Some would be gifted to my children or grandchildren. They would spend some of it and more VAT and income tax would result. The real danger with the reduced CGT annual allowance is there is no incentive whatsoever to remain in the industry or gradually time a departure. Anyone who would otherwise sell one property a year to best utilise the CGT allowance will now just sell the whole lot at the earliest opportunity as there is no incentive not to. If someone actually wants a retirement they may as well just sell when the mood takes them. The longer they hang in there the bigger slice of their investment the government takes. It's not even that the government are guaranteed to get it as IHT if we don't sell. We can always suck out most of the equity by remortgaging before we are 70.

From: Jo Westlake 20 January 2024 14:25 PM

"Two-thirds of those who intend to increase rents in the next six months are doing so because of their non-mortgage costs increasing. Only an estimated four in 10 rental homes are mortgaged, but those who have come to the end of the fixed-rate mortgage in the past 15 months have faced an increase in mortgage payments. " Not sure this is totally accurate. A lot of rent increases will be for LHA tenants. Some have had no or minimal increases for 4 years. The rent they are currently paying is often £400 or £500 a month below market rent. Some of us have some mortgaged properties and some unencumbered. I certainly treat my portfolio as one entity with various properties subsidizing other properties. Just because I don't have a mortgage on certain properties doesn't mean rent won't go up. Just because a mortgage payment has more than doubled it doesn't mean the tenants in that house will have a big enough increase to cover the whole extra payment plus the extra Section 24 tax. I'll spread it around. For the last 3 years student rents have risen hugely, mainly to subsidize the LHA tenants. This year the rises for students and fully self funding tenants will be far more modest as the LHA is going up between 10% and 18%. Still way below market rent but sufficient for the non LHA tenants to have below inflation rent increases. Ultimately I want to be at a price point that retains good tenants and minimises voids.

From: Jo Westlake 20 January 2024 12:09 PM

CGT has got to be one of the main reasons there are so few younger people becoming landlords. It's effectively a life sentence with no viable escape route other than death. Those of us who became landlords before 2008 have been completely shafted. Our children are concerned about how we are going to cope as we become elderly and frail. There's no way they're going to take a similar path. When we bought there was indexation or taper relief. It kind of made up for the fact we have never been able to pay rental profits into a pension and enjoy the tax benefits everyone else enjoys. The current system is pure theft. Sell a 5 bedroom house and finish up with enough cash to buy a 3 bedroom house. That's after we have paid punitive levels of tax on turnover that no other industry pays. In reality a lot of us simply won't sell. We will carry on until we die so have also been robbed of a retirement.

From: Jo Westlake 20 January 2024 10:13 AM

Social rent rises were capped at 7% in 2023 instead of the usual inflation linked increase. If PRS rent increases were only 6.1% that is a real terms reduction and demonstrates just how commited to our tenants well being PRS landlords are. Our costs have risen hugely but we clearly haven't passed on corresponding price rises to our tenants. For some of us our mortgage costs have more than doubled, insurance has increased by 35%, tradespeople's day rate is up more than 20%. There has been article after article about stratospheric rent increases. The activists have been screaming all year about it. Turns out those increases were the exception and that the vast majority of rent increases were well below inflation.

From: Jo Westlake 18 January 2024 07:19 AM

A great many of the Council properties sold in the 1980s under the RTB were in a very poor state of repair. The work needed to bring them up to a decent standard often cost more than the discount. Mine had dry rot throughout the entire property, no central heating, life expired wiring, rotten single glazed sash windows, no insulation. Let's not pretend these were pristine, desirable homes with the purchaser trousering a large profit. They were a maintenance nightmare the Councils were glad to offload.

From: Jo Westlake 17 January 2024 11:23 AM

UC paying 5 weeks in arrears is a major cause of the arrears statistics. One of my tenants has been £545 in arrears for just over a year because of this UC policy. Absolutely fine with all the other payments since missing the January 2023 one. Another tenant is a seasonal worker and has fortnightly pay which causes a very unstable UC pattern. He now pays half a month's rent every pay day, so is sometimes in arrears, sometimes in advance. It means he has the opportunity to miss 2 payments a year if emergencies crop up, which they invariably do. It was all going beautifully until November. Right now he owes £825 which will probably be back under control by the end of March. For him the winter shutdown is the big problem and it's something to do with his holiday pay being lumped in with his last wages of the year and then being classed as unemployed for a few weeks. It's outrageous that UC doesn't honour the tenancy agreement and is deliberately designed to cause rent arrears.

From: Jo Westlake 16 January 2024 09:12 AM

We've just demonstrated one of the totally overlooked strengths of BTL. Every landlord has a different idea on what they prefer and what is too much hassle. As a result there is a property/landlord who will let to just about anyone. I don't like pets. Awfully nice middle class families really aren't my comfort zone. I like students and young professionals. I thoroughly approve of the Right to Rent Share code system for international tenants. I like my UC tenants and although it's lower rent there are very few voids. I hate dealing with DWP so my UC tenants pay the rent to me themselves. I have a very positive relationship with the Local Authority Housing Options coordinator. The stuff I like is what a lot of landlords would consider high risk hell. The gold plated tenants letting agents favour are way too transient for my liking.

From: Jo Westlake 15 January 2024 13:33 PM

Interesting point about the overcrowding. Why is an extra child deemed to be overcrowding but a pack of St Bernards or Rottweilers is considered to be fine?

From: Jo Westlake 15 January 2024 05:19 AM

No one has ever asked me to make adaptations but of the rest of that list pets are definitely my least favourite. I have allowed pets occasionally and it's never been a good experience. Two of my tenants currently have guinea pigs (which is an improvement on dogs). The smell isn't quite so bad. One lot live in a cage in the garden, the other lot have their own bedroom in the flat. They live in a cage in the bedroom. Rent arrears depend on the circumstances and communication skills. People who are trying their best in difficult circumstances are totally different to people who make no effort to budget. If they're good tenants in every other respect I'll give them a bit of time to make good. UC can be problematic if the tenant has left claiming until they have totally run out of money. The payment of rent in arrears is extremely annoying. Only one of mine is in that situation. The others either came via the Council and had everything paid in advance so they wouldn't start out with arrears or only have a small intermittent UC entitlement, so pay on time out of wages. Students, non UK passport holders and children are all fine. In general it's a question of matching the right property to the right tenant. Some things just don't work. A recent one for me is not being able to let a couple of my flats to night workers or people who WFH due to a new parking scheme introduced by the Local Authority.

From: Jo Westlake 15 January 2024 01:21 AM

Lendlord is better than Portfolio but still quite clunky, especially if trying to backdate it to the start of the tax year. The mortgage finder is useful. Not as good as the old TBMC one but certainly the best I can currently find. The new version of Landlord Vision is the smoothest one I've tried but has got a few issues (especially with tenancy agreements) and is more expensive.

From: Jo Westlake 11 January 2024 11:36 AM

Has anyone else tried using the NRLA Portfolio thing? I can't get it to do anything useful. It's probably the most unuser friendly landlord software out there at the moment. Can't make it add tenants. It doesn't just churn out tenancy agreements but takes 4 days for someone to approve them!!!!!! Instead of the NRLA wasting time and resources on Portfolio how about they do some useful landlord representation?

From: Jo Westlake 11 January 2024 10:13 AM

The whole UC system is a mess. All of my UC tenants are either working or signed off sick. There's a nurse, 2 cleaners, a supermarket manager and a plant fitter. All essential jobs that someone has to do. All jobs that don't pay enough to not qualify for UC if children are part of the household. UC actively discourages people having a second adult in the household. The UC allowance for adults is woefully inadequate while for children they are so generous people either deliberately have extra children just to get more UC to spend on anything other than their children or get their partner to technically live elsewhere to maximise the UC claim.

From: Jo Westlake 11 January 2024 09:55 AM

While existing tenants may be temporarily better off if they've been funding a shortfall from other money the new rates are still well short of anything currently advertised on Rightmove. In my area the new rates are: One bed £628 Two bed £793 Three bed £947 Four bed £1296 The cheapest available rentals on Rightmove: One bed £750 Two bed £850 Three bed £1100 Four bed £1600 The 30th percentile rent is significantly more than that, so yet again the government have messed this up. It's still going to leave any new renters or people needing bigger accommodation a long way short. Which year did the data come from that they have based these rents on? Presumably before mortgage rates started increasing. The figures are completely divorced from the current reality. I do some benefit level letting so even at these increased rents I'm still going to be way below market rent. Three of my UC tenants will be better off as they won't be funding as big a shortfall. Two will be the same as I already do those rents at LHA so a rent increase to the new LHA won't impact them at all. Another two may be slightly worse off but they're both underoccupying. On a positive note I will be more likely to have smaller rent increases for my self funding tenants. They've had the brunt of the rent increases over the last 16 months what with much higher utility bills for the HMOs and huge mortgage rate increases. The LHA freeze meant their rent increases were bigger than they would have been if it had all been spread more evenly.

From: Jo Westlake 11 January 2024 02:11 AM

As long as the fees and paperwork aren't too onerous I don't really see a problem. Lots of us are licensed as traditional landlords and apart from the fees pushing up rent it isn't a major issue. Getting meaningful data on the different types of short stay accommodation would be a good thing. Someone housing transient construction workers in their spare bedroom is very different to someone charging top price for a self contained holiday cottage. It's very easy for neighbours to mislabel the type of letting a property is used for. Tourist areas need accommodation for seasonal workers. Would permanent neighbours describe that as holiday lets or long term letting? How would this scheme class such letting?

From: Jo Westlake 10 January 2024 11:06 AM

The Dimplex Quantum seems to be pretty good. I've no idea how much the tenant is paying for electric but he's a single chap on UC, keeps his flat toasty warm and says the bills are OK. The flat is ground floor with 3 external walls, no cavity wall insulation and EPC low D. I also have a newly converted much bigger top floor flat (EPC C) with electric central heating. Slim Jim electric boiler, immersion cylinder, standard wet radiators. The previous tenants didn't engage with it at all and used about 8000kwh in 13 months. The current one is making a real effort to use it sensibly and used 1091kwh from September to December. His room stat is set to 19 degrees. He has one child living with him full time and another most weekends, so a fair bit of bathing, laundry and cooking as well as heating for just over £100 a month.

From: Jo Westlake 09 January 2024 21:51 PM

BG vary on price. 3 or 4 years ago they were very competitive. Right now they aren't. Over the years I've tried local plumbers, BG and various national companies such as Boxt and 247 Staywarm. The local gas engineer I've used for most stuff is very good but seriously expensive on boiler installation. Another local chap I've used is horrendous and sold me two extended warranties Glowworm are reluctant to honour due to parking proximity. BG don't worry about parking restrictions so will actually turn up and do the job. The main advantage with them is if the installation knocks out other parts of the system, such as valves or stuff in the airing cupboard they sort it out with no extra charge. But they only offer a 5 year warranty. Another local company was very competitive in summer 2022 but just about the most expensive in autumn 2023. Something like £1000 more for an Ideal Logic combi than I finished up paying. Boxt were good on price but middle of the road for workmanship. 247 Staywarm was very good on installation. Really competent chap who did a very neat job. Not quite the cheapest but available to do the job in a timely fashion and could do 2 years interest free finance. So there are lots of variables to consider. Attitude to parking restrictions is featuring more and more prominently in my decision as to which company to use. Any that refuse to provide their engineers with parking permits and expect me to pay their parking fines are out of the question. Any that have unrealistic expectations about insisting on parking within 100m of the front door are also non starters.

From: Jo Westlake 09 January 2024 14:08 PM

No mention of the cliff edges at 50K and 100K. Losing Child Benefit at 50K and Personal Allowance at 100K are powerful disincentives to work. If all of those people weren't stopped in their tracks at those income points the government would be receiving 40% of all the extra income they were earning. In the case of 50K earners some of them are still entitled to UC top ups. Surely a situation where someone is earning so little they qualify for means tested benefits and at the same time are a higher rate tax payer having their CB withdrawn is perverse.

From: Jo Westlake 06 January 2024 13:46 PM

Ellie - what you have said basically comes down to economics. No politician is going to allow you to keep tenants prisoner, so the length of contract is the only mechanism that would have any impact. I thought the RRB was saying 2 month minimum, which would make it cheaper to rent a room in an HMO than a hotel room if you were planning to be in an area for more than about a fortnight. What's the difference in that and Airbnb in practical terms? Obviously it only works for furnished accommodation. Hopefully the government have worked out giving tenants the right to bail out free of financial penalties after only 2 months would cause huge problems and push rents even higher. Then we come down to the actual tenancy agreement. As far as I am concerned we can be more generous than the tenancy agreement states, so if we wish to allow tenants to leave early without financial penalty we can but it's our choice, not their right. The reason ASTs are usually 6 months is because you can't apply to the court for eviction until a tenant has been in situ for 6 months. I don't think anything has stopped us doing shorter tenancies if we want but we couldn't apply to the court for eviction until the 6 month point.

From: Jo Westlake 03 January 2024 12:10 PM

I'm not a fan of mixing Airbnb and residential in the same block of flats, nevermind the same HMO. Logistically it's problematic. Airbnb guests are for a few days and are often in holiday mode (alcohol fuelled late nights). Long term residents are in work mode and need a decent night's sleep. In a good HMO tenants form their own community and often leave personal possessions in communal areas. Having a succession of random holiday makers in and out would completely change the whole living experience for the long term occupants.

From: Jo Westlake 03 January 2024 10:41 AM

How many landlords were surveyed? How were the questions worded? While I am less negative than some I'm certainly not "expressing very high confidence." There are too many unknowns in 2024. The RRB, sky high levels of taxation and a general election.

From: Jo Westlake 03 January 2024 01:10 AM

Renting the wrong property is inconvenient but easy to rectify. Buying the wrong property can be financially catastrophic. FTBs pay minimal fees to buy their first property. Second steppers have to pay estate agents to sell their first home, SDLT on the new property, solicitors fees to sell, more solicitors fees to buy, mortgage fees and come up with more deposit for the bigger house. Last time I moved 12 years ago it was a downsize and the fees were £25K. One of my former tenants is looking at selling his FTB flat and buying a bigger house. He needs to come up with £40K to make the move possible. He's paid his mortgage for 3 years since buying the flat. That was roughly the same as rent would have been, so what was the point of buying a property that was obviously going to be too small as soon as the thought of children entered the equation? How many of us remember the 1990s when young couples were trapped in small FTB properties with negative equity and saw the chance of parenthood slip away from them? Lives put on hold for 10 years or more simply because they fell into the trap of buying a small property in a falling market just to get on the ladder.

From: Jo Westlake 03 January 2024 01:04 AM

Planning departments are the biggest problem. Insisting on massive CIL payments, refusing to allow practical, spacious rooms, refusing to allow adequate parking. Insisting on expensive detached houses with tiny rooms and 'kerb appeal' instead of practical, spacious, affordable terraces that may lack individuality.

From: Jo Westlake 02 January 2024 12:45 PM

Everyone has a different definition of what a reasonable rent increase is. A great many landlords had a policy of not increasing rent for existing tenants. That was OK when costs were stable and tenants moved fairly frequently. The market has changed, costs have risen stratospherically and tenants are moving less often. It would be interesting to know how many Social tenants winge about their inflation linked rent increases on their subsidized half price housing or do they just accept it's something that happens every year? People are moving less often due to the general shortage of housing and cost of moving, so there is more likelihood of existing tenants experiencing rent increases. The size of those increases will depend on several factors: when the last increase was, local comparable rents, the general condition of the property, the attitude of the tenant, etc. Any increase at a general level of inflation or that takes the property to a similar price as comparable properties isn't an excessive increase. If the last increase was several years ago the new rent may be a bit of a shock for the tenant but they should focus on how much money they have saved over the years they didn't have rent increases. A good tenant is likely to have a more modest rent increase than someone who is in any way difficult to deal with. It's good business sense to try and retain good tenants. Instead of bleating about how 300000 renters were forced out of their home by a rent increase perhaps more thought should be put into the number of homeowners who have faced horrific increases in their mortgage payments with no financial assistance available to them. At least renter's have LHA and can apply for Discretionary Housing Payments, Hardship funds and Cost of Living handouts. This governments disasterous financial mismanagement has caused major hardship to millions of families and hasn't been specifically reserved for tenants. Repairs and upgrades can be a minefield. Tenants often don't understand that legislation changes and work has to be carried out if the house is going to continue to be lettable. Doing major work with a tenant in situ can be extremely difficult, especially if the tenant is in any way demanding and unrealistic about living in a building site. It's usually cheaper and easier to carry out repairs and upgrades to an unoccupied house and the finished result is much better.

From: Jo Westlake 02 January 2024 01:10 AM

My accountant tells me how much the bills will be but HMRC also send a paper bill in the post. It's also clearly shown if I log in to my self assessment bit of the HMRC website.

From: Jo Westlake 30 December 2023 14:46 PM

Five of my mortgages came off their fixes in 2023. The cheapest new deals I could get were 5 year fixes. The average monthly increase in the payments was £500 per property. Even though most of them are HMOs or student houses I can't increase rents by that much in one year. The cost of everything else is increasing - utilities, council tax, HMO licensing, gas safe checks, EICRs, insurance, tradespeople, materials, etc. That all guarantees rents will have to increase for the foreseeable future. I think landlords need to remember wages and UC have all increased and the LHA is increasing in April. In a great many cases the tenant has a far higher income than the landlord. We need to be a bit careful about being too mindful of a tenant's financial constraints when our own financial constraints may actually be more severe. Section 24 means a lot of landlords have lost their Child Benefit and are paying tax on a loss.

From: Jo Westlake 29 December 2023 01:22 AM

Interesting that the article claims "that the majority of landlords are committed to remaining in the PRS for the longer term". Is that because the CGT is too painful for us to leave? Those of us that got into BTL in the early days are facing a choice of letting the government steal a huge chunk of what should have been our pension or just stealing our retirement. The article also states rental returns are lower than returns currently available elsewhere. So lower returns, huge responsibility, no indexation relief, minimal ability to contribute to a SIPP (so no access to the tax relief everyone else enjoys). Why would anyone enter the industry today? Saying about half of mortgaged landlords and 25% of unmortgaged ones plan to buy something in the next 5 years is pretty minimal. I used to buy 2 a year. Roughly 20% say they plan to sell something in the next 5 years. That doesn't include the percentage who will die or develop serious health problems. With the average age of landlords being about 60 that's going to be a very real and increasing issue.

From: Jo Westlake 29 December 2023 01:06 AM

Minimum wage is currently £10.42 an hour. Assuming someone only works 37 hours a week (can't be bothered with overtime or a second job) they earn just over £20K per year. Standard rental affordability calculation is to divide the gross annual pay by 30. That gives affordability of £668 per month (£8019 per year).

From: Jo Westlake 28 December 2023 20:37 PM

Why are your rooms so cheap? Surely in London rents are supposed to be way higher than elsewhere. I've just let a medium size double bedroom (for single occupancy) for £600 a month (£7200 a year). An ensuite has been £650 for the edge of town or £710 for a posh postcode for quite a while. They are bills inclusive. With all the licensing and compliance costs it isn't realistic to be any cheaper. There are plenty of far more expensive rooms even for lodgers with live in landlords. £7500 is rapidly becoming insufficient for even a nasty room in a rough area in some parts of the country.

From: Jo Westlake 28 December 2023 17:22 PM

Interpreting the article it indicates larger more expensive properties are more likely to be advertised as pet friendly. Or in other words pet friendly properties are more likely to be available for higher earning middle class tenants. £1719 a month is way more than LHA pretty much everywhere. Obviously it makes sense that landlords are unwilling to allow pets in small, high density properties if only out of consideration for the neighbours. I was interested to hear yesterday that one of the local retirement developments that advertises itself as pet friendly only means for pets that exist at the time the tenant first moves in. Apparently they won't allow the tenant to get a replacement pet in the future. Maybe that's the kind of compromise that would work for more of us? A fully trained adult pet is very different to a puppy or kitten.

From: Jo Westlake 28 December 2023 01:43 AM

Michael - the vast majority of tenancies run smoothly. The tenant moves in as expected and moves out after giving the correct notice. It's unfortunate there are no proper statistics for how many tenants are evicted for breaching their tenancy agreement. Using Section 21 has been incredibly helpful for tenants but ultimately unhelpful for landlords. It has made it look like vast numbers of perfect tenants get evicted every week, which simply isn't the case. If Section 8 had been more certain for fault based evictions we probably wouldn't be looking at losing Section 21 now. Genuinely blameless tenants rarely get evicted other than for the reasons that will still be allowed. In some areas outside London long term tenancies are perfectly normal. They start as 6 months and then roll onto SPT. Tenants often stay for 10 years or more on a rolling tenancy. There isn't a new fixed term contract to sign every 6 months so it does feel reasonably secure and long-term to the tenant. If the landlord eventually decides to sell up it comes as a huge shock to the tenant. I actually spent Christmas day with a friend who is facing eviction. His landlady is pregnant, getting married and wants to sell the 2 bed where my friend lodges and buy a family size house with her new husband. All perfectly reasonable human behaviour but my friend is devastated. He had moved in as her lodger 5 years ago at her request. She even encouraged him to get a cat as this was a long term arrangement. It all worked incredibly well for her. He is paying a very high rent for what it is and keeps the house immaculate. Now, through absolutely no fault of his own he has to start again. He's 63, has a part time work contract plus substantial overtime and a cat. Hopefully his age will work in his favour as he is old enough to apply for retirement properties, many of which will allow the cat. However, he is looking at months of stress and worry until he finds somewhere.

From: Jo Westlake 27 December 2023 13:49 PM

Ellie - it does depend if someone is at the end of a fixed term which was reasonably known to be a fixed term at the outset (such as a student house or fixed work contract). Those people tend to have somewhere else to go such as their parents house or their normal residence. In my experience they always go within a few days of the expected date. I operate in an area where other than student houses most tenancies start as 6 months and then roll onto SPTs. A lot of the prospective tenants I see now have been in their current home for years and are only moving because the landlord is selling. They are already facing significant expense and inconvenience not of their choosing. To have the added pressure of trying to find a property that is available to them at a date that suits the landlord who is evicting them is just an added difficulty. The last one I took in that situation had a landlord who told them he couldn't afford to let them leave much before his sale completed but expected them to be out on a date of his choice. Fortunately his letting agent intervened and spelt out how unrealistic and potentially expensive for him (in terms of a lost sale) his expectations were. I've had other people since who would have been highly suitable for the HMO households they were looking at but we simply couldn't make the dates work. There was no way the prospective tenant could afford two lots of rent and why should they? They're already having to find money for moving costs they hadn't planned for. Vacating before Court action has become necessary has saved the old landlord a huge amount of stress and hassle. Foregoing a few weeks rent to facilitate a stress free early repossession is a small price to pay. Especially if the sale of the property hinges on vacant possession.

From: Jo Westlake 27 December 2023 12:52 PM

Clearly the people questioned haven't thought it through and are just reacting to very biased questions. Since fees were banned very few tenants get evicted after 6 months. 6 months is actually a very sensible trial period for both landlord and tenant. If the neighbours are awful or parking is impossible someone is only tied in for 6 months. Equally if the tenant is horrendous the landlord can start eviction proceedings after they have been in situ for 4 months. It's going to take way longer to actually get them out. Two years is far too long for most young professionals to commit to a property. Some are squeamish about 6 months in case they get a fantastic job offer elsewhere or meet their dream partner and want to rent a place together. The fact they don't want to commit for too long doesn't mean they won't stay for years. One of mine was really unhappy about committing to 6 months but is still there more than 7 years later on a SPT. When he's ready he just needs to give a months notice. What's not to like? He's had complete flexibility after the initial 6 months. I've had a great tenant for many years. The last thing anyone needs is Judges having more discretion. If they had applied Section 8 more consistently we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today. Fault based evictions need to be dealt with swiftly and with certainty. Then we can rationally discuss the no fault evictions. It needs to be recognised landlords are normal people. We aren't big faceless corporations. At some point most of us will want to retire or die and will cease being landlords. If the government hadn't tried to tax us out of existence there would have been a steady stream of new young landlords entering the industry and buying properties with existing tenants or for new tenants. Unfortunately the government decided to make BTL as unattractive as possible as a business so we now have a housing crisis. A lot of landlords give much longer notice already. The most important thing is once an eviction notice is served the tenant must be free to accept a new tenancy at any point. A new landlord is going to favour someone who will result in the shortest void for them. The amount of landlords who think tenants are puppets to be forced to do everything to suit the landlord who is evicting them is ridiculous. I tend to look favourably on applicants who are facing homelessness but I'm not going to wait weeks with no rent just so the person who is evicting them gets everything their own way. They should think themselves lucky the tenant has found a new home and not forced them to go through the court system.

From: Jo Westlake 27 December 2023 02:01 AM

I did my Christmas visit to 4 of my UC tenants last night and got invited in for a chat by 2 of them. The temperature in both properties was approaching tropical. Certainly no indication they were struggling with heating bills. Both properties are EPC D. One is all electric with a Dimplex Quantum and pays bills monthly. The other has gas central heating and pre payment meters.

From: Jo Westlake 23 December 2023 18:46 PM

People are far more interested in the availability of parking without the fear of getting parking tickets. Heating bills are only high for about 3 months a year. Parking can be a problem 12 months a year.

From: Jo Westlake 23 December 2023 18:37 PM

Until October 2022 I very rarely increased rents for existing tenants. Several hadn't had an increase for well over 5 years. A lot of mine are bills inclusive so when all the small utility providers went bust and didn't honour the contracts I had signed I was looking at the utility bills rising from £8000 to £35000 a year. About 12 tenants had increases in October 2022 of between £25 and £70 per month. Nowhere close to the utility increases but every little helps. In April 2023 another batch had 7% increases as that's what Social tenants were all getting so anything less would have been totally unrealistic. The October batch was 9% as the BoE had been incessant. Five of my mortgages came off their fixes this year and while previously they were between 1.99% and 3.55% the new rates range from 4.28% to 6.39%. I've managed to shuffle some of it off the most expensive HMO products onto family let properties but it's still much higher payments than the rent increases have been. So rent increases are now required for the foreseeable to cover the extra costs plus the extra Section 24 tax and prepare for the next batch of mortgage fixes ending in 2027.

From: Jo Westlake 21 December 2023 13:49 PM

It's incredibly frustrating when tenants fail to report basic maintenance issues. I pay for a British Gas plumbing and drainage policy on almost all my properties so tenants can phone either me or them and get a repair carried out within a couple of days at no extra cost. How many times have I found dripping taps or toilets that they haven't bothered telling me about or getting fixed? I always prefer tenants to email me about an issue complete with a couple of photos of what they're talking about. One close up enough to see the problem and another far enough away to work out where it is. If it's an appliance it's useful to have it's model number. A lot of my tenants are fairly young and English is a second language for about 20% of them so I don't necessarily expect them to know what a problem is or technical terms for stuff so photos are a good starting point. It's really unhelpful when these activist groups tell tenants it's a waste of time reporting problems and that they will get evicted if they do. The vast majority of landlords want to maintain their properties in top condition and need tenants to report repairs.

From: Jo Westlake 21 December 2023 00:25 AM

EPC has very little impact on heating bills. November gas bills for: 2 person EPC A house £150 (my home) 3 person EPC C house £83 6 person EPC E HMO £118 5 person EPC C student HMO £103 4 person EPC C HMO £96 4 person EPC B HMO £125 5 person EPC C HMO £82 4 person EPC C student house £117 The cheapest 2 and the most expensive are all detached. The others are all 3 storey terraced houses. Mine has underfloor heating and 4 heating zones. The others are all conventional gas central heating systems, some with combi boilers others with hot water cylinders.

From: Jo Westlake 20 December 2023 13:53 PM

I agree with Katy. I have 3 mortgages with Paragon. They have been very good to deal with for new mortgages. They will deal direct with the customer and don't insist on a broker messing things up. Their customer service is excellent. Last year their rates were extremely attractive. However, currently their product switch rates are horrendous. I've just shifted £213000 of borrowing from one of the Paragon mortgages elsewhere onto other houses to get much lower rates. Two remortgages and a further advance at between 4.28% and 5.39% instead of the Paragon switch rate of 6.39%. That's an annual saving of nearly £3000. The other advantage of moving the borrowing is that the other lenders will allow 10% of the balance to be paid off each year without penalty whereas Paragon won't.

From: Jo Westlake 19 December 2023 16:30 PM

Michael - exactly what I said. You're using a tenancy agreement that spells out the tenants are renting the whole house and are liable for paying the CT themselves. You could choose to include all bills in the rent if you wanted to. Tenants tend to be willing to pay quite a bit more to avoid the hassle of chasing housemates for their share of bills.

From: Jo Westlake 19 December 2023 16:07 PM

I was under the impression if the HMO was let on individual tenancy agreements the landlord included it in the rent and paid the Council Tax. If the HMO was let on a joint tenancy agreement it was optional who paid as the group of tenants was renting the whole house so the liability or exemption would be collectively theirs. The tenancy agreement would state if It was included in the rent or not. Presumably it would mainly be students on joint tenancy agreements so those houses would be exempt anyway.

From: Jo Westlake 19 December 2023 09:44 AM

Interesting how occurrence of damp seems to have increased since heated airers were invented. I wonder if there is any correlation? Maybe TikTok hacks on how to cut heating bills by sealing up any form of ventilation could have something to do with it?

From: Jo Westlake 19 December 2023 09:28 AM

Surely there should be more Social Housing provision for young people. Something similar to student halls for any young people who need to leave home. Maybe care leavers, maybe teenagers who need to leave home for personal safety reasons, maybe 16 year olds who are causing their parents rental property to be deemed to be overcrowded. Something with on site staff and security cameras at a reasonable rent. Certainly not below LHA but no more than 50% above LHA. There's a definite need for safe accommodation for teenagers but with dozens of applicants for every room it's highly unlikely a landlord would choose someone under 22 for non student housing. I actually left home at 16 myself for personal safety reasons and managed to find a real flea pit bedsit with a landlady who was willing to rent to me. However, that was way back in 1981 when the world was a different place

From: Jo Westlake 18 December 2023 07:13 AM

TheMaluka I don't necessarily think benefit tenants are a nightmare as people. Most of mine do their best to be good tenants sometimes in quite difficult circumstances. The Benefits system is a nightmare. Whoever designed it clearly had no concept of bottom end employment practices. Weekly or fortnightly pay and UC simply doesn't work. As a huge amount of minimum wage jobs are weekly paid surely the government should have invented a Benefit system that can cope with real life somewhat more smoothly than it does. It mystifies me why so many jobs are still weekly paid. Bills are virtually all monthly and for erratic work patterns it would save both employer and employee a sizeable amount of NI if pay was monthly.

From: Jo Westlake 17 December 2023 14:55 PM

TheMaluka - for very low earners or the unemployed you are probably right. The only problem with direct payment is the DWP are a nightmare to deal with and if a tenant gets sanctioned the first you know about it is when your rent doesn't arrive. Most of my UC tenants work so their UC top up may not be enough to pay all of the rent. I tried the direct payment route with one tenant a while ago and it was awful. Since then I have found it easier to let the tenants deal with DWP and pay the rent themselves. Right now I have one tenant who has been 5 weeks in arrears for the entire year, since he first claimed UC and another one who hasn't paid December yet after a whole catalog of unforeseen events. He has a very unstable UC claim as he's a seasonal worker and his employer insists on paying fortnightly so twice a year we get the 3 pay day month. I hate to think how much more complicated rent collection would be if some of it was coming direct from DWP.

From: Jo Westlake 17 December 2023 13:29 PM

My five would be: 1 - standard method of taxation (bin Section 24) 2 - Reinstate taper relief on CGT with it reducing to zero after 25 years of ownership. (Other countries get to zero sooner than that). 3 - make any energy efficiency upgrades a Super tax deduction at 130%. 4 -Speed up Section 8 evictions so anyone breaching their tenancy agreement is out within 8 weeks. (It would incentivise some tenants to behave and free up housing thereby enabling other people to have a home) 5 - scrap the 5 week wait for UC and pay it in such a way that rent can be paid on the date stated on the tenancy agreement.

From: Jo Westlake 16 December 2023 13:38 PM

The original one had a 15 year old son living with him when he moved in and now has an older daughter living there. The flat feels like a properly loved home. The newer one has a 12 year old son living with him full time and a younger son (about 8 or 9) frequently visiting. There are no gardens as both properties are flats. The interior decor is currently still being fine tuned. To go from homeless and sofa surfing to furnishing an unfurnished 2 bedroom flat on a UC budget takes time. Neither has pets, one of the leases bans them anyway. However, I have 3 other UC families (who didn't come via Council schemes). They are all long term tenants and have arrived with very small children. One has had 2 more babies since moving in. One had 2 dogs for many years and another has just acquired 4 guinea pigs. All of them have a tendancy to redecorate from time to time. I do the big stuff like carpets, kitchens and bathrooms. They repaint and change the colour scheme to suit themselves. Both houses and that flat have gardens, all of which are currently very well kept. When the dogs were alive poop patrol could have been a bit more frequent ideally. Again all 3 properties feel like properly loved homes. Those tenants have been in situ since 2009, 2011 and 2016.

From: Jo Westlake 15 December 2023 14:28 PM

Jim - I fully agree. A good landlord will never evict a good tenant for no reason. It could be that the reason is the end of the fixed term contract has been reached and that is a subject where maybe greater clarification is needed at the outset. Currently tenancy agreements tend to be worded that the assumption is the initial fixed term will roll onto a SPT. Maybe something as simple as 2 selectable options in the original tenancy agreement would satisfy all parties. Either at the end of the fixed term the tenancy will automatically become a SPT or 2 months before the end of the fixed term the tenant must request a further fixed term (which may be granted or declined) or confirm their intention to move out. Section 21 is hugely beneficial to tenants as it enables them to walk away clean even if the real reason for the eviction was rent arrears or ASB. They are then entitled to help from the Council. Section 8 will exclude them from that help. Section 24, Article 4 Directives, licensing and all the other costly restrictions are causing real supply side problems. The one I would especially like to see amended is occupancy rules. Bedroom entitlement is causing major problems for low income families. It doesn't apply to homeowners so why should it apply to tenants?

From: Jo Westlake 15 December 2023 13:32 PM

I currently have 2 tenants via a Council scheme. Both are single dads in their 50s. Due to health issues both are in low paid seasonal jobs. One of them has been my tenant for 3.5 years. The neighbours are very complimentary about him, we have settled into a routine with rent. Due to the half baked fortnightly pay days his employer insists on being completely incompatible with UC it's not always on the right day but it's usually in the right month. As tenants go he is very nice to deal with. He always reports maintenance issues approximately, will carry out minor repairs and just send me the receipt for materials so I can reimburse him, expects a rent increase every April and has so far had bigger ideas on that subject than I have. The other one is newer and so far fine.

From: Jo Westlake 15 December 2023 13:05 PM

Simon - you have forgotten the vast amount of money people then spent on bringing their RTB up to some kind of decent standard. Most needed a full rewire, new kitchen, bathroom and windows. Some had old lead pipes and asbestos. Very few had much in the way of insulation. These houses were in a terrible state after years of neglect by the Councils.

From: Jo Westlake 15 December 2023 12:57 PM

FTBs haven't been buying traditional FTB properties for years. Pretty much since HTB incentivised them to buy a 3 or 4 bed semi as their starter home. It makes perfect sense to a FTB to avoid all the costs of at least 2 moves. It does make selling a traditional FTB property much harder, especially as landlords have slowed down on buying them. If these are the properties Plymouth Council intend to buy it's a winner for everyone.

From: Jo Westlake 15 December 2023 12:48 PM

In Plymouth it should buy about 100 houses. A tidy 2 bed flat is around £100K, 3 bed houses around £150K and 4/5 beds start at under £200K. A lot will depend on their buying criteria. If they buy new builds they would get far fewer homes and would unbalance those estates as they already have a lot of Social Housing provision in the planning permission. Buying back ex Council housing would make sense as they already have maintenance programs for those areas. Buying centrally located properties would make general living costs as low as possible for the tenants as they wouldn't need to budget for a car or much public transport. Personally I think they should build a lot of Social retirement units. It's much higher density, lends itself to smaller brownfield sites and frees up a lot of existing family size Social Housing which already has schools, shops and transport links. To acquire suitable sites, get planning permission and actually build it would take years. Buying ready made houses is a very quick solution and those houses could be occupied in as little as 3 months.

From: Jo Westlake 15 December 2023 12:39 PM

Simon - I don't know if the RTB rules have changed but back in 1987 when I did my RTB they weren't allowed to sell a property for less than it had cost them. I had a brand new Council house which wouldn't have got the full discount so I did an exchange and swapped it for a much older house that did get the full discount. As the original point of the RTB was to offload houses the Councils couldn't afford to maintain that made perfect sense.

From: Jo Westlake 15 December 2023 12:18 PM

Plymouth and the surrounding area already has major housing crisis largely due to all the expansion of holiday lets in Devon and Cornwall. It would be totally pointless anyone deliberately moving into the area to join the queue. Using the money to buy housing should be a solid investment unlike almost everything else Councils spend money on. Over time houses tend to go up in value. Of course that will partly be down to how the Council manages and maintains those properties and how they allocate them. While the vast majority of Social tenants and low income families are thoroughly decent people there are a few on the Council list who have been evicted for ASB. Placing one of them in a private sector residential area could be devastating for the neighbours and local property values. I had first hand experience of living next door to a 4 bedroom property leased by the Council for 9 years as temporary housing in the late 1990s. The majority of the tenants were very good neighbours but then we had the family from hell move in.

From: Jo Westlake 15 December 2023 12:09 PM

If they buy the right properties and charge somewhere between LHA and market rent it may be a successful scheme.

From: Jo Westlake 15 December 2023 00:08 AM

Homelessness is caused by a myriad of different things. Divorce, landlord selling or dying, ASB, etc. Prices of just about everything have skyrocketed so it's ridiculous to single out rents. In reality there is far more help available to tenants than to homeowners. The LHA freeze has certainly made things far more difficult than they should be but there is help out there if people are willing to ask for it. When tenants say they can't afford a rent increase they need to think very carefully about how homeowners must feel about their mortgage payments doubling overnight and having no access to all the additional funding that is available to tenants. A few minutes thought may lead them to the conclusion there's an awful lot of advantages to being a tenant and maybe they should do everything in their power to pay that rent increase and retain their home. Chances are if they're on a low income and their rent is in the bottom half they will get additional help from their Local Authority to enable them to keep their home. The last thing the Councils want is yet another homeless family to find a hotel room for.

From: Jo Westlake 14 December 2023 06:33 AM

A bit tricky when the mould is caused by knackered pointing, the flat is leasehold, the freeholder is the Council and they have failed to repoint the brickwork for years. Every time they send a surveyor he looks at the problem, decides it will be expensive as the whole estate needs doing so decides the best course of action is to do nothing. Strange when they have sufficient budget to replace perfectly good roofs and install solar panels on hundreds of Council houses, especially as they would charge the leaseholders for the repointing.

From: Jo Westlake 14 December 2023 02:09 AM

With more and more mortgages coming to the end of their fix and payments more than doubling it will be amazing if rent increases are only 8.5%. It actually sounds very reasonable. Every other cost is much higher this year than it was last year. Insurance premiums have risen hugely, tradespeople dream up a new day rate every time you speak to them. A carpenter who charged £175 a day last year is £240 a day this year. I've just paid £600 more to have a boiler replaced than I paid for the same make and model 15 months ago. A lot of us won't increase rents as much as we need to in one go but that does mean we will be looking for meaningful increases every year for the foreseeable. I'm already planning ahead to 2028. The LHA is long overdue an increase. My newest UC tenant has a £316 a month LHA shortfall. He came via the Council Housing Options scheme so goodness knows exactly how that shortfall is being funded. He's making the payments on time so far but whether it's from additional DHPs and Hardship funding or by doing without basics I don't know. It would certainly help if LHA rates increased annually by at least the same percentage Social Housing rents increase by. The other major help to contain rent increases would be to return landlords to traditional taxation and bin the totally unique Section 24.

From: Jo Westlake 13 December 2023 00:50 AM

The article refers to a very specific group of landlords - those who incorporated existing portfolios in 2017/18. How many people is that exactly? How many of that group incorporated in a way HMRC may now have issues with? Where did they obtain advice? Had the more questionable schemes been invented by then? I was under the impression they had been modified somewhat in the intervening years. Small scale landlords and their tenants have been very badly failed by this government regarding taxation.

From: Jo Westlake 12 December 2023 13:30 PM

Section 21 is "no reason given" not "no fault". Sometimes there's a fault, sometimes a valid reason. The usual reasons a good tenant would be evicted is if the landlord wants to sell, has major health issues, was only letting the property while they were working elsewhere or has to carry out major improvements. Section 21 is often used when Section 8 would be more appropriate purely because it's more certain.

From: Jo Westlake 11 December 2023 01:12 AM

Simon - I tried semi retirement when I stopped taxi driving just over 9 years ago and I was bored. I'm a highly skilled couch potato and found I was piling on weight stuffing myself with biscuits and chocolate. I decided to look for an indoor job that was physically active and very close to my home. After 17 years wedged behind a steering wheel I wanted something different. Sorting parcels all night was a complete departure from anything I'd done before but it works well most of the time. I've worked nights for over 30 years so that side of it suits me. It's a ZHC so I can accept or decline shifts as I see fit. I take holidays whenever I want without having to ask permission. We already do lots of things other people do when they retire. Three out of 4 of our parents died in their early 60s. My mum was 72. So we haven't been saving stuff up until we retire, just in case we don't get that far. Basically it's work hard, play hard while we physically can and don't put things off. I still predominantly like being a landlord and have pretty much accepted I'm not going to sell up due to the CGT.

From: Jo Westlake 09 December 2023 20:28 PM

What a depressing article. I hate to think how much time and money people spend trying to minimise their exposure to all these taxes instead of just focusing on doing things that help the overall economy. It can certainly make people behave in very strange ways. These taxes don't just affect rich people. I grew up in poverty, spent several years of adult life on Income Support, have worked in low skilled jobs such as taxi driving and warehouse work but because I invested money in BTL instead of wasting it on cigarettes or alcohol, designer labels or flash cars, in the casino or betting shop I now have a significant IHT liability. Due to Section 24 I don't actually have a huge disposable income and because most of my assets are houses I can't sell off nice CGT friendly chunks each year. So I work night shifts in a warehouse as an alternative to a gym membership and pay all my PAYE earnings into a SIPP, which is outside my estate, so it will hopefully be enough to pay the IHT when the time comes. Of course I may change my mind on its intended purpose. I also have 2 limited companies, one to own properties and the other to manage them. So 2 more salaries which can go into the SIPP. Plus the companies can put additional money into a SIPP, which helps minimise the Corporation tax. That means paying 3 lots of accountancy fees and having 3 sets of accounts to deal with so it's not exactly effortless. I also make regular payments into grandchildren's SIPPs. While rental profits can't be paid into my SIPP and attract any tax relief it can be paid into someone else's and they get the tax relief. Only at 20% but it's better than nothing. As it's regular payments it is immediately outside the scope of IHT. This year 1 of my sons is likely to start losing Child Benefit as his wages have increased so I'm considering making regular payments into his SIPP to pull his taxable income down sufficiently. Increased BTL mortgage interest rates and the additional Section 24 is a bit of a limiting factor on that one. I do get quite excited about some of the limited company tax free stuff like trivial benefits and the Christmas party allowance. I'm just about to book our company Christmas 2 day mini break in a Warner hotel near Hereford. At £107 each it fits nicely within the £150 per head tax free allowance. 2 nights of bed, breakfast, dinner, entertainment, dancing and enough left in the budget for a few cocktails.

From: Jo Westlake 09 December 2023 13:26 PM

I've just looked at the Reform blurb and couldn't spot anything about housing policy. Does anyone know if they have one?

From: Jo Westlake 08 December 2023 18:12 PM

Leasehold flats are often significantly cheaper than freehold houses. It's a choice we make - pay extra for a freehold and do whatever maintenance you want or buy a cheaper leasehold and pay the ground rent and service charge. The amount of ground rent and if it rises is fully documented on the lease. The solicitor can spell out exactly what the score is with ground rent. Service charges are a different matter and are whatever the freeholder or management company think they can get away with. In my experience they either underdo it, which causes buildings to deteriorate or overdo it and commission all sorts of surveys for work they know will never happen purely to get their override on the survey fees. Leasehold has its place and is a convenient form of ownership for people who don't want to get involved with organising building maintenance. Whether it's actually cheaper per month than buying a freehold house is uncertain and will depend hugely on the service charge. The problem with that is that mortgage lenders only look at the purchase price and don't factor the service charge into affordability calculations.

From: Jo Westlake 08 December 2023 17:20 PM

I'm not planning to sell anything but I'm also not planning to buy anything. Those plans may change. The health of myself or my husband may force a decision. The stress of dealing with a rogue tenant may push me to sell. A very tempting property may leap into my consciousness. Right now mortgage rates are too high and rents too low for much to stack.

From: Jo Westlake 08 December 2023 10:05 AM

Several of my tenants have bought over the last few years but virtually none of them. bought traditional FTB properties. HTB allowed them to go straight into a 3 or 4 bedroom house. When their 5 year fix ends and they have to start repaying the government loan as well some of them will be in serious trouble. My current tenants seem to be very aware of second stepper costs and how important it is to buy the right property first time when there is only one set of fees. The massive hike in interest rates has scared some of them and made them reconsider purchasing. One of them suddenly realised owning a property may make it very difficult to accept a job offer due to the added complication of having to sell a property.

From: Jo Westlake 08 December 2023 09:57 AM

Instead of trying to destroy another industry (holiday lets) they should stop attacking and maybe incentivise an industry that worked efficiently for decades (PRS). It is Conservative policies that have largely caused the problems in Cornwall. Section 24, freezing LHA at a ludicrously low level, far more generous tax treatment of holiday lets, the threat of EPC C, the upcoming loss of Section 21 and the rest of the RRB, Covid travel restrictions boosting the popularity of UK holidays, Working from Home. Why pay a fortune to live in London when you can buy a house in Cornwall for a fraction of the price? Especially if you still get paid London wages. Some of these sudden changes in behaviour will revert - people will realise Cornwall is a very long way from the life they were used to in London. Some will miss their family and friends, shops, theatres, proximity to airports, etc. Cornwall may be lovely when the sun shines but a couple of wet, miserable holidays at vast cost will soon remind people why they always went abroad before Covid. Employers are now demanding more people turn up at the office on a more regular basis (tricky if you live 5 hours away). It will be interesting to see the new LHA amounts for April. Whether it will be sufficient to enable many local families to find a home. I suspect the government will use some very dated, spurious data to arrive at a totally inadequate figure. If it's insufficient to start with it will only help people who have existing tenancies and will do nothing for those who are currently homeless or facing eviction. Binning EPC C will undoubtedly help in Cornwall but has come far to late for a lot of people. Cornish landlords have more choice than most where the RRB is concerned. If they don't like the idea of losing Section 21 or allowing pets a great many of them have a realistic choice of switching their business model to holiday lets. Section 24 is the big one. If we were taxed fairly and allowed to retain some kind of profit a great many would settle back into traditional landlording. It's far easier to let an unfurnished house on a standard AST than it is to run a holiday let with constant changeovers, heavy reliance on customer feedback, loss or damage to furniture or kitchenware, etc. We do need a rapid, robust method of eviction when rogue tenants breach their tenancy agreement to give a greater degree of confidence in the PRS. With so many good tenants unable to find a home it's bizarre the government makes it so difficult and slow to evict bad tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 08 December 2023 09:40 AM

The idea of potentially having to assume responsibility for organising maintenance and management of blocks of leasehold properties is horrendous. I own 5 leasehold flats and I am fully aware of the difference of opinion between leaseholders regarding maintenance and the differing ability to pay. An outside management company organising everything is very different to neighbours bickering among themselves. Obviously I don't live in any of the buildings myself but I am aware of several of the owner occupiers in 3 of the buildings. There is no way I could deal with the dope smoking leaseholder who steals the hallway lightbulbs and terrifies new tenants in one building. The management company struggle with her but at least they're arms length. In another building a lovely woman who is absolutely potless really struggles with the service charge. She just doesn't understand the charges are incredibly reasonable in that building compared with the others I own. The previous freeholder was very mindful of affordability issues in the block. Another flat is in a block that is totally BTL. 4 flats with 4 different leaseholders and 3 letting agents plus me. That one has the added complication of a head leaseholder who would love to off load the headlease. For a lot of leaseholders ground rent isn't a problem. My most expensive one is £30 a year. It's service charges that really need controlling. One of my freeholders loves commissioning surveys at our expense for work he knows will never be done. Freeholders also need to be compelled to carry out essential repairs. 4 of mine currently have water ingress problems that the freeholders have known about for months or years. 3 of them need pointing repairs, which is the freeholders responsibility. If I organised the necessary repairs I would be breaching the lease.

From: Jo Westlake 08 December 2023 01:43 AM

It depends on the property. For low income people who are likely to rely on means tested benefit top ups, bedroom entitlement is going to be a key issue. If it's a one bedroom property and it's in the bottom half of rents for properties in it's broad location the likelihood is that DHPs will be available as there simply isn't a realistic chance of the tenants finding anywhere cheaper. A great many older tenants actually earn good money or have decent private or workplace pensions. They may be too old to appeal to mortgage lenders but they are perfectly capable of paying rent for whatever property they want. Then there's purpose built retirement housing which is aimed at the over 55s or 60s. Some private and some Social. The Right to Buy never applied to Social retirement housing and there is almost a conveyor belt of people entering and leaving. Just because someone doesn't qualify for family size Social Housing when they are younger doesn't mean they won't get a Council retirement flat. Some of the Council retirement developments are very, very nice and in highly convenient locations. As a landlord I think the thing I really fear is finding a decomposing body. It was bad enough when a 25 year old tenant was found by his housemate within a few hours of dying last year but the idea of finding one after a few weeks of decomposition freaks me out a bit.

From: Jo Westlake 07 December 2023 13:36 PM

There are more problems with rubbish separation due to lack of collections than anything else. A 5 person HMO is provided with 5 tiny little recycling buckets to last a fortnight. It's about enough capacity for 3 or 4 days. They haven't got space for any more buckets. They do however have a big grey wheelie bin. A student house has 2 recycling wheelie bins which should be ample, except the bin collection team seem to forget to empty them every other fortnight. I have a house in France which has a far better system. Weekly collections for a start. They give out rolls of yellow bags for recycling so there are no storage issues or bins cluttering the pavements.

From: Jo Westlake 07 December 2023 07:44 AM

The lack of viable exit route is a major problem for various reasons. Firstly it makes it unattractive for any new landlords to enter the industry with any intention of staying long term. That makes it more likely more tenants will need to be evicted more often as those landlords sell up before the CGT is too horrendous. For those of us who are already trapped by the staggeringly huge CGT liability we have already racked up the future is unfortunate. I'm not convinced it's good for tenants to have landlords shuffling round on Zimmer frames trying to change lightbulbs or unblock drains. While we could theoretically find maintenance companies to do these things for us how often do these companies let people down? A great many of us entered the industry when taper relief existed. We planned our business model based on the tax conditions at the time. To effectively steal either our retirement or our pension is outrageous.

From: Jo Westlake 06 December 2023 16:49 PM

I'm not sure Social Housing in general is the answer. Many Local Authorities are either bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy. They have a horrendous history of financial mismanagement. Some of the lowest standard housing is owned by Social Housing providers. A great many people don't want to be told where they must live or how many rooms they can have. In previous times (when we had standard taxation and fewer half baked regulations) the PRS was better able to adapt to specific housing demand. PRS landlords would buy the type of properties people wanted to rent.

From: Jo Westlake 06 December 2023 09:15 AM

For goodness sake stop all the over taxation. Over taxing the holiday industry isn't going to help. Areas like Cornwall rely heavily on tourism. Treat traditional landlords in a conventional way from a tax point of view, sort out CGT indexation relief, make eco improvements fully tax deductible, make fault based evictions certain and rapid and generally treat landlords as valued professionals and the housing crisis will ease. Wages are too low in rural areas for a great many people to buy standard houses. The choice is either build low cost housing or incentivise landlords to provide more housing in the PRS. Building companies aren't going to build if they can't make a good profit just as PRS landlords aren't going to retain or expand their portfolios if they can't make a profit.

From: Jo Westlake 06 December 2023 00:54 AM

I'm not convinced bidding wars are especially frequent. I've only ever had one person offer more than the advertised rent. They weren't the right person for the property so it didn't matter how much they offered. My main concern is matching the right applicant to the property to minimise voids. A property has to be located in a convenient location for their job and hobbies. My theory is the better the match, the more likely they are to look after the property and be hassle free tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 06 December 2023 00:33 AM

Did you pay the £150 or any part of the bill on a credit card? If so Section 75 may help you. One of my solar installations wasn't done strictly to the surveyors plan and Section 75 paid out about £3000 which I used to have solar edge inverters. This brought the panels up to the quoted productivity.

From: Jo Westlake 05 December 2023 10:34 AM

EPCs make very little difference to heating bills in my experience. I have a 6 person HMO, EPC E. The November gas bill was £118. A 3 person house, EPC C. The November bill was £83. My house is EPC A. The November gas bill was £150. The main differences are the two rentals have combi boilers and conventional radiators. My house has a standard boiler with a hot water cylinder and underfloor heating. It's the newest (built 2004) of the 3 houses, with insulation built in. The other 2 were both built in the early 1950s. Another difference is orientation. Mine is East/West. The other 2 are North/South. Another difference is the number of thermostats and heating zones. The other houses have 1 with the thermostat in the lounge. Mine has 4 zones, which often demand heat at different times so the boiler seems to run for a very long time some days.

From: Jo Westlake 05 December 2023 09:28 AM

My April batch went up 7% on the basis that was how much Social rent increases were capped at this year so it would be totally unrealistic for PRS tenants to expect any less. Also the Local Authority could hardly refuse a DHP for a rent shortfall that matched their own rent increase. My October batch of rent increases were mainly 9% as the BoE has been incessant. It doesn't fully cover this years mortgage increases but every little helps

From: Jo Westlake 05 December 2023 08:54 AM

Location and parking seem to be the most important things for most of my tenants. A couple of mine are trying to buy at the moment but have had chains collapse and have had to start again. Several more have the financial ability to buy but are scared of buying the wrong house as the second stepper costs are huge. For now they have decided it's better to carry on renting and save a bigger deposit, get some pay rises and then hopefully avoid one or two rungs on the ladder.

From: Jo Westlake 05 December 2023 00:50 AM

Do these people actually get paid to state the obvious? They haven't bothered with the interesting bits. Why can't 53% of renters afford a bill out of the blue? How big is the bill? Have they spent their money on unnecessary luxuries such as cigarettes, false nails, hair extensions, the latest iPhone, designer trainers, takeaways, nights out, etc? Some people are undoubtedly struggling but a far larger number are making some very bizarre spending choices. People who rent tend to be younger and in lower paid jobs than people with mortgages. That should be obvious to these so called experts. It doesn't mean they will always be young and in a low paid job. Learning how to budget and take responsibility for making sure the important stuff is paid would be a very good life skill to learn

From: Jo Westlake 05 December 2023 00:39 AM

The method of collecting data on rentals makes a huge difference to the results. Some of us are sent official surveys to fill in by the Valuation Office but it's questionable how accurate a picture those surveys present. I used to include all my rents but then realised that was a complete disservice to myself, my tenants and the PRS as a whole. The fact I may choose to keep someone's rent artificially low shouldn't negatively impact other people. Now I only occasionally fill in the survey and when I do I only provide a sample of my most recently let properties that best represent current market rents. A more accurate source of recently let properties would be from the Deposit Protection companies. They ask how much the annual rent is when a deposit is protected. It would be very simple for them to ask a few more questions such as number of bedrooms, HMO or self contained unit. Ultimately a tenancy is a private agreement between two private parties. Accurate data is always going to be incredibly hard to obtain.

From: Jo Westlake 05 December 2023 00:24 AM

Excellent analysis and some very interesting points. Five of my mortgages came off their previous fixes this year including one with Paragon. The previous rates ranged from 1.99% (TMW) to 3.55% (Paragon). The new rates range from 4.28% (BM Solutions) to an eye watering 6.69% (Paragon). I did as many further advances on other properties at lower rates as I could and managed to shift about 80% of the Paragon borrowing so it's slightly less painful than it could have been. Quite a bit at 5.09% or 5.6%. All these mortgage increases are going to mean annual rent increases are going to be significant for the next few years. Even though the mortgage may be fixed most of us can't increase rents by that magnitude in one go. During the previous 5 year fix I didn't increase rents much (or at all for existing tenants). Last October was the first time my non UC existing tenants had had an increase for years and that was because of the utility price increase. In April a different batch of tenants had rent increases because of all the mortgage rises. I spread it as much as possible to keep it affordable and within the level of pay rises most of them will have received. It's going to take about 3 years of modest rent increases to get back to the position I was in a couple of years ago. Then another batch of mortgage fixes end in 2027. I will say there's a lot of things I like about Paragon. Their customer service team is really good and they don't insist on mortgage brokers being involved. They have more flexible criteria than some lenders. Right now though their product switch rates are horrific. Virtually every other lender has reduced theirs in the last few weeks while Paragon have kept theirs sky high. Very good point about the LHA rates. In 2010 the 2 bed LHA was £650 per month, now it's £679 for a 2 bedroom property. In 2011 they changed from the 50th percentile to the 30th. At that point LHA dropped to £585 for a 2 bed. I actually bought one for a specific tenant in 2011 and while I was renovating it someone knocked on the door and offered me £675 a month. The actual tenant didn't pay £675 until LHA rates were increased in 2020. Market rent now would be around £950 to £1100 a month for that flat.

From: Jo Westlake 04 December 2023 13:47 PM

Whichever way you look at it this government has created a lot of pain for a lot of people. Freezing LHA at a ludicrously low level was just spiteful. Creating a huge social divide by inventing the Help to Buy scheme solely for massively overpriced new builds was social engineering at its worse. Forcing young people to move miles from family and friends support networks purely to overpay for a house and transport was appalling. Now people from many economic levels of society are financially struggling. UC claimants get more help with Cost of Living handouts, DHPs, food banks and Hardship funds. For some people UC is quite generous, for others it's dire. Being a tenant and having children makes a huge difference. The real advantage of claiming UC is that it teaches you how to claim. That's a skill a great many typical middle class people have never acquired. It's the home owners with children and student loans to repay who are really struggling and will be least likely to know where to access any help. Just as a matter of interest what help is available for young families who did HTB and have now had a huge increase in their mortgage payments? Are their children experiencing far more poverty than the children in UC families?

From: Jo Westlake 04 December 2023 07:09 AM

Back to the article. I own 14 properties in my personal name and 2 via a limited company. I've investigated moving the personally held ones into a limited company but the advice seems to be so variable I haven't done it. Some tax advisors reckon it involves selling the properties to the company and paying all the associated CGT, SDLT and mortgage early repayment penalties. That would probably be somewhere between £750K and £million. Others have promoted schemes involving 3 years of trading as a LLP and then somehow washing out CGT? It all sounded very complicated and like it was skating round the edges. I had the added complication of assorted ownerships and no one has been able to confidently say if I would have to incorporate all of the properties I have any ownership of or just ones I solely own or jointly own with my husband. When I looked into it my ex daughter in law was joint owner of 2 of the properties and there was no way she would have anything to do with a limited company. So did that mean I could put the other 12 in a company or that I couldn't do any of the 14? We couldn't get a confident answer to that question so we did nothing. We left the already owned properties as they were and started a limited company 4 years ago. Back then the plan was to buy several in the Ltd company but a combination of Covid and Sunak's ridiculous interference overheating the market put a stop to that idea. Now the uncertainty with the RRB is another reason to do nothing. Limited companies have pros and cons. The trivial benefits and tax free Christmas party allowance are nice. Being able to put rental profits into a SIPP (which is outside our estate for IHT purposes) is very nice. That can either be directly from the company into the SIPP or via a salary or both. The salary route has the advantage of ensuring a full NI history and shows as earned income for other borrowing purposes. There's also the ability to get a very tax efficient car via the company and just pay Benefit in Kind tax on it. The disadvantages of a limited company are more onerous accounting procedures and additional accountancy fees. Also a far more restricted range of mortgage lenders, some of which insist you use a very restricted number of conveyancers when purchasing. Last year Fleet mortgages insisted I use one of 12 firms in the entire country. Some of those 12 weren't taking on any more work and those that were charged far more than anyone would normally pay. It's undoubtedly true that newer, younger landlords are more likely to own via a limited company. Older landlords were advised for many, many years not to have limited companies. Personal ownership was always the best route according to virtually all accountants until Section 24 was invented in 2015. Back when a lot of us started out we had taper relief on CGT so BTL was a very good alternative pension strategy, especially for the self-employed. Not being able to pay rental profits into a conventional pension scheme was OK as taper relief compensated for the tax relief on pension contributions we weren't receiving. Removing taper relief and now reducing the CGT allowance to almost nothing is blatant discrimination to the whole landlord community. The danger of limited company ownership being the only viable option for new landlords is that is makes it all seem more serious and complicated. It will stop people before they start. It's the kind of industry most people sort of drift into. Maybe they move into their new partners house and decide to rent out the other house just in case the relationship doesn't work out. Maybe they inherit a house and don't want to sell it right now. Some of those people will enjoy being a landlord and will think about buying another property. They might have heard of limited company ownership but the usual advice is it's only really worthwhile if you're going to own several houses. How many people starting out think it is going to be financially possible to buy multiple properties?

From: Jo Westlake 02 December 2023 12:54 PM

Get well soon Andrew. Best wishes. Is Robert OK? He's been very quiet recently.

From: Jo Westlake 02 December 2023 11:34 AM

Very few people actually read the advert in my experience. Fairly typical is 'Student house available September 2024 for a group of 4 students' gets enquiries from unemployed people on UC wanting somewhere next week. If they can't read the first line of an advert what chance is there of reading the rest of it? However, proper measurements or floor plans will be a one off hassle and for those of us renting decent accommodation will probably boost the rent we can charge.

From: Jo Westlake 01 December 2023 14:05 PM

Has anyone noticed all the advice on how to dry your washing without using a tumble drier has changed this year? Last year it was all about heated drying racks. No mention of the condensation and mould problems they would cause. This year it's recommending dehumidifiers and fans. Preferably after a second spin cycle in the washing machine. Lots of articles about pan lids and opening windows for a few minutes. It's certainly a lot better than the appalling advice last year. Maybe next year they'll be recommending heat pump tumble dryers?

From: Jo Westlake 01 December 2023 08:32 AM

Most of it is fairly sensible and largely information some of us already provide. Room sizes is certainly a useful one as long as a standard method of measuring is specified. Length of walls or square meters of floor area? How are sloping ceilings treated? Does floor area count if ceiling is less than 1.5m high? I'm not sure a landlord would know much about broadband speed or mobile coverage but both of these things should be available on the providers websites. When buying it would certainly be useful to know about coastal erosion or mining at a very early stage. Some information may unduly scare novice buyers. A great many houses are deemed to be in flood zones but haven't flooded in decades. Numerous flood defense schemes have been built but the houses are still labelled as being at risk of flooding. Asbestos is present in millions of houses and as long as it is undisturbed or professionally removed isn't a huge problem. Knowing if permitted development rights have been removed would be useful or if there are estate management charges or district heating schemes.

From: Jo Westlake 01 December 2023 01:12 AM

Until there is a viable exit route why would anyone become a landlord? CGT is a major disincentive to enter the industry or for newer landlords to stay too long. Other countries taper CGT to zero after so many years of ownership. If the UK adopted this method it would encourage people to stay with it long term and provide some much needed stability to tenants. Section 24 is seriously painful for both landlords and tenants. No other industry is taxed in this way and it is causing real difficulties for millions of tenants. Admitting it was a mistake and returning us to the same tax regime as EVERY other business would be incredibly easy. The additional SDLT for landlords is counterproductive. It's a big lump of money that has to be found upfront in addition to the deposit and legal fees. It slows down the rate at which landlords can grow their portfolios. In the current climate there are very few owner occupier buyers who can clear mortgage lending criteria. Therefore the demand for rental properties is higher than ever.

From: Jo Westlake 30 November 2023 00:37 AM

Until Councils can demonstrate they can run themselves in a responsible, financially prudent fashion and provide well maintained Social Housing at a rent sufficient to cover all admin costs and maintenance is it appropriate for them to run licensing schemes for the PRS?

From: Jo Westlake 30 November 2023 00:17 AM

Standard clause in the NRLA tenancy agreement is: Occupy the Property as your only or principal home and behave in a tenant like manner

From: Jo Westlake 29 November 2023 22:31 PM

£100 a day is a very distant memory. Pre COVID it was around £175. Now it's at least £225 for someone decidedly disappointing. The most recent carpenter I used was £225 a day. He would turn up after he'd done the school run, spent half the morning on his phone telling people he was fully booked for 3 months, took his wife to work at lunch time and then wanted to do the school run again at 15:15. I'd booked him for 10 days but he only turned up for 7 so we finished up doing half the job ourselves. The quality of his work was appalling this time whereas 3 years ago he was very good. The ability to earn £50K+ is absolutely standard for construction workers if they work full time.

From: Jo Westlake 29 November 2023 18:13 PM

Home is where someone lives. It doesn't matter if they own it or rent it, it's where they wake up in the morning, keep their possessions and generally live. It's the address they receive their mail at and are registered to vote. Someone can own a house without it being their home. My houses are the tools of my trade. Only two of them are my homes. My primary residence where I live most of the time is my home. My holiday home is for the exclusive use of myself and my family so is a second home. It has no commercial use whatsoever, so is therefore a second home not a holiday let.

From: Jo Westlake 29 November 2023 14:22 PM

As it's only 141245 properties it clearly isn't including traditional BTL, which as you rightly say you don't live in or occupy in any way. Presumably it's not enough properties to include those that are predominantly used as holiday lets. So is it pure personal use or properties that don't declare any income for tax purposes or properties that do a bit of holiday letting but not enough to meet the minimum number of days criteria?

From: Jo Westlake 29 November 2023 10:46 AM

There doesn't seem to be a definition of what type of second home the data refers to. Is it second homes used only by the owners for personal use or properties that are also used for holiday lets? The areas are bizarre. The whole of Cornwall is counted as one area while Devon is split 9 ways and listed as North Devon, West Devon, East Devon, Torbay, South Hams, Exeter, Plymouth, Teignbridge and Mid Devon. Luton has its own data, County Durham is lumped together as a whole county.

From: Jo Westlake 29 November 2023 08:57 AM

Mortgage rates may be near long term averages but house prices went up to match monthly affordability of much lower rates. Now either house prices have to drop (unlikely it would be enough to fully regain a balanced situation) or wages have to rise or people have to get used to spending a far higher percentage of their income on housing. It certainly bakes in annual rent increases for the foreseeable as we try to cover the massive mortgage increases we have had this year and prepare for ones coming up. Section 24 makes a bad situation a whole lot worse.

From: Jo Westlake 29 November 2023 08:32 AM

Looks like it is almost entirely PBSA units on Hybr. This year seems to be strange for student lets. Headlines yesterday about students camping outside letting agents in Oxford but over 600 properties that would accept students are listed on Rightmove. One of my student houses is in the process of being reserved for September 2024 by an existing tenant and his friends but another one has been listed on Rightmove for nearly a month with only one enquiry so far. I don't even know if my other student house will be available or if the current tenants are hoping to stay for another year. Realistically it's too early and things worked far better when everyone waited until the end of January.

From: Jo Westlake 29 November 2023 00:42 AM

Simon - Interesting example with the car finance. It's pretty similar to a mortgage really. I basically feel that wherever someone's stuff is is home. When I was reluctantly forced to leave my last much loved home (due to an incoming Article 4 Directive effectively devaluing it if it didn't have the right to let as an HMO) I was amazed how in the space of a few days the new place felt like home. All it need was my possessions. When I rented a tiny apartment in France for a year while my holiday home was gutted after discovering dryrot it was amazing how the apartment felt perfectly fine purely because a small selection of my stuff was in it. So while the type of tenancy agreement is hugely important to landlords it probably isn't that important to good tenants. Very few good tenants are ever going to be evicted, just a very few good homeowners are ever going to have their house repossessed. Michael - London seems to operate in a completely different way to the rest of the country. It all seems very much them and us rather than a compatible coexistence between landlords and tenants. Basically as far as I'm concerned it's my house, their home.

From: Jo Westlake 28 November 2023 13:04 PM

I still don't get why it matters if someone owns a house or rents it. Either way unless it's a short term holiday let it's a house and it's someone's home. With a growing population we need more homes of every tenure. If we want a flexible workforce we need a buoyant PRS.

From: Jo Westlake 28 November 2023 09:41 AM

I'm not sure the savings are quite that big in a lot of cases. Not paying their legal and valuation costs would have saved me about £3000. Marriage value can be the big one although by now surely most leaseholders know not to let a lease drop below 80 years. I bought 2 of mine with 67 years on the lease but the prices certainly reflected it. Ground rents have only been an issue for some leaseholders. Mine are currently zero, zero, £10, £10 and £30. As far as I am concerned it's the service charges that are the biggest problem but I'm not enthusiastic about leaseholders self managing.

From: Jo Westlake 28 November 2023 09:21 AM

There are some good ideas but some of them seem to be based on the idea that all leaseholders are a) rational, decent human beings b) financially equal C) have the same ideas about building management as their fellow leaseholders. I own 5 leasehold flats. Two are ex Council. The other 3 are in older buildings that have been converted to 4 or 6 flats. Building A had a really good local freeholder who has recently sold the freehold to an elderly chap who lives in London. It's been put with a local property management company and we are receiving various communications about works they would like us to pay for. Some of it is welcome, some of it totally unrequired. The flats are occupied by about 50/50 tenants and owner occupiers. Budgets and willingness to spend varies considerably from leaseholder to leaseholder. Self management isn't an option as the block also contains 4 shops. Building B has an appalling freeholder. Charges for paperwork are astronomical. Every barrier possible is put in the way of lease extension or building improvement. The leaseholders tried self managing a few years ago but failed miserably and have had a management company appointed. They charge a lot and achieve very little. They're especially keen on commissioning surveys for work they know will never be done so they can charge a percentage based fee for having the survey done on top of the cost of the survey. The woman in the ground floor flat has been removing the communal hallway lightbulbs for the entire 3 years since I bought my flat. The management company hasn't even had the initiative to install a tamper resistant light fitting. I reported water ingress from the chimney about 9 months ago and we haven't received quotes to consider yet. The flats are usually 50/50 tenants and owner occupiers. The above mentioned woman has a tendancy to be totally irrational and confrontational and has caused several tenants to leave. Building C is recently converted and has the additional layer of a Head Leaseholder. He was the developer and lives in London. His local maintenance chap will only look at problems on a Sunday (if he hasn't got anything else to do) as he doesn't get paid for looking at problems, only for fixing them (if they're within his skill set). We were told a proper local property management company would be taking over management back in April. We are paying the monthly management fee based on their charges but not actually benefitting from their services or access to local tradespeople. The Head Leaseholder tried getting one of us to take over the Head Lease. It would only cost us the legal fees. Why would any of us want the hassle? All 4 flats are tenanted, owned by 4 different landlords, 3 of which use different letting agents and I self manage. As a leaseholder I don't necessarily have contact details for anyone other than the Head Leaseholder, which makes it difficult to know anything about the ideas or position of anyone else connected to the building. So that's the reality of a lot of leasehold flats. No matter what the government dreams up in theory it has to work in practice. They've forgotten to factor in the irrational human element. Lack of communication between leaseholders really doesn't help. GDPR is used as an excuse not to facilitate communication between leaseholders. Property maintenance is a major issue especially when management companies are adding on a percentage of the cost as their fee. Not being liable for the freeholders legal fees is very welcome. The rest of the proposals need to be closely examined and it needs to be established how to make them suitable for all scenarios. A purpose built block of flats containing 100+ units is very different to a standard Victorian house converted to 4 flats.

From: Jo Westlake 28 November 2023 09:08 AM

I certainly hope they've peaked. The current rates are horrific on current property values. It's all well and good people talking about historic average rates but historically property values were much lower. Ultimately the only thing that really matters is the monthly mortgage payment. Right now mortgage rates and property values are miles out of sync with household incomes. I'm just about to come off a 3.55% fix this week and have to choose whether to let it go onto its SVR at 8.75% for a few weeks or take a 5 year fix at 6.69% with no fee or pay a 2% fee and take a 2 year discount tracker at 6.12%. Either way it's hideous and bakes in rent increases over the next few years. Remortgaging to another lender looks more attractive now than it did a few weeks ago but the fees and timescale it would take wipe out any potential savings.

From: Jo Westlake 28 November 2023 07:43 AM

These schemes are always a disaster. Even though I have got some tenants in receipt of UC there is always an excuse why we don't qualify for anything. The most ridiculous excuse I've heard this year is that flats don't qualify for Eco funds because it's more beneficial to improve 6 bedroom farmhouses. Household income needed to be below something like £19K or £31K if someone had a qualifying disability. I think the person may have gone a bit off script with narrowing it down to 6 bedrooms or specifically farmhouses but it certainly indicated how the scheme is designed to exclude tenants who really need it.

From: Jo Westlake 28 November 2023 07:14 AM

Of course rents have risen and will continue to rise. All our costs have risen. Just as costs for everyone else have risen. Homeowners have been far more impacted by increased mortgage costs than tenants have. In HMOs tenants have also been largely protected from the huge utility price increases we faced a couple of years ago. Rents for existing tenants can only increase annually regardless of how frequently a landlords costs increase. The biggest increases tend to be on new tenancies but only because some older tenancies have been in existence for several years and rents weren't routinely increased back in the days of falling or static interest rates. Some of mine have been in situ for over 7 years and didn't have a rent increase until last October. Even after 2 rent increases they are still around £80 per person per month below market rent for a new tenant. It also needs to be remembered wages and Benefits have risen every year. While the LHA has been frozen other Benefit income has risen and a whole raft of extra financial support has been invented for low income households. A great many tenants aren't on low incomes. Rents at the higher end of the market are often considerably lower than the mortgage payment would be if someone bought the same house, with the added bonus of not having to pay huge fees for conveyancing or SDLT and be able to move in and out quickly without the stress of buying chains.

From: Jo Westlake 28 November 2023 07:01 AM

As others have said it probably depends what age you are. I have no intention of selling anything at the moment, largely because of the obscene level of CGT, but equally I won't be buying anything (unless it is an incredibly good deal). I can't see any reason for young people to enter the industry. Extra SDLT, huge deposit required due to mortgage stress testing, high mortgage product fees, vast amounts of new rules and regulations, the uncertainty of the RRB, taxed on turnover, loss of Child Benefit due to unique tax system and then CGT on inflation. There are far better things to invest in these days. I've enjoyed it, I have had some extremely good tenants, I enjoy the people side of it but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to my grandchildren.

From: Jo Westlake 25 November 2023 17:27 PM

What's TaxCalc like with invoicing tenants and having expense headings that make sense for rental properties? Do they do a landlord specific version? I looked at their website and it didn't seem to mention landlords.

From: Jo Westlake 24 November 2023 12:58 PM

John's right. It relies on doing things more regularly. In some respects that's good because you're not trying to do vast amounts on one day and are less likely to forget transactions or lose receipts. The bank feeds can be very time saving. The best bank accounts have the ability to enter notes into the transaction after its been made so it's very simple to reconcile and allocate on the software. It's unfortunate a lot of credit cards won't feed into the software. Setting up the program and learning how to use it is the really time consuming part.

From: Jo Westlake 24 November 2023 12:35 PM

LHA has been frozen for 4 years at a level that was nearly 2 years out of date when it was introduced. Some of us have been incredibly patient and kept the rents of existing UC tenants artificially low for a very long time. Tenants newly entering the UC system are finding it incredibly difficult to obtain housing. A great many of these people are essential workers doing vital jobs such as nursing, care work, cleaning, catering, etc. Do we really want these people to be sofa surfing or living in their cars for a minute longer than necessary?

From: Jo Westlake 24 November 2023 10:45 AM

I would definitely like annual uprating of LHA. Even more importantly though I would like the BRMAs to be based on geographical size rather than population density. I operate in a mainly rural 500 square mile BRMA and it means LHA is ridiculously low for any housing in the main employment zone which is close to one edge of the area. People have a choice of spending loads extra to live close to work or loads extra to travel 20 or 30 miles to get to work.

From: Jo Westlake 24 November 2023 02:38 AM

Shouldn't the headline be: Everyone to be hit by five per cent energy cap rise. Tenants have equality on this one.

From: Jo Westlake 24 November 2023 02:28 AM

The biggest problem with MTD is knowing which software program to use. There are numerous things out there all promising the earth but how do you know which to try? Especially when whatever computer skills you have have just been picked up randomly and you're not an accountant. Even though several do free or very cheap trials it can take many, many hours to set them up sufficiently to see if they actually work in a way that works for you. The ongoing costs range from free (for one I can't make work) to quite a lot for one that does loads of different things fairly smoothly. I been trying 4 different ones recently and most of them are still being developed. Not that they necessarily warn you of that. It's incredibly frustrating when you try doing something, it doesn't work no matter what you do, you contact their customer support and they tell you they already know it doesn't work and should be ironed out next month. You need to decide if you just want one that only deals with the accounting aspects or if you want one that also deals with the property paperwork side of things. Some of them churn out tenancy agreements and produce tenant packs with all the house information and safety certificates. Is your accountant going to get onboard with whichever one you choose or will he just say Xero, Xero, Xero and then not give any assistance with which of the numerous optional add ons you would need to make it useful?

From: Jo Westlake 24 November 2023 02:23 AM

The sooner the better. The gap between LHA and current rents is being funded partly from Discretionary Housing Payments and partly from money that is supposed to be for other purposes such as food, heating or travel to work costs. If NI can be changed from January there should be no logistical reason to delay increasing LHA. Until we know how much the new LHA figures are going to be very few of us will increase rents for UC claimants as we will be stuck with whatever figure we pick for 12 months. However, if the government take an inordinate amount of time announcing the new figures we are likely to go large out of frustration. Tenants have to be given at least a month's notice of a rent increase so even if the new rates were announced tomorrow very few would kick in before January. However, knowing at least some of the shortfall people are already paying would be funded from January would be a huge relief for a great many households and reduce the support Local Authorities are currently funding. Rents for existing tenants can only be increased at the end of a fixed term or after 12 months has elapsed from the last increase, so it could be nearly a year before all claimant's (or their landlords) benefitted from the increase.

From: Jo Westlake 24 November 2023 01:43 AM

A great result for alcoholic unemployed and pensioners. A complete insult to most workers. What is the derisory cut in NI supposed to do for anyone? It won't go anywhere close to covering the increased cost of food when prices in supermarkets go up to cover the 9.8% increase in minimum wage. Home owning workers have had or are about to have huge mortgage increases as their fixes end. The NI cut is a teeny, tiny fraction of their increased housing costs. Yesterday was a very sorry day for any middle earner who tries to provide for themselves and not be a drain on the public purse.

From: Jo Westlake 23 November 2023 01:12 AM

Increasing LHA is long overdue and will help some tenants. The biggest problem is the BRMAs are geographically huge in some parts of the country. LHA is not a local concept when you're talking about a 500 square mile area. To get anywhere close to the 30th percentile if the geographical area was reduced to a reasonable commuting distance LHA would have to increase by at least 50% in some areas.

From: Jo Westlake 23 November 2023 01:03 AM

Surely most have already put up rents. Certainly in this area the Housing Options team have absolutely no expectation of finding properties at anywhere close to LHA. I've recently housed one of theirs with a £316 pcm difference in actual rent and LHA. I questioned affordability but their attitude was it was the cheapest property in the town so it would have to be made to work with a combination of LHA, DHP, Hardship funding and Cost of Living handouts. I actually had one property at just below LHA and when the tenant claimed UC in January he was questioned as to whether he'd made a mistake on the application. For those landlords who have kept their rents artificially low at LHA level for 4 years they are long overdue an increase. Their sacrifice has saved the Government a fortune in DHPs. HMRC will get a large chunk of it back in the form of income tax anyway.

From: Jo Westlake 22 November 2023 15:57 PM

Very disappointing overall. Nothing on Section 24, CGT or IHT. Increasing LHA will save Local Authorities a bit on DHPs. Depending on how they manipulate the figures it may or may not be a meaningful increase. Time will tell.

From: Jo Westlake 22 November 2023 14:23 PM

I know I'm out of step with a great many landlords but I do kind of agree with some form of financial assistance if long term genuinely blameless tenants are evicted. Only after at least two years of totally adhering to the tenancy agreement. All rent payments on time and in full, no ASB, etc. Payment only to be made after they have vacated by the specified date. Realistically it would only be necessary if we decided to retire or needed to do a major refurb at a time that tenants had no intention of vacating. Factored in over the period of our ownership such a payment would amount to very little per month and would certainly be a lot cheaper and less stressful than a bailiff eviction. Most tenants leave when the next stage in their life beckons, most landlords have multiple sets of tenants during their ownership of a property, so payment would be very rare. However, such a scheme may incentivise tenants to prioritise their rent payments on the off chance we might want to retire and wouldn't that be a real bonus for all parties? I will make it clear that I operate using SPTs and actively encourage long term tenancies in all my properties except the student houses. I fully realise some landlords prefer a much higher turnover of tenants but if there was a 2 year qualifying period they would rarely be in the situation of paying anything anyway.

From: Jo Westlake 22 November 2023 01:19 AM

Abolishing Section 24 is top of my wishlist. This would be beneficial for millions of tenants and around half of all landlords. Next would be restoring taper or indexation relief on CGT. The current system is pure theft. Other countries have zero CGT after so many years of ownership so the UK is very much out of step. On a more general level I would love to see the end of the extra penalties at the cliff edges. Taking someone's Child Benefit at the same time they enter the higher rate tax band is especially harsh and counterproductive. How many people work less than they otherwise would purely to stay a basic rate tax payer and keep the Child Benefit entitlement? Certainly 2 of my sons and one daughter-in-law have slammed the brakes on to keep below the threshold. Two of them are construction workers and lorry drivers, not degree educated high flyers. Just standard issue working blokes. It's nice for their children to have them home a bit more but how much more tax revenue would HMRC rake in if all those parents worked to capacity? Who do they think is paying tax and funding CB in the first place? It's a similar situation at £100K. Isn't 40% plus NI more than enough to take off someone? Haven't they worked out 40% of every £1000 is £400? 60% of nothing is zero.

From: Jo Westlake 22 November 2023 00:53 AM

A mortgage is only one cost. Everything else has risen - insurance, repairs, gas safety checks, EICRs, utilities in HMOs. There are constant demands for eco upgrades which aren't even tax deductible. Landlords are businesses and have invested their capital in order to generate an income.

From: Jo Westlake 20 November 2023 05:47 AM

I guess it's theoretically cheaper than paying for hotels and temporary housing. Presumably most of the money will be borrowed so it's only the interest and property maintenance that needs to be paid plus all the Council workers salaries and gold plated pensions. If they charge a realistic rent it may be a good idea but Councils don't exactly have a good track record on charging enough to properly maintain their housing stock.

From: Jo Westlake 20 November 2023 05:30 AM

Student tenancies are usually somewhere between 48 and 51 weeks. Erasmus or PGCE students often want just one semester but have always found it incredibly difficult to find a landlord willing to risk such a short let in a student house. What are we going to do with the house for the other 7 to 9 months? In order to retain student houses in the student market and therefore available to future students the proposal to ensure tenancies end between June and September is very practical. Universities need to do their bit and ensure all courses end in that window. Some Masters courses currently don't. If your visiting professionals have always wanted fixed term tenancies to correspond with their contracted time in the UK what changes? Why is it going to make any practical difference to your letting pattern? Are any of them likely to decide to stay longer? What in practical terms is the difference in the indefinite periodic tenancy you are so fearful of and the Statutory Periodic Tenancy millions of landlords have used for decades? We all start with a 6 or 12 months standard AST and then just let it roll onto a SPT. When the tenant wants to leave they give notice. We can increase rent annually. We can evict in exactly the same way as a landlord can who uses fixed tenancies (slowly and with all the same complications). While Section 21 exists we're actually less restricted regarding the eviction timetable as we only have to wait until 2 months before the end of the fixed term once. After it rolls onto the SPT we can start a Section 21 anytime. Personally I like tenants to settle long-term and create proper homes. It may be my house but I'm happy for it to be their home for as long as they abide by the tenancy agreement.

From: Jo Westlake 18 November 2023 11:04 AM

Abolishing Section 24 would be a huge help with immediate effect. Taper or indexation relief on CGT with a guarantee it won't be altered for at least 50 years would give people the confidence to enter the industry and invest long-term. Charging standard SDLT on properties that are going to be let on standard ASTs would also help. Alternatively refund the surcharge after 5 years of income tax has been paid on the rental income. All eco improvements need to be fully tax deductable in the year of installation. The LHA is woefully inadequate. £200 to £500 a month below market rent seems to be fairly standard. In some cases the Council just pays a DHP as an ongoing payment as they know that's the cheapest option. Increasing LHA to the 30th percentile and ensuring it rises in line every year would make everyone's life easier. Would it actually cost any more than the current mish-mash of temporary housing, DHPs, hardship payments, cost of living payments, all the admin costs to administer the above, etc? Social housing needs serious readjustment. The allocation is flawed, the pricing is seriously flawed, the maintenance is dire. The whole thing is just a mess. Firstly they need to increase the rent to at least LHA so they have half a chance of being able to afford to maintain it adequately. There is absolutely no excuse to charge any less. They could possibly look at means testing to determine rent on a sliding scale between LHA and market rent. Why should the general public subsidize high earning Social tenants?

From: Jo Westlake 18 November 2023 02:37 AM

I haven't seen their CGT policy this time round but for the last GE it was the only policy from any party I really liked. It was paying CGT at your marginal tax rate on an indexed gain. 40% of an indexed gain is far more palatable than 28% of the entire gain. For a property I have owned for over 30 years it would lower the CGT by about £60K. The only reason there is any taxable gain on that house is because the house was put in an Article 4 area which has boosted its value beyond normal house price rises.

From: Jo Westlake 17 November 2023 09:31 AM

Presumably a lot of the "squalid, unsafe and overcrowded homes" are overcrowded with lots of extra people. How would Councils take them over and "allocate then to social housing waiting list tenants"? What about the overcrowded tenants who already occupy the squalid and unsafe houses? Wouldn't the Council have a duty to house them? Logistically how would Councils make those properties sanitary and safe while they are overcrowded? Would they attempt to work around the overcrowded tenants or would they have to rehouse them for a while? If so, where?

From: Jo Westlake 17 November 2023 09:16 AM

If people paid priority bills such as rent, Council Tax, gas, electric, child maintenance, etc in the order recommended by the Citizens Advice Bureau and other debt advice organisations there wouldn't be any articles about having to borrow to pay these expenses. There might be articles about having to borrow money to buy cigarettes or pay a Klarna installment but I guess very few people would have much sympathy with that.

From: Jo Westlake 17 November 2023 00:56 AM

Professional cleaning wouldn't get rid of bedbugs. It would require fumigation or heat treatment. Bedbugs aren't that fussed if a house is clean or dirty.

From: Jo Westlake 16 November 2023 13:53 PM

Not sure that's quite accurate. Depends if everyone is talking about Step 1 (issuing the Section 21 notice) or Step 2 (applying to the Court for an eviction order). Section 21 notices can be issued for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily with the intention of making someone homeless. Some Landlords routinely issue them to students two months before the end of their fixed tenancy just to remind them of the end of tenancy date, which is often several weeks after the end of the university term. Very few of those would ever progress to Step two as the tenant had no intention of remaining in the house. Some S21 notices are issued as a warning shot for low level breach of tenancy. The hope is the existence of the notice will be enough to make the tenant change their behaviour and be able to remain in the property. Some are issued to help the tenant get their finances under control and be able to pay their rent more consistently. Low priority creditors tend to be very demanding but back off if a threat of eviction is presented. It's much easier for them to eventually get their money if the person isn't homeless. A few will be because the landlord hasn't regularly increased rent and is too embarrassed to ask for a hefty enough increase to bring the property anywhere close to market rent. Either way the tenant is going to be upset. Having a proper conversation and allowing time for the initial shock to wear off would retain some of those tenancies. It would be useful to know how we are going to manage those scenarios without Section 21 notices.

From: Jo Westlake 16 November 2023 13:22 PM

I can't see how anyone thinks abolishing Section 21 will prevent a single eviction. Professional landlords very rarely evict good tenants. Just about the only time would be if they wanted to retire, had to do a major refurb to remain compliant or they died. Temporary landlords who rent their houses out while they work elsewhere are a slightly different matter but the tenant would have known about that in advance. Abolishing Section 21 will cause a significant number of evictions in the short term as landlords decide to sell up. It must be remembered the average age of landlords is very late 50s. A lot are already well over retirement age. While they may have planned to stick with the PRS in the format they were familiar with it's questionable if the are willing to try it without Section 21. Long-term if there are fewer rentals there should be fewer evictions in theory. However, those evictions will mainly be fault based or for the legitimate reasons such as wanting to sell or move into the property yourself. Why else would a landlord evict anyone so how is abolishing Section 21 going to help anyone?

From: Jo Westlake 16 November 2023 02:21 AM

A home is only warm if tenants turn on the heating. Far greater emphasis needs to be put on the tenants obligation to adequately heat and ventilate their home. Families need to understand about occupancy and overcrowding laws when claiming they're being discriminated against. Tenants families have rights owner occupiers don't have in that respect. If a landlord is asking about household composition it is because they have to ensure compliance with bedroom entitlement not because they are being nosy or trying to discriminate.

From: Jo Westlake 15 November 2023 12:04 PM

So many taxes disproportionately affect people who happen to live in the South. As the average house costs far more in the South SDLT is much higher and people need much bigger mortgages. Section 24 is more of a problem for Southern landlords. CGT is also much higher partly because a gain is likely to be a bigger number even if the percentage increase were smaller and partly because a Southern landlord is more likely to be a higher rate tax payer. Some of the differences can't be avoided but it would certainly help to level the playing field if all the extra surcharges such as the extra SDLT and Section 24 were removed and if taper relief was restored.

From: Jo Westlake 15 November 2023 01:00 AM

As long as the landlord can interview and assess the suitability of the prospective tenant it can work well. I've had 3 tenants via various Local Authority schemes and another 3 that have been found by me but have received support from the schemes. This has spanned a 12 year period and so far my experience has been generally positive. Part of it will be down to how much ongoing support is offered. That can be as simple as a the ability to phone someone and say support or guidance of some description is required. The woman I deal with at the Council is fantastic. She can usually point me in the right direction, tell me about extra funding tenants can access, arrange budgeting sessions for tenants if I have concerns, remind them about the need to heat the property sufficiently to prevent mould, etc. Most of mine were fairly new to the world of homelessness and benefits. Some were recently divorced, some evicted so the landlord could sell, some had financial issues (a couple of CCJs), etc. All of mine pay the rent themselves so I sometimes get caught up in UC glitches. That's my choice and mainly because I tried direct payments once with a different tenant and found it incredibly frustrating dealing with UC. Payments may not always be on time but so far they have always arrived at some point within a reasonable timeframe. Bearing in mind the chaotic income pattern some of mine have it's pretty impressive. It's a different style of letting and wouldn't suit every landlord but when it works it can be very stable and satisfying. Having read D Ducks comment I will add that I agree with them and I do what I do because of where I came from. I grew up in the poverty trap and when my first marriage broke up was virtually penniless for 3 months. (A giro for 33p a week to be precise). A group of winos and dropouts literally kept me alive for that 3 months by allowing me to share their food. I'm not a fan of organised charity (too many high salaries) but providing long-term stable housing to people who have difficulties obtaining housing feels like a good thing to do.

From: Jo Westlake 14 November 2023 02:21 AM

Wasn't the new Housing minister an estate agent at some point? I guess that makes him more likely to have a bit of a clue about housing than some of his predecessors. At least he should have first hand experience of the good, the bad and the downright disgusting state of some houses. Hopefully he realises there wasn't a housing crisis until the government decided to try to manipulate the market with punitive tax treatment of landlords. It doesn't really matter how many Housing ministers come and go while we have such blatantly excessive taxation. Without a steady stream of new landlords to replace the older ones who decide to retire or die we have a shrinking PRS and therefore a housing crisis. An expanding population just magnifies the problem. The RRB is creating a truly toxic environment for landlords so it is hardly surprising young people are discovering far better things to invest in. Abolishing Section 21 is a very bad move for tenants if the main consequence is that landlords sell up. Some will sell, some will try to adapt and see what the alternative is really like. Ultimately very few good tenants were ever evicted so it's hard to see how abolishing Section 21 is in any way beneficial to the vast majority of good tenants. Bad tenants are going to find life a whole lot more difficult if Section 8 becomes the only eviction route. Apart from Local Authority housing departments who exactly is supposed to benefit from the abolition of Section 21? Other aspects of the RRB are concerning. Pets are completely unsuitable in most high density housing. Tenants are usually at work all day so the animals will be left unattended for many hours a day. How many people got pets during lockdowns and then abandoned them after they discovered the reality of pet ownership? Aren't animal shelters overflowing with abandoned pets? Fixed term tenancies work well for some landlords and tenants. Winter lets are crucial for seasonal workers. A great many coastal areas have logistics companies nearby who rely on seasonal workers for the winter period. These are often people who have a summer gig abroad and come back to the UK for the winter. It will be a travesty if landlords are too scared to let to them for 5 or 6 months because they are prevented from offering a fixed term tenancy.

From: Jo Westlake 14 November 2023 01:35 AM

How many of these evictions are because Landlords are being taxed out of existence? How many because the landlord is too squeamish to have a conversation with tenants about quite how much a rent increase would need to be to remain viable?

From: Jo Westlake 10 November 2023 02:22 AM

Martin - How do you know they CAN'T afford the local rent and it isn't simply the case they don't want to pay market rent? Have they enquired about benefit top ups, Discretionary Housing Payments or the possibility of retirement Social Housing? Would you continue to let to them if they were paying a more realistic rent?

From: Jo Westlake 07 November 2023 09:40 AM

Saying the number of rental homes has grown since 2019 is a very strange thing to base anything on. 2019 was a normal year. Landlords expanded their portfolios in the normal way. People agreed to buy houses and the conveyancing often took several months, so the purchase date would be several months later. In 2019 COVID hadn't been invented, interest rates were rock bottom and the UK had an economy in reasonable shape. Lockdowns changed the rental market beyond recognition. WFH and social distancing were born. People fled the cities and wanted to rent houses with plenty of space around them and fresh air. Some landlords spotted an opportunity and provided suitable properties. Interest rates were still low but Sunak was stoking prices with the Stamp Duty holidays. Fast forward to 2022 and the wheels came off the PRS juggernaut. Conveyancing was in meltdown due to the Stamp duty holiday deadlines and solicitors teams WFH. Interest rates started to rise. Underwriters were overwhelmed and chains were collapsing. In early 2022 expanding my portfolio still seemed like a sensible thing to do. By late 2022 it was completely toxic. Prices and interest rates completely out of sync. No reasonable prospect of being able to charge enough rent to cover the mortgage interest and Section 24 unless a gigantic deposit is put in when buying the house. Using a 4 year timeframe is about as misleading as it is possible to be.

From: Jo Westlake 06 November 2023 05:54 AM

It's surprising average rent rises have been so low. The inflation rate was higher for a large part of the quoted period. Even Social rents were increased by 7% in April but it was only that low because the government prevented the usual inflation linked increase. The tax system is dire and a major disincentive to people entering the industry. Huge SDLT, tax on turnover and 28% CGT when you sell. Very cautious lending criteria with incredibly onerous stress testing and falling property values. Maybe licensing or a non paying tenant. No wonder people aren't rushing to become landlords when better returns can be obtained from an interest bearing bank account.

From: Jo Westlake 06 November 2023 05:31 AM

If people don't have to fund a deposit for buying, estate agents fees for selling each time they move, SDLT, solicitors fees, maintenance costs, etc it should leave them with a tidy amount to invest in income generating assets to fund their rent in retirement. Alternatively they will be potless and entitled to every handout going.

From: Jo Westlake 05 November 2023 20:40 PM

Some interesting ideas. My solution would be for Local Authorities and Social Housing providers to focus on building retirement housing (so people could downsize and free up family size housing). Also student style housing for teenagers who need to get out of the family home. Currently the main escape routes are pregnancy or crime. Avoid the need to get pregnant and offer a better alternative which for many would lead to employment. A combination of the above would take a lot of pressure off the Social family housing supply within a reasonable timeframe

From: Jo Westlake 04 November 2023 18:08 PM

We've just provided great examples of why it needs to be recognised the PRS isn't a uniform situation. Every region is different in numerous ways. Housing stock, infrastructure, wages, etc. Living in a hotel in London may be a very cost effective housing solution for certain tenant types. Outside London it would be incredibly expensive for the identical tenant type.

From: Jo Westlake 04 November 2023 13:40 PM

Ellie - you're kind of right but there's more to it than just a roof and a bed for most tenants. They need to eat and most hotel rooms don't have any kind of cooking facilities or much in the way of refrigeration. They need to do laundry and there are very few launderettes these days. Those that do exist are expensive and time consuming. Most of them have personal possessions and furniture that would need to go into storage (another expense). Premier Inns are often far more expensive outside London. My local ones will only allow a booking of up to 10 days and are around £700 for those 10 days. So £2100 for 30 days. LHA for a one bedroom flat is £570 a month.

From: Jo Westlake 04 November 2023 12:05 PM

A very logical and well written article. Far too little thought has been put into what happens after eviction if Section 21 is abolished. The only people to benefit from losing Section 21 are the Local Authorities (and by extension maybe the government and tax payers in the short term). Temporary housing is costing a fortune. The losers in scrapping Section 21 are tenants and society as a whole. Where are people who are evicted for non payment or ASB actually going to live? It's no good saying "Not my problem". Won't it put far more people at risk of squatters or mugging (for hotel money)? Will it just result in shifting a cost from one budget to another, while making the general public less safe? Desperate people do desperate things. Landlords will either sell up or adapt and become more risk adverse. Most tenants are actually thoroughly decent people who don't get evicted. I can certainly see landlord references for ex tenants becoming far more in depth and thorough. In these times of rental shortages we need a system that evicts bad tenants quickly but we need to think about where they go next. If there is anything discretionary about the process the real danger is Judges won't grant evictions if they know a cardboard box is the person's next home. Even if we don't care what happens to a bad tenant who gets evicted we probably should care about what happens to a genuinely good tenant. There is a rental shortage, which means even the most gold plated tenant has no certainty of finding anywhere suitable. With interest rates too high to make anything stack at a sensible rent landlords aren't buying much at the moment. Build to rent seems to have slowed down with various developments being plagued with contractors going bust. Before Section 21 is abolished the government needs to ensure the Courts have capacity to process all fault based evictions within 8 weeks of application and ensure there is something a bit more substantial than a cardboard box for evicted tenants to move onto. Something weather tight and sanitary but maybe undesirable enough for people to do their best to avoid a fault based eviction. Maybe a certain level of assistance for the genuinely blameless needs to be provided?

From: Jo Westlake 04 November 2023 11:06 AM

Precisely that. A person's personal finances are personal and a tenant has no obligation to share that information with a landlord after the tenancy has been granted.

From: Jo Westlake 03 November 2023 15:36 PM

Presumably the student market and new graduate jobs have a significant impact on demand in July, August, September. It's the same every year. September is insane for both last minute students and new graduates starting a new job often in a new city. Once we get to mid October people start thinking about Christmas and decide they don't want the upheaval of moving until the New Year.

From: Jo Westlake 01 November 2023 06:39 AM

Aren't most people pretty much retirement age before their parents die and they inherit? There should be a far easier way for financial assistance to be passed around a family. Too many elderly people could help and would like to help but are terrified of being accused of depleting their assets to avoid care fees.

From: Jo Westlake 01 November 2023 02:12 AM

Interesting that you mention high levels of damage. Who do you let to? I have very little damage most years. Student houses usually come back somewhere between very good and immaculate. One room this year had a lot of soot damage from candles and joss sticks but that was the first real damage for years. Young professionals usually leave their rooms pretty good. Maybe a bit of dust behind the bed or on top of the wardrobe. A long stay family house will probably need fully redecorating but it's not frequent if it's long stay. Candles are probably the biggest problem and I'm amazed most standard tenancy agreements don't have a specific clause about their usage. It always worries me when I see candles or tea lights in any of my houses .

From: Jo Westlake 31 October 2023 10:18 AM

I wonder how many damp problems are because of the heated clothes airers that are constantly advertised. Recently there have been comparison articles for them and dehumidifiers and they have actually mentioned the heated airers cause condensation issues if the room isn't ventilated. Last year all the penny pinching "hacks" were use a heated airer and seal up every draught (ventilation). This year they're recommending a dehumidifier used in conjunction with a fan, so I guess that's progress. Maybe next year it will be a heat pump tumble dryer?

From: Jo Westlake 31 October 2023 09:59 AM

Aren't several Local Authorities facing bankruptcy because they have completely stuffed up their housing budgets? Charging far less than it costs to provide and maintain Social Housing has been a key factor for decades. The Right to Buy in the 1980s was only invented because Local Authorities couldn't afford to maintain their rapidly deteriorating housing stock. Offloading a load of maintenance nightmares and using the resulting money to patch up the remaining maintenance nightmares was inspired. It's a shame it didn't inspire the Local Authorities to charge sufficient rent to maintain their properties ongoing. I own 2 ex Council flats and their idea of maintenance is highly questionable. Even basic stuff like a broken hopper on some first floor guttering. It was sort of tied together with a carrier bag and left like it for about a year before a new hopper was fitted. They repointed half of the walls even though the whole building needs doing. There is moisture ingress in the other flat as the Council had the wrong type of cavity wall insulation installed, haven't repointed that building and haven't correctly isealed around the window frames. If this guy thinks basing anything on the Social Housing sector is going to have a happy outcome he is seriously delusional. The PBSA charge high rents because they provide all sorts of things other forms of housing don't provide. Often very good large scale communal facilities and prime locations. They're a very convenient option for some students and that level of convenience comes at a price.

From: Jo Westlake 31 October 2023 09:40 AM

Until October 2022 I'd almost never put up rents for existing tenants. Most of mine are students or young professionals and used to move every year or two, so it was perfectly viable to just increase rents when reletting the rooms. The family stuff I let is mainly occupied by low income families so I had tended to keep it at whatever LHA was. After all the small utility companies went bust I was looking at the included utilities going from £8000 to £35000 for the same amount of usage. I had based rents on the 14 month utility contracts I had signed up for and suddenly they weren't honoured. So I went and talked to a few tenants to see how they would feel about a rent increase and what kind of numbers would be OK. It was new territory for me and I was pleasantly surprised by their reaction. The media had been full of horror stories about London rent increases so they were relieved my ideas were more modest. I then emailed all HMO tenants explaining the situation and increased rent by between £25 and £60 a month for 12 of them. The others were still in the fixed term phase of their tenancy agreement. One HMO household even offered to have a whip round to help pay the extra utility cost (which I thought was very sweet). This year I knew mortgage rates were going to increase hugely on 5 of my properties when their fixes ended. Overall the December mortgage payments will be around £2500 higher than the January payments were. Then there's the extra Section 24 tax to add on top of that. In April I had another batch of rent increases for 9 tenants and decided to go for 7% as that was the figure Social Housing was going up by. This time the low income families were included. I figured the LA could hardly have an issue with rent increases that matched their own so should hand out DHPs to pay the increase. I don't know if the tenants bothered applying or if they realise quite how much below market rent they're actually paying. The October 2023 batch of rent increases were mainly at 9% as the BoE has been incessant in hiking the base rate. Newly let rooms have had mainly bigger increases to keep pace with market rents. Overall it's probably going to take about 3 years of rent increases to cover all the extra costs and then my next batch of mortgages will be coming to the end of their fix. A combination of the government with Section 24, Ofgem with the utility price cap and the BoE hiking interest rates has baked in rent increases for the next several years. Both landlords and tenants are significantly worse off financially due to the above inept trio.

From: Jo Westlake 31 October 2023 09:11 AM

A scenario that must be very frequent is when the eldest child goes to university or tries leaving home. How many families would want to downsize just because they're underoccupying maybe for only a short period? The odd bit of homestay or Airbnb could make a significance to a household income.

From: Jo Westlake 30 October 2023 13:26 PM

"but only a fraction say that they believe their landlord permits it". So they haven't asked. They just make wild assumptions with no foundation. Some landlords would allow it, others wouldn't for various reasons. Mortgage terms may prohibit it, or the lease for a flat may prohibit it. There may be an additional insurance cost. If it is a way of a good tenant being able to continue living in a property and there are no outside factors prohibiting it I personally would be inclined to allow it as long as they use appropriate paperwork and do any Right to Rent checks and keep me informed. For a less than good tenant I wouldn't be so accommodating. Right now one of mine has a lodger and 3 others have boyfriends or adult children as permitted occupiers. I have allowed an HMO tenant to sublet for a couple of months while he was abroad as long as he had the approval of all housemates and in the past I have suggested a couple of tenants consider hosting foreign language students when they've had their hours at work cut.

From: Jo Westlake 30 October 2023 01:26 AM

You're right that it will be terrible for students in 5 to 10 years time if it isn't done absolutely right now. We need to be able to offer fixed term contracts for whatever the standard period is in each university city. Usually 10, 11 or 12 months or 48 or 51 weeks. It needs to be possible for an agreement to be assignable to a replacement student if someone drops out (especially on a joint tenancy agreement). There also needs to be provision for one semester tenancy agreements for students. About 10 years ago we had a dip in student numbers and I started letting my 6 bedroom student house as a 6 individual tenancy HMO. It is in absolute prime student territory but has never gone back to being a student house. Students would pay a bit more but the group of professionals I currently have are incredibly easy to deal with. They have a proper community vibe going on in the house and it's been a very stable group for well over 2 years. One of them will have been there 7 years next month. So it's nice for me, nice for the current tenants and rubbish for the current student population already searching for next September's housing.

From: Jo Westlake 28 October 2023 12:06 PM

Some good suggestions. Not sure about suspending the shared accomodation rate. It certainly needs attention as UC for single people is hideously low. HMOs usually include at least some bills so the LHA room rate needs to very clear as to what it is supposed to include. The local rate here is £420 a month while most HMO rooms are at least £550. A single unemployed person simply can't make up that shortfall. Increasing the LHA to the 50th percentile is unrealistic. The 30th percentile would be fine as long as the BMRAs are geographically small enough. I operate in an area with a BMRA of over 500 square miles and very poor public transport. Tenants have a choice of either funding a large rental shortfall to live somewhere close to jobs or pay similar amounts in travel to work costs. Or be unemployed and just live on handouts. UC certainly needs to be reformed to more closely align with reality. Rent payment dates need to match the tenancy agreement. No one pays rent in arrears in the real world. It somehow needs to recognise unusual pay periods. Two of my UC tenants get paid fortnightly, which the UC system simply can't cope with. Twice a year we get a 3 pay day month and it completely destabilises their UC for the following couple of months. Throw into the mix that they are seasonal workers and have a 2 or 3 month Christmas shutdown. They get their holiday pay as a lump sum with their last pay of the year (so lose most of it as NI or UC offset) and are then classed as unemployed until the holiday park reopens in the Spring. They work somewhere around 40 to 44 weeks a year. Any other type of worker would be allowed to have over 5 weeks paid holiday during which time they would be classed as employed. The really bizarre thing is that a term time worker, such as a school dinner person, works fewer weeks a year but isn't classed as unemployed during the school holidays. Energy efficiency upgrades need to be fully tax deductable in the year of installation for everyone who is willing to pay for them, both homeowners and landlords. It may initially look like a bung to rich people but it's only by wide scale adoption of new technology that prices start to fall. People on low incomes don't have the ability to gamble on unproven technology. Grants and subsidies for insulation need to be more easily available for just about anyone who wants them. I think it needs to be recognised that anyone who hasn't got insulation by now probably has a fairly strong reason for not having it which will be more related to concerns about damp than cost. Definitely reverse Section 24. It would make a huge difference to unincorporated portfolio landlords (who provide nearly 50% of PRS properties) and would probably help around half of the smaller landlords. That would result in far less pressure to increase rent beyond general inflation and enable some landlords to remain in the industry. If the government wants to encourage younger landlords into the industry they need to stop removing Child Benefit if someone has the audacity to earn over £50K and reinstate taper relief on CGT. Historically BTL was used as an alternative to a conventional pension. It was far more flexible especially for the self employed. Now a SIPP wins hands down. By dumping money in a SIPP a young person would retain his Child Benefit and get oodles of tax relief. By investing in BTL he would be taxed on turnover, which would catapult him into the 40% tax band (even if the property was making a loss). So he would lose his Child Benefit (even if his real income was way below £50K). Then if he sticks with BTL until he wants to retire maybe 30 years later the government will tax him on the value of the house and take 28% of it's increased value effectively stealing 2 bedrooms worth of value. By the time the CGT is paid from selling a 5 bedroom house he may have enough money left to buy a 3 bedroom one. If he had simply gone for the SIPP he would be sat back drawing his pension in the most tax efficient way possible.

From: Jo Westlake 28 October 2023 11:36 AM

Being a landlord needs to be profitable. There are plenty of other assets people can invest in and most of them don't run the risk of hefty fines for minor mistakes, being trashed by someone with mental health or dependency issues or bizarre government ideas that suddenly make them unviable. Landlords tie up a huge amount of capital in their properties and provide a very varied range of rental options. Options that often wouldn't be available from big corporate or Social landlords. If we include all forms of private renting from lodgers, to Airbnb, to fully catered homestay to traditional ASTs this variety would be impossible to provide in a formulaic way. We provide roughly 20% of housing and virtually all of the niche housing solutions. We often listen to the human story and can be very accommodating in our tenant selection process. The PRS provides very cost effective, flexible housing solutions in locations people want to live in. Far easier to obtain than Social Housing and far quicker and cheaper entry than buying. Very cheap and simple to end a tenancy when the time has come to move elsewhere. PRS Landlords are not charities and certainly don't receive the favourable tax breaks or minimal regulation Social Housing providers enjoy. It's long overdue for a bit of levelling up and provide landlords with the same tax situation as all other self employed businesses.

From: Jo Westlake 28 October 2023 10:37 AM

Get a better heating programmer if you're having problems with all inclusive. I use one that the tenants can boost for an hour any time they need to and that I can set the daily program from my phone. I can see exactly how long the boiler runs for and exactly what the temperature is in the house. Last night a tenant messaged to say his radiator wasn't working. I could immediately see the boiler had only run for a few minutes yesterday, the house was at 20.5 degrees, I sent him a screenshot of the heating graph and asked if the group needed the daily program fine tuned now they know their timetable. He hasn't got back to me.

From: Jo Westlake 27 October 2023 17:56 PM

It's been illegal to rent out F and G rated properties for the last 3 years unless they are exempt from EPC requirements. Listed buildings, leasehold where it's impossible for an individual leaseholder to insulate an individual flat, properties where upgrades would cost more than a certain amount, etc. Many of the exempt properties are very conveniently located so occupiers pay next to nothing for transport and can therefore afford to pay a bit more for heating. Studies have shown the assumed energy usage figures used on EPCs are wildly inflated especially on the lower rated properties. Tenants should be free to make their own choices. No one forces a tenant to sign up for a specific property or stay indefinitely in one that doesn't suit them.

From: Jo Westlake 27 October 2023 05:55 AM

Ellie - a while ago you said something along the lines of your father wanted to transfer some of his properties to you while he was alive but you wouldn't allow him to because he had worked hard for it. Presumably that was his attempt at inheritance planning and may have saved a significant amount of IHT if the timing was right. The biggest danger we all have is leaving it too late for tax planning to be effective. I'm fairly rubbish at making big decisions that are irreversible but the three things I am good at is paying as much earned income into a SIPP as possible so it's outside my estate and therefore potentially available to pay the IHT bill, regularly contributing surplus rental income to grandchildren's SIPPs so it is immediately outside my estate and insisting children or grandchildren invoice me properly if they do any maintenance work for my portfolio.

From: Jo Westlake 25 October 2023 16:26 PM

Ellie - inheritance doesn't have to be cash. You chose to retain the properties instead of exchanging them for their cash value (selling them). They are still worth whatever they were valued at for probate purposes (probably significantly more now). You could mortgage them if you are under 70 (TMW do a 35 year BTL mortgage at up to 70 years old) or do an equity release scheme. It's your choice to leave the cash in the properties. Most of us don't get given a couple of million quids worth of equity in houses. Of course that equity will count towards your estate and will be taxed again when you pass unless you have done some kind of tax planning or put it in trust somehow. That's one of the truly evil things about IHT. Taxing the same inheritance multiple times as it passes down through the generations.

From: Jo Westlake 25 October 2023 12:23 PM

Ellie - if you had an IHT bill of over a million doesn't that mean you inherited around £3 million. So after whatever nil rate exemption was factored in left you with at least £2 million?

From: Jo Westlake 25 October 2023 10:32 AM

London LHA rates are much, much, much higher than in other parts of the country. LHA for a 2 bed in Central London is £1590 a month. In Northumberland it's just under £395. Even the cheapest Outer London areas have a 2 bed LHA of £1100 a month. For any landlord trying to operate a solvent business in most parts of the country LHA is woefully inadequate. Obviously costs for things like boiler insurance, gas safety checks, licensing schemes, repairs and building materials are broadly similar throughout the country.

From: Jo Westlake 25 October 2023 08:55 AM

Most rental properties are completely unsuitable for pets. They are predominantly flats that fortunately have clauses in the lease prohibiting pets or are small terraced houses with neighbours living in close proximity and very restricted outside space. It is totally unfair to a dog and the neighbours to coop it up in a house all day while the owners are at work. I have occasionally allowed pets in properties and it's nearly always been a mistake. Fish left to die over the Christmas holidays, an emotional support rabbit with an owner too depressed to look after it and housemates who loathed it, dogs that make the whole place stink of dog. Right now a couple of guinea pigs that are actually OK but it's the first time pets haven't been a problem. Don't these activists understand most tenants work and simply don't have time to look after an animal properly?

From: Jo Westlake 25 October 2023 00:33 AM

With Section 24 and sky high costs is it surprising very few rooms are below £500 a month? I currently have one single room at £490 in one of my HMOs (rent increase due next April) and one single room in another HMO at £500 (rent increase due next June). I certainly don't expect either of those rooms to be available any time soon and if they were to be vacated the new rent would be somewhat higher.

From: Jo Westlake 25 October 2023 00:22 AM

According to the English Private Landlord Survey 2021: 43% of landlords owned one rental property, representing 20% of tenancies. A further 39% owned between two and four rental properties, representing 31% of tenancies. The remaining 18% of landlords owned five or more properties, representing almost half (48%) of tenancies. We should all be listened to but the ones who really need government policy to work for them are the portfolio landlords who provide nearly half of all rental accommodation and almost certainly house somewhat more than half of all tenants (as we are more likely to own bigger properties and HMOs).

From: Jo Westlake 24 October 2023 10:15 AM

Apart from students I've always started with a 6 month AST and let it run on as a SPT. Tenants stay as long as they want. Maybe a year, maybe over 10 years. As long as they pay the rent and look after the property I'm happy. Occasionally someone needs to leave in less than 6 months. Not a problem. They pay the rent until the new person moves in. It's usually less than a week from one moving out and the new one moving in. It's not something I encourage and certainly have no intention of entering the short term market but if it happens it's not a major issue.

From: Jo Westlake 24 October 2023 09:22 AM

I don't understand why the government and activists can't see that the PRS is not a one size fits all entity. Roughly half of PRS properties are owned by landlords with less than 5 properties, the other half by portfolio landlords with more than 5. Some landlords are only landlords short term as they have a house they couldn't sell or have inherited or are letting while they work elsewhere. It's understandable they want absolute control of the length of tenancy in those properties. Others have spent decades building their portfolios and very firmly regard their houses as the tools of their trade. We all have different preferences for type of tenant and style of letting. Some prefer fixed term tenancies, others prefer SPTs. Some prefer gold plated tenants who have every choice available to them, others prefer tenants who are more likely to stay longer. As long as both landlord and tenant are on the same page at the start of the tenancy chances are it will run smoothly. It needs to be recognised that fixed term tenancies are crucial for students, winter lets and seasonal workers. SPT rolling tenancies after an initial 6 month period are fine as long as a functional eviction system is in place. In some parts of the country it's the way we have operated for years. Some tenants want a specific fixed term, others want to find somewhere they can stay long enough to at least get their kids through school. It doesn't matter what the government says on blanket bans on children or claimants. We need to know about household composition to ensure we don't allow overcrowding, so the existence of children needs to be taken into account. Some properties simply aren't suitable for young children from a safety point of view. The government have ensured claimants are going to fail affordability referencing by freezing the LHA at a ludicrously low rate. They are very often extremely good tenants but for any landlord who wants to buy rent guarantee insurance are a complete non starter. As a portfolio landlord I dabble in most types of letting (student fixed term, everyone else SPT, fully self funding, UC top up, single people, families with children and occasionally pets). The two areas I steer clear of are short term (less than 6 months) and gold plated families (most of my properties wouldn't appeal to them).

From: Jo Westlake 24 October 2023 09:11 AM

Gove seems to have forgotten that when we had standard tax treatment landlords bought large amounts of new builds off plan which kick started numerous housing developments and facilitated the affordable housing elements of new estates to be built. We also bought the renovation projects that were hard to mortgage or required renovation that was way beyond the budget of most FTBs.

From: Jo Westlake 24 October 2023 00:28 AM

Have the government not worked out we have a housing crisis because of the excessive taxation faced by landlords? The comment "Having a mortgage on a property allows the landlord to purchase a more expensive property and incur larger gains on the investment than they would have done without the mortgage" could be reworded to say "Having a mortgage on a property allows the landlord to purchase a more expensive property, thereby paying far more SDLT and incur larger gains on the investment, thereby paying far more CGT or IHT than they would have done without the mortgage, not to mention the much higher income tax due to being catapulted into the 40% tax bracket." Obviously the landlord doesn't actually pay all of those extra taxes out of their own non property related resources. They charge higher rents so they remain financially viable for all the years between buying and selling or dying.

From: Jo Westlake 24 October 2023 00:25 AM

I'm not convinced there will be a new generation of landlords. With the over taxation, loss of Child Benefit and punitive CGT why would a new generation invest in BTL? There are plenty of financially better options these days with no risk of being branded a criminal for genuine oversights. My son wanted to be a landlord and it seemed to make sense for our long term plans. He became part owner of 4 of our properties between 2015 and 2019. Financially it's been horrific for him and has certainly put him off the idea of buying any more.

From: Jo Westlake 23 October 2023 11:58 AM

Maybe I'm being silly but I would certainly hope that a mediator would take the tenancy agreement as the framework to negotiate within. Both parties have signed it, therefore both parties should stick to it.

From: Jo Westlake 23 October 2023 10:25 AM

It will be interesting to see how the Ombudsman and mediation work in reality. Ultimately we all want tenants who pay the rent, treat the property with respect and don't upset the neighbours. Maybe mediation or an Ombudsman will help reinforce this idea? Maybe I'm just wildly optimistic?

From: Jo Westlake 22 October 2023 18:28 PM

Ellie - 66 is still several years away for me and yet I have already owned some of my houses for well over 20 years and one of them for 32 years. I would be much more in favour of tapering to zero after 25 years of ownership. There is usually less of a gain to be taxed on after shorter periods of ownership anyway. It's those of us who have spent virtually our entire adult life in the industry who are particularly hammered under the current system. We have been denied the tax relief everyone else enjoys from investing in a SIPP and then face losing a couple of bedrooms worth of value per house should we sell up.

From: Jo Westlake 21 October 2023 16:00 PM

Which retirement age? There are many different retirement ages depending on which year you were born and whether you're talking state pension or actually ceasing work. Most countries that have taper relief use years of ownership as the basis as that is completely transparent and unambiguous. It also means long term landlords don't get unduly penalised. Without taper relief of some description why would any young person become a landlord? There are far more tax efficient ways to invest money these days. Taper relief was a key part of the investment decisions of those of us who entered the PRS in the early days or before modern BTL was born.

From: Jo Westlake 21 October 2023 14:31 PM

Section 21 is proven and works after a fashion. Let's not pretend it's perfect though. If a tenant leaves within the 2 month notice period great, happy days. However, if they can't find anywhere or are advised to stay put it isn't exactly quick for the rest of the procedure to trundle along. Also why should some of them benefit from all the perks that go with Section 21? In many cases they are being evicted because they have breached the tenancy in some way. Landlords only favour Section 21 because it is guaranteed. If Section 8 was equally reliable it would have always been the preferred option as it doesn't reward bad behaviour. Once a reliable quick eviction route for breach of tenancy is tried and tested over a reasonable time period it may be time to re-examine Section 21.

From: Jo Westlake 21 October 2023 13:56 PM

In a self contained property with just one tenancy agreement I'd agree with you. The problem there though is if they move out without eradicating the infestation. In a HMO with multiple tenancy agreements it's less clear cut and requires the cooperation of all tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 20 October 2023 09:52 AM

EPC isn't a reliable measure of heating costs. One of my EPC C houses with 3 tenants uses less gas then my EPC A house which 2 of us live in. A different EPC C house with 5 tenants uses more gas than my EPC E house with 6 tenants. There are so many factors other than insulation which affects energy consumption. The main two are orientation of the house and occupier attitude.

From: Jo Westlake 20 October 2023 09:28 AM

Why on earth would anyone pay £100 a month for this? There's nothing worse than incomprehensible voice messages especially when they don't know how to describe what they're talking about or have very strong accents. A straightforward email with a couple of photos of subject matter if appropriate is far more satisfactory. Unlimited advertising would only appeal to huge agencies. I usually have around 15 or 20 new tenants a year and spend about £200 a year on advertising, that's two annual slots on SpareRoom and possibly a couple of adverts via OpenRent.

From: Jo Westlake 20 October 2023 09:16 AM

Very few insurance policies cover bedbugs. Most only cover wasps, mice and rats. Professional treatment of bedbugs costs a huge amount. One of my tenants brought them back from somewhere a couple of years ago into an HMO and I very rashly agreed to pay about 35% of the bill so the communal areas were also treated. My share of the bill was £390. The bedrooms were £710. One of the most frustrating things was that even though the treatment company fully explained it was important to leave their belongings in the house so it could all be treated the tenants all decided to put huge amounts of personal belongings in the garage so it wasn't treated. In addition to the £390 I also replaced the bed frame and mattress in the room where the infestation started and provided mattress encasements for all other rooms.

From: Jo Westlake 20 October 2023 09:00 AM

Nick - I agree. I'm always staggered how much benefit single parents get these days. One of my UC tenants has booked a two week holiday in Disney Florida next year. Back in the 1990s people used to constantly tell me it was disgusting I could afford to take my kids to Spain for 10 days at Easter. It cost £99 each (pay for 2 and get a child place free) and involved traveling by coach. In order to afford that I didn't smoke, drink, eat red meat, run a car or have a social life. It involved making choices and budgeting. These days, largely because the LHA is ludicrously low, there are too many alternative handouts (all of which require an active UC claim). It's becoming perfectly normal to apply for DHPs, cheap energy tariffs, social broadband, access to food banks, school uniform grants, school trip funding, etc. All of it requires someone to be a claimant so is it any surprise people aren't willing to give up all those extras? Listening to the likes of Sandra is useful as it gives a bit of insight into how people who like to think of themselves as downtrodden victims view things. Playing with a Benefit calculator can show just how well off SOME claimants actually are.

From: Jo Westlake 19 October 2023 16:41 PM

Nick - I was a DSS claimant type for many years in the 1980s and 1990s. For most of that time I either got turned down for job after job or the Benefit system meant it simply wasn't financially viable to work. It's very easy to develop a hard done by, massive chip on the shoulder attitude. Getting out of the benefit trap is even harder now than it used to be because of how UC works. Once I managed to escape the benefits world there was no stopping me but it was purely down to the benefit system in 1997 that I managed to escape.

From: Jo Westlake 19 October 2023 15:44 PM

Michael - it's not a wasted life. You should feel incredibly proud of what you have achieved. You have enabled hundreds of people to live and work in London. I'm sure the vast majority of them will have fond memories of the time spent living in the homes you provided. It is tough right now with all the anti landlord policies but we just need to keep in mind how many people we have housed when they needed us.

From: Jo Westlake 19 October 2023 07:52 AM

HMO room rents often include utilities and Council Tax so most of the increase in the last 2 years was to go towards (not fully cover) the extra cost of utilities since all the small companies went bust. We had factored in gas and electric at the price we had signed contracts for. Those contracts weren't honoured but we couldn't put up rents until the end of the fixed term of the tenancy or 12 months after the last increase. Just as we had almost covered the massive increase in utilities mortgage rates went up stratospherically. Plus we are now experiencing the full impact of Section 24 but with much higher interest rates than were envisaged when it was dreamt up. If we keep rent increases somewhere in the realm of market rent it is going to take at least another 3 years to get back into the position we were in 3 years ago. That's assuming the government doesn't dream up yet more taxes or charges that will cause us to put up rents even more. Ultimately if people want a roof over their heads right now either renting or owning is hugely more expensive than it was in the not too distant past.

From: Jo Westlake 19 October 2023 00:32 AM

I'd be more in favour of going after the cash in hand mob. It's easy to say companies like Amazon should pay more tax (meaning corporation tax) while overlooking the fact they create vast amounts of employment which creates huge amounts of Income Tax and NI receipts, while also saving a significant amount of UC. Many of the jobs are unskilled and ideal for the people everyone seems to think should stop being on benefit and actually get a job. Cash in hand is just corrosive. It traps people into feeling dodgy. Constantly looking over their shoulder wondering if they'll get caught. Some are sensible enough to make it a small percentage of their income, others their entire earnings while also claiming unemployment benefits or even more stupidly not claiming anything and also not declaring an income of any sort. Often they would actually be better off registering as self employed and claiming all their tools, etc as tax deductible expenses, while possibly legitimately qualifying for top up UC.

From: Jo Westlake 18 October 2023 10:05 AM

For taxi drivers this certainly isn't new. I got my Private Hire licence on 27th March 1997 and the Council immediately notified HMRC. I had to submit a tax return for that year, even though there were only 9 days remaining in it. Gig economy jobs are often fairly well paid once someone knows how to target the most productive hours. Even something like food delivery riders can have very respectable earnings. If people don't work within the system they won't be able to access loans or mortgages so they're making their own lives unnecessarily difficult. Ultimately HMRC aren't stupid. They know roughly how much people working in any given industry should be earning. How much other people declare for doing the same job. In this day and age of internet bookings, online platforms, online advertising and internet banking it would be incredibly hard to hide most rental or gig economy income.

From: Jo Westlake 18 October 2023 00:25 AM

They're talking about a small minority of tenants in the PRS. The majority will be students who quite happily rent a student house for one or two years. Or young professionals who happily rent a room in an HMO for as long as it takes to get a job promotion/partner/buy a house. Or a newly formed couple who want to try living together before buying a house. Or people happily renting when relocating so they can get a feel for the area before buying a house that doesn't work for them. Then there's the ones who in bygone times would have been Social tenants but in this day and age are PRS tenants. Some of them have landlords who are happy to offer long term secure homes as long as they adhere to the tenancy agreement. So it's probably fair to say the vast majority of tenants aren't at any risk of eviction at all. Or they weren't until Shelter and all the other activists campaigned for the very one sided RRB.

From: Jo Westlake 17 October 2023 06:31 AM

I'd say the utility companies are to mainly blame with the sky high Direct Debits. One of mine wanted DDs for £280 a month for usage that was predicted to be less than £2000 a year. It doesn't help that Ofgem insist on quoting average annual usage in monetary terms instead of just saying a kWh costs about 27p for electric and a low usage household would expect to use about 6 kWhs a day, medium usage around 12 kWhs and high over 20 kWhs. Obviously an all electric household would use somewhat more and winter bills are always going to be higher than summer ones.

From: Jo Westlake 16 October 2023 01:26 AM

Trying to force landlords to spend vast amounts of money out of tax paid income on eco upgrades that may possibly save the tenants a miniscule amount of money was always insane. Incentivising us to install upgrades would be far more effective and would enable tenants to experience the reality of living with modern technology. I'm a huge fan of solar panels and clever heating controls. These are items that someone who is on a tight budget can't afford to take a risk on. Right now 15 of my tenants are living in houses with solar panels. About 30 of them have clever heating controls. They can see that they work and can ask me any questions they like about the financial benefits of them. Several will go on to be homeowners and some will have solar panels installed on their own houses because they have knowledge of them. Being too prescriptive in which upgrades should be done was a huge turn off for landlords. Underfloor insulation was never going to be a practical solution so quite why it was nearly always first item on the list was baffling. Most people would save far more energy and be more comfortable with decent heating programmers and thermal lined curtains.

From: Jo Westlake 16 October 2023 01:12 AM

Mine were mainly done and submitted to the accountant in April with just a few late arriving mortgage and workplace pension statements added later. He sent a draft version of my tax return in September with a couple of errors and still hasn't corrected it. Now Section 24 has made tax bills quite so high it would be useful to have the figures as early as possible so we can budget accordingly.

From: Jo Westlake 14 October 2023 10:49 AM

I'm surprised it's only a 9% increase in spending over a year. Especially as inflation was higher than that. I guess it's a real terms spending cut if that is the case. Private rents haven't skyrocketed anywhere near as much as mortgages and can only increase once of year. Tenants can claim LHA to cover at least some of their rent if they are on a low income whereas homeowners get no help at all with their housing costs. The LHA is woefully inadequate. It was supposed to cover the cheapest 30% of properties. Now it covers less than 5% and it's pretty certain those are existing tenancies, not new ones. Council's can and do hand out Discretionary Housing Payments to bridge the gap if they think it will make a tenancy sustainable. One of my tenants received a DHP for 11 months to cover half the shortfall in her rent. The Council accepted her existing house was far cheaper than anything on the market at that time and that her bedroom entitlement would increase when her eldest son was 16. That's another issue. Why is it OK for a family to share a hotel room for months but it's not OK for 2 brothers aged 12 and 16 to share a bedroom? When was the bedroom entitlement invented and why? It causes huge problems for families. I get so many enquiries from people who are desperate to rent a two bed (because that's what they can afford) but can't because of the permutation of children they have.

From: Jo Westlake 13 October 2023 06:40 AM

Andrew - I'm not convinced the white British are workshy. They have been massively discriminated against in the workplace. Far too much diversity box ticking goes on with white British male being at the bottom of the heap. White British female scores a few more diversity points but nowhere near as many as other ethnicities. When opportunities are being handed out on the basis of diversity box ticking not ability is it surprising the white British population is demotivated? I've had a zero hours job for over 8 years and have seen very capable, experienced white British male colleagues apply numerous times for contracted positions and be turned down again and again while someone newly arrived from wherever is given a contract with no experience and no idea if they can even do the job. Treat the idiginous population fairly and they may rediscover their enthusiasm for work.

From: Jo Westlake 12 October 2023 11:33 AM

Simon - I certainly had a lot of interest in the flat. Some of them may even have been gold standard. Whereas I like my HMO tenants to be gold standard I'm a bit less convinced of their merits in my self contained units. They have a tendancy to not stay very long, either because they split up or buy a house. Either way it results in all the tenant changeover rigmarole and probably a void on a too frequent basis. This time round several of the applicants were very cagey about household composition (which is crucial for a landlord to know due to bedroom entitlement and overcrowding legislation). Several mentioned needing a tenancy agreement so their husbands and unspecified number of children could join them from whichever country. Some would have had major issues with the parking situation as it simply doesn't work for anyone working unconventional hours or WFH. There were two applicants I probably should have put more thought into but that's said with the benefit of further communication with both after I had agreed to tenant I now have. Initially one of them wanted a video viewing (tricky when the property is occupied) and the other asked if the rent was negotiable. The guy I have came via the local Council Housing Options scheme so will get every bit of support and guidance available. The other tenant I have from that scheme has worked out very well in the 3 years I've had him.

From: Jo Westlake 12 October 2023 10:47 AM

Interesting that you mention pensions. For a great many landlords who were self employed in their day jobs their BTLs were an alternative to a pension. When CGT taper relief existed that was a perfect plan. Although we technically could put money in a regular pension it meant cashflow for our self employed business would be difficult. Putting it into BTL meant it was more accessible if we needed it. We have never been able to put rental profits into a SIPP as some clueless moron decided they're unearned. So basically we're denied the tax relief everyone else enjoys and have a couple of bedrooms worth of house stolen if we decide to sell up and retire.

From: Jo Westlake 12 October 2023 08:52 AM

Freezing the LHA is only part of the story. Discretionary Housing Payments are made to bridge the gap. However, to get a DHP means a tenant has to apply for it, which essentially turns them into beggars. The LHA is obviously woefully inadequate. The BMRAs are geographically too big. In this area the choice is spend £200+ a month extra on rent from money that is meant for other purposes or spend around £150 a month on travel to work costs and an extra £70+ on extra rent. I've just accepted a new tenant on UC with a £316 a month LHA shortfall. I'm not entirely sure why I agreed to it as I have got concerns about affordability. It was the cheapest available property in the town and the Council were confident DHPs would be available. Which kind of defeats the object of freezing LHA

From: Jo Westlake 12 October 2023 02:50 AM

Mortgage increases have been so huge it simply isn't possible to increase rent enough to cover the increase in one go on a per house basis, especially when Section 24 is taken into account. It will take about 3 years of rent increases to cover the mortgage increases on my portfolio. I'm in the fortunate position of only having 5 mortgages come to the end of their fixes this year, another 5 are on low fixes mainly until 2027 and 6 are unencumbered. By spreading rent increases across the whole portfolio it's possible to keep the increases at the kind of level most tenants will have had pay rises to cover. At the start of the year I decided if Social Housing was going up 7% that was the minimum any of my tenants should expect. As the BoE have been relentless in raising rates I've had to revise that idea and the October rent increases have been 9% for existing tenants. New lets are at whatever the market rate seems to be, which in most cases is significantly higher than existing tenants are paying. One of my HMOs has had the mortgage payment almost double and go up by nearly £600 a month. Four of the tenants in that house are due rent increases of £45 each this month. The market rent for each of those rooms would be about £55 to £80 more than the current tenants will be paying. So taking Section 24 into account I'm about £600 a month down on that house while the current tenants choose to stay. They're great tenants and I don't want any of them to leave but it is a juggling act at the moment. Another mortgage is due to go up around £700 a month in December. There's only one rent increase due and that's only £25 as that pushes that room to pretty much market rent. There's been a bit of churn in that house this year so a few of the rooms have had increases already. I've probably covered about £150 of the mortgage increase so far. I'm already planning for the next batch of product switches in 2027 and intend to be far better prepared for it. The main problem is we had been complacent and not increased rents much for existing tenants for a very long time, as we hadn't needed to. We had no indication the BoE was going to get quite so carried away and we had big early redemption penalties if we wanted to remortgage too soon. I guess the BoE had failed to understand this time round most people were on 5 year fixes so only a relatively small number of mortgage holders would be immediately affected by each rate rise. Back in 2008 most people were on tracker mortgages so interest rate rises filtered through into the economy very quickly.

From: Jo Westlake 12 October 2023 02:30 AM

I read the full article in the link and it was very light on detail about what the landlord hadn't done. It showed a photo of a filthy shower cubicle the tenants hadn't cleaned. During lockdowns it was incredibly hard to get tradespeople to turn up. I pay for the British Gas plumbing and drainage policy and had a bath/shower mixer tap that wouldn't turn on. Called BG and they said they would only send someone if the house contained any vulnerable people or NHS workers. It was occupied by medical students who were at the local teaching hospital. That wasn't good enough for BG as they weren't actually paid NHS workers. Fortunately my son could deal with the tap but I felt it was an incredibly poor service from BG, especially as they didn't even offer a refund for the period they refused to attend.

From: Jo Westlake 11 October 2023 11:07 AM

Probably a good idea but how much would rents need to increase to pay for it?

From: Jo Westlake 11 October 2023 00:42 AM

Andrew - if you play with a benefits calculator you will see exactly why a great many children are conceived. I don't understand the attraction of pets for anyone on a low income though.

From: Jo Westlake 10 October 2023 14:56 PM

It may be useful to have an app for safety certificates, emergency insurance details and house instruction manual. It largely depends how easy it is to upload information onto the app. Right now I email all the required certificates pre tenancy on the same email as the rental application form. If they manage to fill in the form they have clearly received the email and all its attachments.

From: Jo Westlake 10 October 2023 09:46 AM

Has anyone done a study into whether dealing with problematic tenants makes landlords age more quickly? Or if working in an industry where the government keep changing the rules and destroying perfectly functional business plans makes landlords age more quickly or develop stress related health conditions?

From: Jo Westlake 10 October 2023 01:42 AM

It doesn't make clear if this is comparing like for like properties or if it is simply stating parents and pet owners are more likely to live in properties with gardens or more bedrooms, which are obviously going to be more expensive. Does it mean the deposit was the figure quoted (seems very low) or that was the average amount withheld at the end of the tenancy? The amount for essential bills seems very low and probably explains why nearly half experience damp and mould issues. I can only dream of essential bills in any of my houses being that low, especially as they've included Council Tax.

From: Jo Westlake 10 October 2023 01:25 AM

Why do politicians and activists only listen to the unhappy minority instead of the happy majority? Why do they feel compelled to mess up systems that work well for most people? Survey after survey have shown the majority of PRS tenants are happy with their PRS experience. Touching on Nick's comment on the gig economy. It works incredibly well for some people. It may not be great as a household primary income but as a secondary income it can be perfect. My son has 3 children and is the parent who does the bulk of the school runs, after school activity runs, nursery runs, childcare in general. Both his current partner and ex wife can work full-time without having to juggle childcare. He combines it with Deliveroo and teaching English as a foreign language (mainly online). Most months he earns well over £1500, which for basically working when it suits you and having virtually no childcare or travel to work costs isn't too shabby. I do a zero hours job which is generally ideal. I can be available or unavailable to suit myself. I can accept or decline any shifts that are offered. Several of us have either mental or physical health issues and zero hours means we can work without ever worrying about a disciplinary for attendance. Contracted hours simply don't work for everyone. My husband works as an agency lorry driver and will only take shifts that suit him. If we've got landlord stuff to do or he wants to go sailing he simply isn't available to do any lorry driving. It allows a good work/life balance. But it isn't what trouble making activists want to hear.

From: Jo Westlake 09 October 2023 11:44 AM

If they want to be pro-tenant they actually need landlords. Without landlords a potential tenant is a homeless person.

From: Jo Westlake 09 October 2023 11:12 AM

Theoretically you're right but haven't we had exactly that since the Conservatives won a majority? Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me but I seem to remember the Golden age of BTL was under a Labour government. Doesn't mean I want to vote for them but would they really be worse than the current government?

From: Jo Westlake 09 October 2023 10:28 AM

GW - you've just described the current Conservative policy.

From: Jo Westlake 09 October 2023 10:17 AM

I just hope they have the same CGT policy as in their last election manifesto. Paying 40% on an indexed gain is far more palatable than 28% on the whole gain. It would enable us to retire if we wanted and would encourage younger people into the industry. The current system is basic theft. Sell a 4 bedroom house and end up with so little money you can only afford to buy a two bed. How is that fair?

From: Jo Westlake 09 October 2023 05:54 AM

Michael - you have overlooked the fact we had to put in 25% or 40% deposits to get the BTL mortgages. Plus in recent years the 3% SDLT surcharge. Often a bit of a refurb before it can be let. So a fairly chunky wedge of our money tied up in the property. When I started out my mortgages were repayment. In the early days they were mainly commercial bank loans. Interest only really took off in the early 2000s and was simply a mechanism to ramp up the number of rental properties. Homeownership had been pretty toxic through the 1990s. Lots of negative equity and repossessions. Everyone knew someone who was either trapped in something way too small due to negative equity or had lost everything with a repossession. A lot of young people were nervous of buying. Interest only BTL mortgages were a great way of us expanding our portfolios and providing the rental homes people desperately wanted.

From: Jo Westlake 09 October 2023 05:33 AM

If the NRLA had been more vocal in its opposition to Section 24 none of these tax schemes would have ever been dreamt up. It is an absolute travesty that roughly 50% of private rental properties are owned by portfolio landlords who are impacted by Section 24. Therefore all those tenants are at risk of paying more rent than they otherwise would purely because it goes straight to HMRC as an additional tax that no other industry is subjected to. The landlord is worse off and the tenant is worse off. How is that in any way right or justifiable? Where were our industry representatives back in 2015 when this was invented? Why haven't the tenant activists had far more to say about the impact of Section 24 on tenants. Most importantly why has it taken 8 years for HMRC to start questioning the incorporation schemes? Landlords are a very diverse group of standard issue regular people. Most of us don't have a degree or a high level business background or a team of advisors. Shouldn't the government have some kind of duty of care towards us and not put us in the position of being charged huge fees for schemes they have done nothing to curtail? And what on earth were the NRLA doing promoting something that now appears to be untoward?

From: Jo Westlake 09 October 2023 01:42 AM

Right now people need a roof over their heads. With mortgage rates so high and the HTB buyers facing mortgage hikes so big they have to sell, the government need to do something at the lower end of the market ASAP. More people than ever are going to need the PRS so now would be an awfully good time to stop attacking landlords and restore a system whereby we aren't in quite such a rush to exit the industry. Scrap Section 24, slow down on any reforms or abolition of Section 21, make grants available for energy saving upgrades (at least loft insulation and decent heating programmers), reinstate taper relief on CGT or zero rate it after 25 years of ownership. Abolish the 3% SDLT surcharge. Return the PRS to an industry normal people aspire to be part of. Reassess bedroom entitlement and room size legislation. Should occupation of a room that has been happily occupied for the last 100 years be prohibited just because it has a sloping ceiling and no longer has a big enough countable floor area? Do whatever it takes to ensure the best utilisation of the housing stock we have. Build more retirement housing so people can downsize easily, level the tax playing field so some Airbnbs return to the standard rental market, rationally assess what to do with the huge numbers of empty homes in the North. Is it financially viable to return them to a habitable condition? Reassess the LHA. Should there be an equivalent for home owners? This government encouraged people to buy houses that were far more expensive than a FTB could normally afford. Now their economic policies have failed quite so spectacularly is it really morally right those HTB owners should bear the brunt of government ineptitude?

From: Jo Westlake 07 October 2023 10:37 AM

Surely HMRC should have examined this far more closely years ago. As soon as Section 24 was invented would have been a good time. I paid for a consultation with Property 118 back in early 2019 and fortunately didn't take it any further. I feel so sorry for all those people who got sucked into these schemes and are now potentially going to lose everything after having paid a fortune in fees.

From: Jo Westlake 06 October 2023 16:25 PM

The PRS involves a private contract (tenancy agreement) between 2 private individuals (landlord and tenant). Everything was fine for many years when the government pretty much left all those private individuals to work it out for themselves. The tax system was fairly sensible, which meant rents were also fairly affordable. There was a plentiful supply of rental properties which again kept rents affordable and standards high (in the majority of properties). It all started to deteriorate when the government started pandering to the outlandish nanny state demands of the activists, regarding tenants as cash cows with unlimited funds and landlords as unpaid tax collectors (when they're not being unpaid immigration officers). Unlike a Civil Servant or MP landlords actually invest their own money in their businesses and are far more knowledgeable about local rental conditions and tenant requirements. There will always be rogue landlords and tenants but forcing out the good guys isn't going to help that situation.

From: Jo Westlake 06 October 2023 14:34 PM

That would be going back to how I started. My first time as a landlord I bought a big old Victorian house to live in and the previous owner asked if I wanted to keep her lodgers. Lovely young men was how she described them. It turned out it was a DSS B&B and the occupants were young offenders referred by the Probation Service.

From: Jo Westlake 06 October 2023 12:40 PM

Having Dimplex Quantum heaters isn't enough to qualify for the 4 hour Octopus Go tariff you mentioned. Someone would also need an EV or plug in hybrid car. They could have Economy 7 but that's nowhere near as cheap as the EV tariff.

From: Jo Westlake 06 October 2023 10:46 AM

50mm of Celotex on internal walls will make some HMO rooms too small to let and some flats too small to be mortgageable.

From: Jo Westlake 06 October 2023 10:33 AM

You're totally right. The gas bills in HMOs are fairly consistent regardless of age of property or EPC. The following figures are taken from my September Octopus bills and are for annual estimated usage based on current gas prices and last year's usage. Quite why they don't use kWh is beyond me. My 6 person HMO built in 1953 uses £1232 of gas for heating and hot water a year. It's EPC currently shows as E although it was previously a D. A 5 person detached house built in 2004 (EPC C ) uses £1099 of gas. A 4 person mid terrace built in 2004 (EPC C) uses £1071 of gas. A 4 person semi built in 1982 (EPC C) uses £1030 of gas. That one is a student house, so only occupied 11 months a year. On a per tenant basis that's between £205 in the 6 person EPC E house to £268 in the newest 4 bed per year. My own house is EPC A and uses surplus solar energy to heat most of the hot water. Only 2 of us live in it and our gas usage is £866.52 a year. Our heating programmer is fine tuned to our specific life pattern whereas the HMO ones tend to be on for longer at slightly higher temperatures as I'm guessing about work and sleep patterns when I set them up. I use the theory it's better for them to be comfortable than to constantly be boosting the heating or trying to reprogram the heating controls. On a per person basis our EPC A house costs more than double the per person amount in our EPC E HMO. Or looked at another way it's £1 a day difference between my house and my 6 person HMO.

From: Jo Westlake 06 October 2023 10:30 AM

It's incredibly frustrating when they refuse to have grant funded or partially subsidized improvements carried out.

From: Jo Westlake 05 October 2023 12:17 PM

It could equally be argued Sunak has enabled large numbers of tenants to remain in their conveniently located, substantially built homes by backing off the unrealistic EPC targets. Insulation isn't suitable or possible for some properties. Leasehold properties need freeholder consent and often the agreement of other leaseholders. Any properties close to the sea or that are exposed to driving rain are questionable. Poorly installed insulation can cause major damp problems. For suitable properties I can't see why any landlord would object to grant funded insulation as long as it was an appropriate type for the building. The article states 74% of Gen Rents very small sample of respondents made assumptions about what their landlord might do. Hardly scientific research.

From: Jo Westlake 05 October 2023 01:39 AM

Michael - you have a point about single parents and bedroom entitlement. It's a real political hot potato and has morphed into a major problem. The whole raising kids out of poverty by bunging ever higher entitlements at single parents actively discourages two parent families as it simply isn't financially viable to have a second adult in the household if UC plays any part in the household income. I was a single parent myself for several years and when my primary income was Income Support I certainly had thought processes around optimum times to get pregnant to maintain benefit entitlement. Fortunately back in 1997 the benefit system had Family Income Supplement which meant if you got a job you received a fixed amount of benefit for 6 months. If you worked overtime it didn't affect the benefits. I got a part time job. A few weeks later I got my taxi license. I qualified for a much lower amount of FIS for the second 6 months and have been fully self supporting ever since. Today UC doesn't work like that and it's incredibly hard to escape the benefits world. The really staggering fact is that is possible for a single parent to be a higher rate tax payer and still be entitled to UC.

From: Jo Westlake 03 October 2023 11:22 AM

I suppose it's a step forward that they're recognising different tenant types exist and have different needs. Fixed term tenancies are crucial for seasonal workers and students. Problems only arise when people who want a long-term home apply for the wrong property. Now they need to acknowledge landlords aren't all the same and don't all fish in the same pond. Some of us are far more comfortable with long term tenancies than others. I regard my houses as the tools of my trade. My house, their home for as long as they fulfill their side of the tenancy agreement. I regard long staying tenants as my success stories. I fully understand some landlords aren't comfortable with that approach and that's fair enough. We sink huge amounts of our hard earned cash into our properties and should be entitled to run our businesses in the way that works best for us. Whatever approach we have will suit some tenants. We just need to find the right ones. The RRB in its original format simply isn't going to work for large numbers of tenants or landlords. Landlords have the option of selling up. What options do tenants have?

From: Jo Westlake 03 October 2023 01:00 AM

That's assuming payment was the issue. In cases where payment is the problem it's always worth applying for a Discretionary Housing Payment. It's far more cost effective for Local Authorities to help keep someone in their home than to find and fund an alternative if they get evicted.

From: Jo Westlake 02 October 2023 14:31 PM

There seem to be various definitions of exactly what a Section 21 eviction is. Do they mean the receipt of a Section 21 notice or do they mean the bailiffs physically ejecting them? Or is it somewhere between those points? A Section 21 notice is used for various reasons and not all of them result in someone losing their home unexpectedly. Or losing their home at all. Sometimes a Section 21 notice is issued to remind tenants their fixed term tenancy is coming to an end. It may in reality be an invitation to discuss renewing the tenancy. Sometimes they are issued to indicate the landlords displeasure that the tenant has chosen to spend the rent money on something else (possibly a holiday with his mates or a three legged donkey at Haydock). If the rent is brought up to date quickly it's entirely possible no further action will be taken, especially if the tenant is usually a sensible, reasonable human being. Sometimes Section 21 notices can be genuinely helpful to get lower priority creditors to back off and give a breathing space to allow the tenant to get his finances back on track. The common thread is that it is step one of a process. Step two can't be taken until 2 months after step one. Step two doesn't automatically have to be taken at all but by issuing the S21 notice we give ourselves options. There doesn't seem to be much information on how many Section 21 evictions should really be Section 8 fault based evictions. Or how many are because the landlord has decided to sell up and retire or has died. Or how many are because the property was only ever going to be available while the owner worked away on a fixed term employment contract. It needs to be remembered the PRS is very fragmented. As landlords we have a whole range of ideas, preferences and business models. Equally there are numerous different types of tenants. Activists seem to get one idea in their heads and think it applies to the whole PRS when in reality almost nothing universally applies.

From: Jo Westlake 02 October 2023 06:33 AM

We haven't been training enough tradespeople for at least 20 years. Too many kids sent to mediocre universities to do poor quality degrees when what we really needed was quality apprenticeships. My 36 year old son wanted to be a plumber when he left school. He did a one year foundation course but couldn't carry on as he couldn't get an apprenticeship. He then did a one year foundation course in carpentry but couldn't carry on as he couldn't get an apprenticeship. He eventually got an apprenticeship in agricultural engineering and learnt all sorts of useful things including the fact he doesn't like cows and farmers don't pay much. Now he's a lorry driver and multi skilled operative for a concrete company. How many thousands of people like him should we now have as fully skilled heating engineers if politicians hadn't decided to look down on and under fund apprenticeships for the last couple of decades?

From: Jo Westlake 29 September 2023 01:24 AM

A 7% fee is ridiculous.

From: Jo Westlake 29 September 2023 01:09 AM

We need mortgage interest to be fully tax deductable. We need eco upgrades to be fully tax deductable. We need CGT taper relief so there is a viable exit route eventually. Very few young people will enter the industry while CGT is at such extortionate rates. We are already prevented from contributing meaningful amounts into a SIPP as our income is considered to be investment not earned!!???? That denies us the tax relief everyone else enjoys. Other countries have zero CGT after a certain period of ownership. This encourages long term stability in the PRS while accepting even landlords want to retire at some point.

From: Jo Westlake 29 September 2023 01:06 AM

How many of those EPC scores are accurate? I certainly currently have at least 3 totally inaccurate EPCs. All 3 houses have had major upgrades since the last assessment. However, they don't need to be reassessed for at least 3 years so I choose not to spend £65 on a piece of paper that has no benefit to me. If my mortgage lender was offering to lower my mortgage rate for an improved EPC that would be a reason to get them reassessed.

From: Jo Westlake 26 September 2023 08:08 AM

£1 per person per night would be an absolute bargain compared to standard Council Tax. However, wouldn't the admin cost of collecting it be far more than the trifling amount it raised? Why do politicians insist on thinking miniscule sums of money make a good sound bite?

From: Jo Westlake 26 September 2023 07:58 AM

They're right that Housing Benefit needs to be adequate. Right now it's hundreds of £s below the cheapest properties in the area. HMO rooms are about £150 a month more than the room rate, one beds are about £180 more, 2 beds £250 to £400 more, 3 beds about £450 to £600 more and 4 beds between £400 and £800 a month more than LHA. That's just for the cheapest 30% of available properties. Above average ones are a lot more than that. That's a huge amount of money for low income families to take from money that is really supposed to be for food, heating or travel to work costs. The expectation from the Council Housing Options team is that the tenant finds the shortfall somehow. Maybe from Cost of Living handouts or the occasional DHP or good old fashioned budgeting. It certainly isn't expected that the landlord should rent it out at LHA level rent. They know we have a queue of people if we get any vacancies. It's a tricky situation. Do we condemn hard working single dads to sofa surfing with their kids or do we give them the chance of providing a home even though we know the affordability is hideous? Obviously in a bygone era they would have been given Social Housing within a few months. Now the Housing Options team are saying there's no chance of anything other than the PRS.

From: Jo Westlake 26 September 2023 01:03 AM

EPCs and fuel costs aren't as closely linked as politicians would like you to believe. I live in a detached house built in 2004 with solar panels and an EPC A rating. Even though most of the hot water is provided by solar our gas bill was higher than for a 3 person detached 1950s bills inclusive HMO with a low EPC C rating. Their heating controls were set to a higher temperature than ours so they were warmer than us. The main difference is that house faces North/South whereas ours is East/West.

From: Jo Westlake 25 September 2023 09:20 AM

Repealing Section 24 would help enormously. With much higher interest rates rent rises are going to have to be huge for at least 3 years for portfolio landlords to get back into a position where repairs can be comfortably afforded. Many will be taxed on a loss for at least a period of time as rent can only be increased annually. It must be remembered that although portfolio landlords are a relatively small percentage of landlords we house over 50% of tenants. The RRB needs to preferably be scrapped or at least be majorly fine tuned. Numerous problems are coming to light with the original proposals. Section 21 is more beneficial for tenants than the proposed changes to Section 8. Getting rid of Section 21 is only really beneficial to Local Authorities who will no longer have a duty to provide help for so many people. Fixed tenancies work well for seasonal workers and students. Without them it will be very hard for those tenant groups to find the right housing in the right locations at the right time. Some other tenants and landlords like the certainty of a series of fixed term tenancies while others like the flexibility of SPTs. As a landlord I predominantly use SPTs and find my tenants tend to stay for several years. When they decide it's time to go I don't take it personally. It's just an opportunity to give the unit a facelift and reset the rent to market level. On the whole if good tenants want to stay long term they can. Whether it's on a SPT or series of fixed term tenancies. Landlords don't just randomly decide to evict decent tenants. We probably don't rush to evict mildly annoying ones either. One of the dangers of the new tenancy proposals is that tenants will take what is intended as a normal let and treat it as a holiday let. With Councils trying to clamp down on holiday lets it seems counter intuitive to make it possible for standard BTL to be treated this way against the wishes of the landlord.

From: Jo Westlake 25 September 2023 01:12 AM

Landlords don't increase rent on the basis of one specific extra cost. It's the combination of numerous costs and price rises. Insurance goes up, gas safety checks go up, boiler cover goes up, window cleaning, gardening, gutter unblocking and repairs all go up, mortgage costs go up a lot. £670 plus an extra £133 a year isn't too small to bother about when it is lumped on top of all the other costs and price increases landlords face. Tax deductible doesn't mean free. It's about time Councils realised the PRS does the job of housing people somewhat more professionally than most Councils have ever managed largely because we realise we have to make it work financially.

From: Jo Westlake 25 September 2023 00:39 AM

Did anyone bother proof reading the above before publishing it? Large section was duplicated and didn't the government abandon EPC C by 2028 a few days ago?

From: Jo Westlake 23 September 2023 10:08 AM

Those of us who are most affected by Section 24 tend to house a lot more than 4 people.

From: Jo Westlake 22 September 2023 09:17 AM

Grants are nearly always too fiddly and complicated and only available if you use companies that charge way more than a normal installer would charge. A tax super deduction would be a great way to motivate landlords to make certain improvements. Providing gas engineers with a supply of smart programmers that people could have installed when having their boiler serviced would be a cheap, easy improvement. If the government look at simply, accessible ideas they might get somewhere. Just avoid complicated means tested grants.

From: Jo Westlake 22 September 2023 01:57 AM

The government need to accept that the PRS consists of many different types of letting and that a one size fits all solution is going to be inappropriate for the majority of tenants and landlords. Some tenants know they want a property for a specific period, while others are looking for a long term home. Some landlords like to have fixed term contracts at all times while others like to let them roll onto SPTs and just carry on for as long as everyone is happy. As long as tenants and landlords expectations broadly align there isn't a problem. It's when there's a mismatch problems occur. Certain tenant groups such as seasonal workers and students really need fixed term tenancies to ensure availability of the right properties in the right locations at the right time. The whole eviction situation needs to be sorted out in a rational way. Tenants who fail to pay their rent, damage the property or terrorise their neighbours need to be evicted ASAP. Section 8 needs to be fast and mandatory. After Section 8 has become functional the need to change Section 21 could then be reexamined. It may be found that if fault based evictions were swiftly dealt with under Section 8 a more generous alternative to Section 21 would be acceptable? Some properties are suitable for pets, others aren't. Giving tenants the idea that they have the right to keep pets is highly misleading. The landlord does not have the authority to give consent to keep pets in leasehold flats. It's an argument we don't need to have. Pets in houses that only have a tiny back yard or HMOs are highly questionable from a pet welfare perspective. A landlord should have the right to advertise a property as being unsuitable for pets. The majority of rental properties are genuinely unsuitable for pets. The neighbours right to peaceful enjoyment also needs to be taken into account. The government need to inject more balance into the PRS. In it's heyday it was a very functional partnership between landlords and tenants. The raft of attacks, especially since 2015, has largely destroyed the industry. It's questionable if it is possible to salvage it within a viable timeframe. One inescapable fact is the age of the average landlord. Very soon large numbers of us will exit the industry either into a care home or a coffin. Very few young people are entering the industry as there simply isn't enough profit in it these days to make all the responsibility remotely attractive. Is there a Plan B?

From: Jo Westlake 22 September 2023 01:47 AM

Ellie - I think you have made us all fully aware you are unencumbered, aren't personally affected by Section 24 and basically don't give a stuff about the devastation Section 24 is causing. Your personal concern is the RRB because that is the one that will personally impact you. For those of us who house the majority of tenants Section 24 is here right now and is causing major financial problems. We probably all have concerns about the RRB but for some they're fairly irrelevant fears as Section 24 will have forced them to sell long before the RRB is in place.

From: Jo Westlake 21 September 2023 08:13 AM

Are they for real? How about examining why people fall into arrears in the first place. This will be numerous reasons such as being sanctioned by UC for not filling in the online journal to their satisfaction, failing to report a drop in pay or change in circumstances quickly enough, an employer underpaying them, schools demanding ever more expensive styles of shoes are worn or uniform is only to be purchased from the most expensive shop in the area. In some cases it will be because of inappropriate spending choices on drugs, alcohol, gambling, shopping, holidays, etc. None of that is the landlords fault. Why should the landlord be expected to take any kind of financial hit for something that is totally out of their hands? Perhaps StepChange should set up a loan system for tenants so they could clear their rent arrears and pay the money back in manageable payments.

From: Jo Westlake 21 September 2023 05:30 AM

This U-turn is at least a short-term relief. Quite why Sunak waited so long is baffling. It had been made very clear 2025 was an impossible target purely down to a lack of tradespeople at least a couple of years ago. How many people have needlessly lost their homes because of his shilly shallying? How many landlords have sold good, solid, well located long term rental homes because there was no financially viable way to get them to EPC C? How many former tenants of those properties have been needlessly uprooted from their much loved homes and neighbourhoods at significant expense to themselves because of his shilly shallying? I'm all for innovation and improvements but they have to be financially beneficial and logistically possible. MPs are supposed to be intelligent people. Why has it taken so long to scrap a policy that was clearly logistically impossible in the time frame they chose? How long is it going to take him to see sense over the RRB and Section 24? How many more tenants are going to needlessly lose their homes in the meanwhile?

From: Jo Westlake 21 September 2023 05:11 AM

This is excellent news for all landlords and especially good for leaseholders. I'll still make improvements when they seem sensible and cost effective, especially in the bills inclusive properties I own but it's great to know I can choose the timetable. If the government want us to voluntarily make upgrades full tax deductibility would be a good starting point. Don't mess about with means testing and having to be on the right benefits.

From: Jo Westlake 20 September 2023 19:07 PM

I do both types of letting and definitely prefer the HMOs. It's just a generally closer, more functional landlord/tenant relationship. Less scope for misunderstandings and unexpected surprises. I'm often aware of potential problems before they become real problems. Because I can enter communal areas any time I want it's easier to just randomly pop in and do stuff or chat to tenants. Often tenants will then mention things in passing. Whether that's repairs or moving/staying plans. It's just all more casual, informal and fluid than the self contained properties are. With the self contained properties there's always the worry about are they heating it properly, have they moved in extra people or unauthorised pets, are they going to appropriately mention repairs are needed? Then when they've stuffed up they read media tripe about evictions and are too scared to admit what they've done. It's just a far more 'them and us' relationship often heavily influenced by experiences with previous landlords.

From: Jo Westlake 19 September 2023 09:59 AM

He's partially right. Section 24 is the biggest problem right now, especially when it forces landlords who still like being landlords to sell as they are being heavily taxed on a loss. The RRB is fear of the unknown. Some of the proposals are completely ridiculous and we don't actually know what it will eventually look like. Government policy is largely to blame for increased eviction numbers. A combination of a bulge in numbers after the COVID eviction ban, rent arrears caused by the LHA freeze, changes to CGT, massively increased mortgage costs and the upcoming requirement for EPC C. Landlords are simply fed up with the completely unreasonable behaviour of government. Most of us have historically had a very harmonious, mutually beneficial relationship with our tenants as is shown every year in tenant satisfaction surveys. The RRB will have minimal impact on rogue landlords as they will just ignore it anyway. Some might get fined and a few may go to prison. In reality those people are likely to just be fronting for the real owner and it's a risk that goes with the job. The only time a good landlord evicts a genuinely good tenant is when they absolutely have to. Either because major repairs are required or because they want to sell. With the average age of landlords there will be quite a few evictions purely because they want to retire. Without the RRB many would just trundle along perfectly happily for several more years. Maybe they'd sell when their current tenants decided to move out but there wouldn't be mass evictions. The RRB just creates a load of problems we don't need. Most rental properties are unsuitable for pets due to leasehold restrictions or proximity to neighbours. Fixed tenancies are crucial for winter lets and students. There needs to be a swift mandatory eviction system in place for bad tenants before Section 21 is abolished. There needs to be a different outcome for fault and no fault evictions. The government needs to accept a one size fits all solution isn't going to work for a very large number of tenants and landlords. The RRB comes across as something that assumes all tenants are awfully nice middle class chaps, with traditional middle class patterns of behaviour. Tenants come in many types and we all have our preferences which part of the market we operate in. We need the flexibility to operate in the way that best suits our proven business model.

From: Jo Westlake 19 September 2023 01:12 AM

James Turner - just because the rent increase is an unsustainable amount for the tenant in question doesn't mean it is an inappropriate amount. If a tenant doesn't like a proposed increase they are able to go to a tribunal for a determination. The tribunal has to base their decision on local comparables. They can decide a higher amount is the appropriate rent for the property. The tenants budget isn't a determining factor. As landlords we weigh up various factors. Is the tenant generally easy to deal with? Do they look after the property? Do we want the hassle and risk of swapping them for someone we know nothing about? How much is a void going to cost us? Basically tenants who treat both the property and the landlord well have far less to worry about than those who behave as over entitled pains in the posterior.

From: Jo Westlake 18 September 2023 12:38 PM

How many of these older renter's are underoccupying their homes? How many still rent the 3 bed house they brought their children up in? That's fine if they have a private pension to fund it but if they're relying on Benefit top ups they only have a one bedroom entitlement. Obviously LHA is woefully inadequate and desperately needs to increase at least to cover the 30th percentile. That would help give some reassurance to those elderly people who already occupy one bedroom properties. The real solution would be a major building program of retirement housing of various types. Not just the McCarthy and Stone type. Some with an age qualification and some with health parameters. If some of that housing was pitched at LHA level rent it would give peace of mind and quality of life to the occupants and also free up significant amounts of family size housing in areas that already have schools, doctors, transport, etc. Everyone's a winner. I suspect slightly subsidizing retirement housing would save a huge amount from other budgets if anyone could do a bit of joined up thinking. I do actually house a person in their 60s who has had to stop work due to ill health. His rent has recently risen to LHA level. He knows it will rise by something every June. He would feel embarrassed and that I was treating him as a charity case if it didn't. It may be a token £5, it may match LHA if that's increased in the next 9 months. He is fully aware he's paying around £200 a month below market rent. Sometimes that worries him a bit and I have to reassure him I'm totally happy with how things are going. So there are landlords out there who look after their elderly tenants and try to give them a feeling of security but this government really is making it much harder than it should be.

From: Jo Westlake 18 September 2023 05:22 AM

Returning us to the traditional method of taxation would be a huge help. Our taxation is totally unique and isn't faced by any other industry. LHA is just ridiculous. I'm in the process of letting a flat via a Council scheme. Most of you will think I'm mad to do it. I had 20 applicants, the majority of which couldn't follow basic instructions, such as when replying tell me your household composition (important to comply with bedroom entitlement). I clearly stated maximum of 2 adults and one secondary school age child. Several had multiple pre school and primary school age children. What chance is there of them understanding heating and ventilation if they can't understand those requirements? So I met the guy and his son that the Council pushed my way, they seem lovely and really enthusiastic about the flat. They just want a chance of a normal family life. I am squeamish about the affordability as it's £316 a month over LHA. That's a huge amount for someone to find out of money that is supposed to be for other purposes such as food, heating and travel to work costs. However, the next cheapest 2 bed in the town is £105 a month more than that, they haven't got a hope of Social Housing as they are currently sofa surfing with family members. I'm just hoping the Cost of Living handouts are significant this winter, LHA is increased to something sensible and the guy isn't shy about applying for DHPs. It's awful when a 12 year old kid is looking at spending his teenage years on an Uncle's sofa.

From: Jo Westlake 16 September 2023 16:15 PM

What makes them think there would be any fewer evictions if the RRB happens? The only real likely difference is that more of them will be Section 8, which clearly states exactly how the evicted person has breached their tenancy agreement. The winner in all this will be the Local Authorities who won't have a duty to provide a roof for all these people who it will turn out actually were at fault. The RRB will do nothing to slow down the exodus of existing landlords and nothing to entice new landlords into the industry. The only thing that can do that is tax reform.

From: Jo Westlake 15 September 2023 07:39 AM

Owner occupiers live in some horrendous housing. About half of my properties were formerly occupied by owner occupiers. One had no heating and the only source of hot water was an electric shower. Another had the bath in the coal shed and only 4 electric sockets in the entire house. People had been living in these houses until the day of completion or the day they shuffled off to a care home. Several of my other ex owner occupied houses were in a disgusting state, infested with fleas, shredded, bodily fluid soaked carpets, thick layers of grease and nicotine on every wall, etc. If MPs want rent to be more affordable they need to stop loading us up with all the extra costs. Scrap Section 24, scrap the RRB, make Section 8 fast and functional, make energy efficiency improvements tax deductible or even better a super deduction, scrap licensing schemes or at least put a price cap on them. If we can only charge a £50 admin fee it seems somewhat unreasonable that Councils can charge closer to £1000 for far less work.

From: Jo Westlake 14 September 2023 06:40 AM

If you Google him you'll find him on LinkedIn and can look at his website.

From: Jo Westlake 13 September 2023 10:23 AM

Of course we blame the Tories. Since 2015 they have attacked our industry at every opportunity. We have been subjected to totally unique taxation and numerous requirements homeowners don't face. In the late 1990s and early 2000s BTL was a flourishing business accessible to just about anyone with a bit of ambition. Labour won the election on 1st May 1997. On that date I was a widowed single mum of 3 school age children. I had got a part time job in the railway ticket office 4 months earlier after being on Income Support for over 4 years. I got my taxi licence 5 weeks before the election. By May 2002 I had 5 BTLs and housed 20 people. Several of my taxi driver colleagues also had multiple BTLs, every other tradesperson I came across either had a few or were actively looking for their first one. We were buying up properties that had deteriorated during the 1990s after the prices crashed in the late 1980s. These were properties that needed new kitchens, windows, rewiring, etc. One of mine had a big hole in the roof and another had just had squatters evicted. Mortgage lenders didn't seem to mind about such things. Finance was fairly easy to access. I even got a Council grant for 40% of the cost of sorting out the HMO that had had squatters. Everything just seemed to work seamlessly back then. We were actively encouraged and helped not threatened with fines and penalties or prevented from appropriately managing our businesses.

From: Jo Westlake 13 September 2023 08:55 AM

One thing you didn't mention was pensions or NI. I'm not an expert on limited companies and find mine a bit confusing with how the accountant produces the numbers at times but as far as I am aware a limited company allows you to pay yourself a salary, which means you have an NI contribution even if the salary is too low to actually pay NI. £1048 a month seems to be the sweet spot if there are 2 of you. 80% of that salary can be paid into a SIPP, which is then outside your estate from an IHT perspective. Then there's things like trivial benefits provided by the company out of untaxed money (6 x £50 of gift vouchers for example). Also the ability for the company to provide a car, which if it's an EV has minimal Benefit in Kind tax. Plus the company can contribute more money to a SIPP. And not forgetting the company Christmas do with a budget of £150 per person. Mine tends to be a two night mini break. So lots of little bits that add up over the year. Whether it's worth the extra accountancy fees will vary from person to person. If the objective is to extract a high salary it's possibly a bit questionable. If the focus is on SIPP contributions it can be very worthwhile.

From: Jo Westlake 12 September 2023 15:53 PM

According to a quick Google search: From April 2023: The main rate of Corporation Tax will be 25% for Companies with profits of £250,000 or more – this applies to all profits. A Small Profits Rate of 19% will exist for Companies with profits of £50,000 or less. The main rate will taper in between £50,000 and £250,000. How many landlords would have profits of over £250000? Especially as profit for limited companies is calculated in the traditional way - income minus all expenses (including finance costs).

From: Jo Westlake 12 September 2023 09:36 AM

Any of the houses I bought before 2008 have seriously painful CGT implications. I'm simply not willing to pay that level of tax. The government would effectively be stealing 2 bedrooms per property. The ones I bought more recently I may consider selling especially if the current tenants gave notice. Selling two properties would improve my overall position significantly. It just goes against the grain to do so.

From: Jo Westlake 12 September 2023 08:33 AM

The Council is correct to be concerned about safeguarding issues but with the abolition of fixed tenancies the HMO landlords will be unable to prevent short term let's. HMOs are already furnished so there will be nothing stopping people moving in just for a few days. Even if they had to give 2 months notice it would still be a cheap holiday. HMO rent is around £500 to £650 per month in Barnstaple . Hotel rooms are mainly over £100 a night.

From: Jo Westlake 12 September 2023 07:38 AM

With increased interest rates this is only going to get worse. As landlords reach the end of their mortgage fixes things are going to get pretty dire. The monthly payment increases on my fixes that have ended this year have been between about £430 and over £700 per property per month. For a small landlord with only one property even if they aren't affected by Section 24 that kind of increase is going to be impossible to cover. How many of those properties will be running at a loss? How many of those landlords are willing and able to put money into their BTL from other sources month after month? Any unincorporated portfolio landlord will also have to factor in Section 24. The only positive thing for portfolio landlords is that they potentially have more tenancies to spread the required rent increases over. I reckon it will take 3 years of moderate rent increases across my entire portfolio to cover this year's mortgage increases. I'm already planning for the next batch of mortgage fix ends in 2027. Obviously there are some unencumbered landlords who aren't directly affected by mortgage rates or Section 24 but even they must be questioning yield. Do they need the work and responsibility of BTL when they would make more money simply by selling the house and putting the money in a savings account? With house prices falling that must be tempting. Return the PRS to a traditional method of taxation and rent rises wouldn't need to be quite so huge. Stop treating landlords as unpaid tax collectors. With Section 24 to cover a monthly mortgage interest increase of £500 the rent needs to increase by between £667 and £1000 for the landlord to cover the extra interest and tax. He hasn't received a penny extra to go towards any other increased costs.

From: Jo Westlake 12 September 2023 07:15 AM

The government needs to fully overhaul the Social Housing system. Councils and HAs should charge a minimum of LHA so they can actually afford to maintain the housing stock they have. How many Local Authorities are on the verge of bankruptcy? Why should people earning above average salaries pay half price rent just because they have struck lucky and somehow got a Social tenancy? Building large quantities of retirement housing would free up large numbers of family size homes in areas that already have schools, doctors, shops, etc. Ideally build these retirement homes on the existing Council estates so people can stay close to friends and support networks. Retirement housing is higher density than family size houses so parcels of land that aren't financially viable for family homes are often perfect for retirement housing

From: Jo Westlake 11 September 2023 15:31 PM

I would definitely welcome greater separation between fault and no fault evictions. Section 8 needs to be perfected before Section 21 is changed though. Any tenant who is evicted for a fault based reason should suffer the consequences of their actions. Quite what those consequences turn out to be is a little unclear. Where will these people live? How will their children be housed? For the genuinely blameless there needs to be some safety net so they aren't faced with paying the full cost of a move they didn't want or expect. Quite how that could be funded needs thinking about. Maybe the government should use some if the excessively high CGT landlords pay when selling up to give any genuinely blameless tenant £2000 to cover their inconvenience and moving costs?

From: Jo Westlake 11 September 2023 12:24 PM

That's a very good point about the number of properties NRLA members own. I own 16. Their lack of campaigning or support over Section 24 or any of the other property specific tax increases has been disgusting.

From: Jo Westlake 11 September 2023 11:31 AM

I find my older tenants are very low maintenance. No dramas, no silly demands. I bought flats specifically for 2 of them. Jezzer had been renting one of our small shared houses with a couple of his middle aged mates when he decided to go to Thailand and bring back a wife. She got pregnant, his mates gave notice, so joint tenancy - bye, bye all of them. Except he couldn't find anywhere due to affordability multipliers and a less than spotless financial history. So find 2 more housemates, do another 6 month tenancy, then the baby will exist and the Council can step in. What a deluded thought that was! When the baby arrived and the joint tenancy had ended, so homeless through no fault of their own (technically), the Council offered them a room in a B&B 50 miles away. He was over 50, has literacy difficulties and had a low paid job. Better than minimum wage but certainly not enough to pay for 100 miles a day commute. The idea of leaving his wife with very limited English language with a newborn baby in a rough B&B 50 miles away was horrendous. The likelihood of getting a job in a different town was slim. 50 is too young to be chucked on the scrapheap. So we asked if he wanted us to look for a suitable flat that would fit Housing Benefit level rent. We found an ex Council ground floor flat a few minutes cycle ride from his work. His son is now nearly 13 and they all still live in the flat. Marty was our plasterer for years. Became homeless after a relationship breakup. Lived in his van for a while. Rented a couple of rooms from another landlord for a while, got evicted when that landlord sold. We were chatting one day while he was plastering and he described his ideal home. Somewhere close to the sea and some shops with parking. There happened to be a really run down flat with a short lease in his perfect location so I bought it, renovated it and extended the lease. He assures me he won't be leaving there until he's in a pine box. He's now too ill to work (heart and knee problems) but the rent is at LHA level so it's sustainable. The capital growth on that one has been very good and he keeps the place absolutely immaculate. I'm certainly not a charity but if I can operate in a way that is mutually beneficial I will. Lowish rent for a long term low hassle tenant seems like a reasonable exchange. I could charge more for both of those units but by the time I've factored in voids and reletting costs it's uncertain if I would make any more profit. So I'm happy for them to live there as long as it's working in a mutually beneficial way for all of us.

From: Jo Westlake 11 September 2023 11:15 AM

Life doesn't always go to plan so I'm not sure saying someone is a waste of time if they haven't got life sorted by the age of 55 is strictly fair. Lots of people, especially men, find themselves with nothing through no real fault of their own in late middle age. Typical scenario is he has spent years working all hours to pay for the mortgage on the family home and to pay for family holidays, school trips, nice stuff for his kids, etc. When they leave school wifey suddenly says she's wanted a divorce for years and was just waiting for the kids to finish their exams. After the divorce settlement he is left with nowhere near enough to buy anywhere decent. Alternatively they get divorced when the kids are younger and he has to carry on paying for the marital home until the youngest child leaves education. The house is then supposed to be sold and the equity split. By that stage they're over 50 and suddenly realise £60K is a really awkward amount of money. Not enough to buy anything without relocating hundreds of miles but enough to remove any help with anything. Then there is injury or ill health that can well and truly mess life up. Either their own health or having to become a carer for someone else.

From: Jo Westlake 11 September 2023 05:01 AM

It would be more useful if the government funded large amounts of purpose built Social retirement housing for the over 55s.

From: Jo Westlake 11 September 2023 01:27 AM

Comparing rent increases with house price growth is a nonsense. Comparing rent with increased mortgage interest rates would be more appropriate. BTL rates have increased from below 2% to over 5% in the space of 18 months. Isn't that a 150% increase? Homeowners are also facing these increases as their fixes come to an end. Of course homeowners don't have the added burden of Section 24 to factor in. Over the last 15 years a great many of us didn't tend to increase rents for existing tenants. Our costs weren't rising significantly so we tended to just leave it alone. Some of those tenants are now paying way below market rent. Do we ever get thanked for it? Of course a rent increase is unwelcome but if they want to keep their homes it's essential. Now banks are paying decent interest on savings we have choices to make. It's about time the government and media accepted we are a business, not a hobby or a charity. It's in our interests to look after our tenants so most of us won't increase rents more than is necessary. How much is necessary is in the hands of the government with Section 24 and other punitive policies and the BoE.

From: Jo Westlake 11 September 2023 01:22 AM

I'm a huge fan of solar panels. This advice about cleaning is maybe theoretically OK but in practice is nonsense. Having long enough poles or a good enough control over them is unlikely for the average homeowner. Even on a 2 storey house it would be tricky, on a 3 storey pretty much a waste of time trying. Some window cleaners will do them, some have very good kit. Actually getting them to turn up is a different matter. Cleaning is necessary but can be hard to arrange. Getting past that point and on to other matters. There are some very clever things that go with solar panels. Hot water diverters are an option for a very basic fit and forget addition. Surplus solar energy gets fed into the immersion tank and heats the hot water. Whether it's financially worthwhile will vary from house to house and largely depends on what export tariff you're receiving. It used to be a no brainer, now it needs a bit of calculation. If your export tariff is lower than the kWh price of gas a hot water diverter is probably a good idea. If the export tariff is higher than gas it's better to export the electric and use gas. Next is EV chargers that work with solar. Not many do. I have a Zappi which is brilliant. The car receives loads of surplus solar energy in the day and Zappi can be programmed to also charge the car using a cheap nighttime import tariff. Battery storage can be very worthwhile. Either with a big array or a tariff such as Octopus Flux. The only potential issue is access to the inverter for changing the time settings for the Flux tariff or pairing with the internet if you change broadband provider. Installers have a nasty habit of putting inverters and batteries in inaccessible places in the loft. If you want to engage with clever tariffs make sure the inverter is accessible, preferably comfortably at eye level.

From: Jo Westlake 09 September 2023 11:16 AM

Ellie - if I read that correctly it looks like you are subsidizing some highly educated people who can't be bothered to work many hours (probably because you are subsidizing them). The fact one of them owns 2 houses and you feel he can't afford to pay proper rent or heat the house is staggering. Presumably as a homeowner he should be fully aware of the importance of heating and ventilation. The fact he chooses not to treat your house properly is basic abuse. I imagine your tenancy agreement has a clause relating to heating and ventilation.

From: Jo Westlake 09 September 2023 02:34 AM

Ellie - if you increased your rent to the LHA level would your tenants then qualify for UC? That may then give them access to a whole range of cost of living handouts and enable them to afford heating. If they are in that situation increasing the rent wouldn't actually cost the tenants anything and may make them significantly better off. Largely depends if they are a working family or an assortment of individuals in an HMO or a joint tenancy shared house. The first two are straightforward, the third one could be a bit more tricky if they don't actually divide the whole rent equally between them.

From: Jo Westlake 08 September 2023 14:08 PM

It's amazing how my bills inclusive HMOs very rarely have any mould, damp or condensation issues. Very little laundry is dried on airers. The tumble drier is used for anything other than real delicates. Windows are often open. Extractors are turned on. In the properties where tenants pay their own bills it's pretty much the exact opposite. Laundry on numerous airers, windows firmly shut, minimal heating, if they own a tumble drier it's almost never used. Maybe the solution is to increase the rent and include the heating? There are some very good heating programmers which prevent ridiculous over use.

From: Jo Westlake 08 September 2023 13:23 PM

It would be nice if they offered better rates for existing customers with good EPCs. Where's the incentive to stick with a lender if at product switch time you get the same rate as someone with a low EPC? Where's the incentive to improve the EPC of a house you already own? These lower rates are just a virtue signalling sound bite. If Paragon really wanted to show commitment to eco improvements all customers with a good EPC would be put on a lower rate.

From: Jo Westlake 08 September 2023 02:18 AM

If you use the Currys business section do you still have to deal with their South African customer service call centre when things go wrong? I usually order online for store collection to make sure the item is still available by the time I get to the shop. Now they only have a very small amount of stock it's an issue. However, if there is then a problem with the item the store refuse to deal with it as it was an online purchase. I want to like AO. I used to use them quite a bit but the last few years there's always been a reason not to. Whether it's stock availability, delivery charge or date or the way they charge for their extended warranties. There always seems to be a better option elsewhere. I especially liked the idea of the one off annual delivery charge but then read the small print and it doesn't really apply for landlords. Argos can be surprisingly good for large appliances on availability and delivery price/timescale. Their customer service is usually very good. My preference is to be able to collect an item immediately and take it straight round to whichever house. Tenants are usually impressed to get a new washing machine or oven the same day the old one broke. It also means I don't have to waste time waiting for deliveries.

From: Jo Westlake 07 September 2023 09:53 AM

I tend to use Currys quite a bit purely because the store is 2 minutes from my house. The lack of stock held in store is very frustrating. The delivery charges to obtain the stuff they don't keep in store are ridiculous. Certainly plenty of better options if delivery is taken into account. I do quite like the 5 year warranty Currys offer, especially on ovens as it includes a valet at some point during the 5 years.

From: Jo Westlake 07 September 2023 07:35 AM

Ellie - thanks for your concern. He had a pacemaker fitted and then removed about 9 months later. Initially doctors were adamant there was no link to the booster, later they were less certain. Anyway he's fine now. He wasn't entitled to any compensation and as a self employed person only got the bare minimum £96 a week sick pay, which was pretty rubbish and meant he went back to work far too soon.

From: Jo Westlake 06 September 2023 22:21 PM

Grumpy Doug makes a good point about the next generation. I started buying jointly with one of my sons back in 2015 as he wanted to be a landlord and the horrific CGT meant I needed an alternative retirement plan. The idea was for him to gradually build his own portfolio initially by owning small bits of any new properties I bought. Then when I get too old and crumbly for him to take over more of the hands on stuff. Back in 2015 it seemed like a good idea. It was unlikely he would be a higher rate tax payer so the loss of Child Benefit didn't occur to us, the extra 3% SDLT hadn't been introduced and Section 24 hadn't been invented. Now he has been absolutely screwed with all the tax changes. His wife decided she wanted a divorce last year when he had a cardiac arrest a few hours after his COVID booster. That solved the Child Benefit hit but meant potential issues with the 3% SDLT surcharge. They had been renting one of my unencumbered houses, which I was part way through gifting to him as part of my IHT planning. In order for her to have an affordable home and him to be able to buy somewhere suitable for the kids to live with him half the week I finished up buying back the lump of house I had gifted to him (so he had sold his main residence and could qualify for standard SDLT on his new home). Part owning 4 of my properties made getting a mortgage incredibly difficult for him as lenders tended to look at 100% of the expenses and only his % of the income. Obviously it would have been more sensible for him to keep the family home and her to rent somewhere else but a lack of available rentals for part time nurses on UC anywhere within about a 50 mile radius made that a bit of a non starter. So my IHT planning has been decimated, my other two sons have missed out on the pre inheritance they were supposed to be getting, the government have received a small amount of CGT and SDLT (complete with 3% surcharge) on the gifted/bought back slice of house, the solicitors have done very nicely, the grandchildren have suitable homes with both parents, I have an ex daughter in law as a tenant. So basically a whole string of events that illustrate why owning BTLs has all sorts of potential unintended consequences for young landlords and how trying to help adult children can be very expensive and messy for older landlords. Obviously it's much easier for incorporated landlords to just hand out shares to the next generation.

From: Jo Westlake 06 September 2023 11:54 AM

Terry - those figures are horrendous. I fully understand looking after vulnerable tenants and was guilty of not increasing rents sensibly for a long time myself but running at a loss of that magnitude is unsustainable. Is the tenant working and self funding or benefit funded? Is he on straight UC or a higher disability rate? Straight UC for a single person is dire, some of the disability rates are somewhat better. Even Social rents increased 7% this year so in my opinion a benefit assisted tenant should be able to get a DHP for at least a 7% increase. Each Council will vary but my theory was that if they were increasing their rents by 7% they could hardly argue if we did the same, especially if we were only charging LHA levels in the first place. It may be worth a phone call to your Council to see what's on offer. What would happen to him if you decided to sell? Would suitable alternative housing be available? Are there any financial incentives or discretionary payments that would enable you to at least break even? You may find they are extremely keen to do whatever it takes for you not to sell, especially as he is already living in a building that is suitable for his disabilities. If you don't ask you won't get.

From: Jo Westlake 06 September 2023 10:58 AM

It doesn't matter how much he eases up planning permission. Houses will only be built at the rate they can be sold for top money. Big building companies are experts at keeping supply short to keep prices high. With the current interest rates very few people earn enough to pass mortgage affordability criteria for a property they would like to buy. There's absolutely no point buying the wrong property in the current climate. A few people may self build, which will be nice for them, but insignificant in terms of numbers. Local Authorities don't have enough money to do much. Even if they increased Social rents to something commercially viable it would take a very long time for them to be able to bankroll significant house building. That leaves co-living and Build to Rent. Theoretically great ideas at the right price for the end user. Unlikely that will be the case though. Developers and owners of such developments are going to want chunky profits every year.

From: Jo Westlake 06 September 2023 09:45 AM

So a landlord with a profit of £17200 would pay less than £400 NI per year. Profits of £50000 would pay about £3400 and profits of £100000 would be about £4400 NI per year. Compared with Section 24 it's peanuts. Don't forget I'm saying we should be taxed as proper self-employed businesses instead of the horrific Section 24. To cover our NI would probably come to about £15 per tenancy per month for landlords with only a couple of tenancies. For bigger landlords probably closer to £10 per tenancy per month. NI would be payable on genuine profit not the open ended Fantasyland Section 24 where it is entirely possible to pay tax while making a loss. If I look at 2 of my houses in isolation the Section 24 tax will be £38 per tenant per month in my 6 person HMO and £65 per tenant per month in the 5 person HMO. Even on my ex Council flat with a single low income tenant on a mortgage at 2.89% the Section 24 tax is £55 per month. That's on top of the normal 40% tax I would be paying anyway.

From: Jo Westlake 05 September 2023 16:06 PM

The numbers vary depending on definition. Rental turnover, taxable income and genuine profit are 3 entirely different things. Median rental income is pretty meaningless. By the time expenses such as insurance and repairs have come out the profit is lower. For anyone with a mortgage it's lower again. 40% of landlords may not have a mortgage but then again don't 45% of landlords only own one property? Is it the same group of people? Outside London a lot of rents are pretty low. Less than £1000 a month for one and two bedroom properties. Something like 18% of landlords own about 50% of all rental properties. As lenders won't lend to inexperienced landlords on HMOs it's a pretty safe bet that 18% of landlords house significantly more than 50% of all tenants. I don't think Chris answered that question. I can't remember which day I posted it.

From: Jo Westlake 05 September 2023 13:39 PM

If they bought fairly recently there wouldn't be much of a Capital Gain. It's those of us who bought 20 or 30 years ago that are most heavily impacted by the current CGT policy. When we bought taper relief existed and we bought on that basis. Anything we have bought since taper relief was abolished we have bought knowing the rules had changed. Restoring taper relief would be fair to longer term landlords and a bonus for more recent ones. The fact people aren't exactly queuing up to be landlords is partly because there is no viable exit route with such punitive CGT and other selling costs. NI is only payable on earnings over £12570. Each earning source is its own event, not like income tax which is cumulative. So the average small landlord with only one or two properties wouldn't pay any NI, especially if the profit figure was derived in a traditional way. It's entirely possible to have a couple of part time day jobs, do a bit of consultancy, have a couple of BTLs, earn £50K from the 4 separate sources and pay no NI whatsoever. If bigger landlords weren't subjected to Section 24 paying class 4 NI at 9% wouldn't be a problem. It drops down to 2% on earnings over £50270.

From: Jo Westlake 05 September 2023 12:39 PM

Losing the 6 month minimum term will be problematic and cause pricing issues. How will a landlord know if someone is looking for a home or a holiday? Maybe the first 3 months should be priced at holiday rates and then dropped down to residential rates after that?

From: Jo Westlake 05 September 2023 09:28 AM

It's pretty certain that if an EPC has risen from F to C the house will have had a major refurb. It won't be the insulation and a few lightbulbs that have increased its value significantly. It will be the new kitchen, bathroom, plastering and improved decor. Obviously the new heating system will help but the bulk of the price increase will be due to non energy related improvements.

From: Jo Westlake 05 September 2023 09:15 AM

I've just made the last payment of £583 on my old mortgage fix. Next month the payment will be £1140. I secured that rate about 3 months ago. If I had waited a few more weeks the payment would have been at least £1381. I've just sent out rent increase notices to 4 of the tenants in that house of £45 a month each. Assuming similar increases going forward and a few rooms vacated and re-let at much higher rents it should all balance out in about 3 years time. Maybe a bit longer with Section 24. Actually maybe a bit longer than that as I'm almost certain to be paying 60% tax after all those rent increases. Just in time for my next batch of 5 year fixes to end in 2027.

From: Jo Westlake 05 September 2023 08:54 AM

The whole thing needs to be simplified. In recent years too much emphasis has been put on trying to artificially control the market with way too much 'help' for FTBs. How helpful it turns out to have been remains to be seen if prices drop and they're trapped in unsuitable homes with negative equity. Or repossessed if they can't afford the sky high mortgage payments when their current fix ends. If we want a mobile, aspirational workforce we need available housing of all tenures. Renting needs to be viewed as a perfectly valid choice, not as in any way inferior. For that to happen providing rental housing needs to be regarded more positively and taxed accordingly. It must be remembered that almost everyone will rent a property at some point in their lives. It doesn't mean they will always rent, just that it's the practical solution for that period of time (university, new Job, new relationship, new area, divorce, etc). It's a perfectly normal thing to do. Why should all those people be disadvantaged just to 'help' FTBs? We also need to remember that things evolve. Ideas change. The second home thing is not quite as clearcut as it seems on the surface. Firstly definition. Is it a true second home purely for the use of its owner or a holiday let run as a business or a full time BTL occupied as someone's only home? Does its EPC allow full time occupancy? A great many seaside properties have very low EPCs and can't be adequately insulated without risking damp problems or making rooms too small. No one wants quaint fishermen's cottages to be demolished as they are an integral part of our coastal landscape but that doesn't mean they are practical as full-time homes. The additional rate of SDLT is too high and pushes landlords and other second property buyers to buy cheaper properties. It's a bizarre tax if the idea was to lessen the competition for FTBs. If we have to have it at all it would make sense for it to be refunded to anyone who buys a proper BTL after 3 years of tax has been paid on the rental income. That would certainly help fund future BTL purchases. Taper or indexation relief needs to be restored. No one is going to enter the industry with any long-term intentions with the current levels of CGT. Property is one of the assets that can't be split into nice little bundles and sold in a way that best utilises annual CGT allowances. Why exactly is it taxed at a higher rate than anything else? Other countries reduce the CGT rate after so many years of ownership. We used to, so it's certainly not an unprecedented tax break. Anyone with more than one BTL should be taxed as a business with profit worked out in the same way as for every other business. One additional property may be accidental, more than that is a business choice. The idea that it's a passive investment is a complete nonsense. Maybe tax people with just one BTL the same as people doing Rent a Room?

From: Jo Westlake 05 September 2023 08:26 AM

Not even strictly accurate. Lots of F and G rated properties are still legally let as they have exemptions. A listed building can't be messed about with and have insulation installed so they are exempt from the requirements. Other exemptions exist for buildings where it is impossible for the landlord to achieve the standard. Leasehold flats where freeholder consent is withheld for example. The EPC score is absolutely no indication of heating costs. My own house is EPC A93. It is detached, was built in 2004, 2 of us live in it, our gas consumption is 10951 kWhs a year and we were decidedly cold last winter. One of our other houses is EPC C71. It is detached, was built in 1953, 3 adult tenants live in it, the gas consumption is 10251 kWhs a year and they were much warmer than we were last winter. The main difference is that it is North/South facing whereas ours is East/West.

From: Jo Westlake 02 September 2023 14:53 PM

If there was any consistency between assessors it would be a start. A 10 point difference of opinion in fairly common on older properties. One of mine had a 19 point difference. Then there's the disagreement on which is the primary heat source. One of my ex Council ones has a night storage heater in the hall, electric panel heaters in the bedrooms and a gas fire in the lounge. The two most recent assessments classed the storage heater as the primary heat source and said replacing the old storage heater with a Dimplex Quantum would get the properties to a C. Another assessor (at a NRLA meeting) said the hallway heating couldn't be taken into account at all and I would need a gas central heating system. How are we supposed to make informed decisions when the assessors can't even agree with eachother?

From: Jo Westlake 02 September 2023 10:35 AM

Ellie that's all fine in theory. If you can actually speak to someone at HMRC how are you supposed to know if they are the right person and an expert in the topic? My real point is is my portfolio regarded as one business or 6 different businesses? On a bit of a tangent if suddenly HMRC have decided BTL is a business why are they taxing it as investment income?

From: Jo Westlake 01 September 2023 22:59 PM

Chris - I looked at your website last night and you may know the answer to this question. I know that if you want to incorporate it has to be the whole portfolio. How is that determined if you have assorted permutations of owners? For example I own 7 properties jointly with my husband, one jointly with my son, 2 jointly with my husband and son, one jointly with my husband, son and ex, 2 solely as me and my husband solely owns one. Plus 2 more in a limited company of which my husband and I are directors. Would it have to be all properties, even though my son and ex have no interest in incorporation, or could it be just the properties that are only owned by my husband and I? We currently have 6 different ownership structures for personally held properties. Is each one taken as it's own event or is it all lumped together?

From: Jo Westlake 01 September 2023 11:01 AM

The government incentivised people to move into the holiday let market without thinking through the consequences. Some properties simply don't make good holiday lets. Especially flats in residential buildings where people actually live. Now the government have created this mess they need to do something to rectify at least some of it. Obviously the most practical solution would be to treat all rental properties the same in terms of tax, business rates, licensing, etc so there isn't a massive advantage or disadvantage to any particular form of letting. Just let market forces sort things out.

From: Jo Westlake 01 September 2023 09:05 AM

They forgot to mention the added impact of Section 24.

From: Jo Westlake 01 September 2023 08:56 AM

Chris - obviously steps can be taken if you're willing to jump through enough hoops. The fact is it used to be simple. Section 21 had been invented so people had the confidence to buy rental properties. Landlords bought houses, paid tax on the same basis of profit as everyone else and had taper relief to encourage long term stability in the rental market. We didn't have a housing crisis. Now someone has to decide if they want to be incorporated or hold personally. How are they supposed to make that decision without a fully functional crystal ball? Will they like being a landlord? How many properties are they planning to buy? How are they going to fund the deposits, SDLT and fees? Will the financial climate be conducive to their hypothetical plans? Something that was a fully functional cottage industry, accessible to people from all walks of life, has now become incredibly complicated and we have a housing crisis. When I started out I bought one small renovation project. At the time that was a really big deal. Until the year before I'd been on income support for several years. In the space of 16 months I'd got a part time job, got my taxi licence and bought a BTL. As far as I was concerned at that point I'd exceeded my wildest dreams. The idea of owning any more was preposterous. The rest just evolved in a fairly haphazard fashion.

From: Jo Westlake 31 August 2023 09:17 AM

Scrap Section 24 and reinstate taper relief on CGT to encourage existing landlords to remain and new ones to enter the industry.

From: Jo Westlake 31 August 2023 07:06 AM

Clearly different university cities have different length tenancies. When I first started letting to students in 1999 the standard was 43 weeks here. It's gradually lengthened to 48 weeks or 11 months. A lot of students now have part time jobs and stay right through the summer. I don't charge for August if they're keeping the house because it saves me a lot of time and effort. I've just been asked for a 13 month tenancy from some Masters students. No idea what the university is playing at or how that would work for any that are going into halls. In terms of deposit refunds the vast majority of mine get every penny back. This year one house came back absolutely immaculate, a room in another one (just one student leaving) was spotless and another house has required weeks of cleaning, decorating and broken furniture replacing. One of them had burnt candles and incense in her room for 2 years. She tried cleaning it and just smeared the soot everywhere. A professional decorator had to sugar soap it twice, apply 3 coats of stain block and 3 coats of emulsion. Two mattresses had to be thrown away due to bodily fluid staining, one bed repaired, another replaced, rooms hadn't been hoovered, bins hadn't been emptied, hard floors were filthy and had to be cleaned with Cif and a paint scrapper, all the freezer drawers had been broken, coffee tables wrecked. None of it was malicious - just lazy and careless. I haven't fully added up exactly how much it has cost to get the house back up to standard for the new group. Certainly a lot more than the £950 I kept from the deposits. Just the decorator and paint was over £500, professional carpet cleaning £200, replacement bed and mattresses £500, other replacement furniture over £300. Some of it was wear and tear so clearly I wouldn't expect to charge the entire cost of replacement. Most of it was just laziness and thoughtlessness. Obviously my time hasn't been charged for because I'm only a landlord and my time is worthless. Who decided rental income was unearned? How many hours do they spend crawling around with a bottle of Cif and a paint scraper just for fun?

From: Jo Westlake 30 August 2023 14:32 PM

Ellie - I don't think you're going to find an unlimited energy deal. That's about as likely as finding a cash machine spewing out free money. I include heating in all my HMOs and student houses and never have a serious mould problem in any of those properties. I have heating programmers with multiple time and temperature settings a day. The best ones can be set from my phone and don't require me to visit the property other than to change the batteries once a year. They're usually set to around 17 degrees at night, 21 when they're likely to be getting up, 19 through the day, 20 or 21 in the evening. The tenants can boost the temperature any time they want and then it returns to it's programme after a while. Most of mine use between about 13000 and 17000 kWhs of gas a year and have between 4 and 6 occupants. Mainly EPC C except the 6 person one which is registered as E but is probably D.

From: Jo Westlake 30 August 2023 08:50 AM

It's not them refusing to leave that is the main issue. It's them leaving early that's the problem. Student houses are usually roughly an 11 month tenancy. Landlords know they will get 11 months rent and have a month to get any work done to the house. They know they can confidently advertise in October for next September's tenants. The fear is that students will suddenly decide to give notice and move out mid way through the year. As most students arrive in September that causes a problem. No landlord is going to choose to leave a house empty for more than a month. With the abolition of fixed tenancies there's no way of doing a 6 or 7 month let for anyone else. The only viable solution would be if student halls were also unable to offer fixed tenancies. If students were free to leave halls any time throughout the year and take over student houses as they became available it may work. It's got to be one system for all students. Either all fixed contracts or no fixed contracts.

From: Jo Westlake 30 August 2023 08:32 AM

Jim - it will give his victims a bit of time to get over the trauma and feel safe for a while. I was violently robbed 20 years ago while working as a taxi driver. I was battered with lumps of rock (over 20 separately identifiable injuries mainly to my head). My attackers were drug addicts. For one of them it was their first offense, the other was a juvenile with a lengthy record. Both female. They received 3.5 year custodial sentences. The older one served 16 months, the juvenile a lot longer due to violent outbursts in prison. Those custodial sentences gave me the ability to carry on working (to a limited extent initially). I was eventually awarded criminal injuries compensation for PTSD. So don't downplay the importance of custodial sentences, especially as far as victims are concerned. The mental health impact of violent attacks is immense and the psychological impact of being threatened at knife point is enormous. One of my colleagues needed 3 years of counseling before he could return to work after having a knife held to his throat.

From: Jo Westlake 30 August 2023 08:16 AM

Fixed term student tenancies have a wider impact on surrounding neighbourhoods and every other tenant in that much larger area. If students can't find accommodation in traditional student streets they will find whatever they can in the surrounding streets. Students pay higher rent than non student tenants so very quickly these surrounding areas become more and more studenty. Cities that adopted Article 4 directives a few years ago to limit the density of student housing in certain areas are now looking at expanding the Article 4 area because the surrounding streets have now become student areas as a result of being unable to find accommodation in the preferred areas. That makes rent more expensive for everyone. If a traditional student house falls out of the student market it may never return. Working tenants don't follow the same pattern so rooms are rarely available at the right time. In many university cities student areas are very conveniently located for young professionals to live in. Although the rent may be a bit higher they often don't need to spend so much on travel to work costs or taxies home after a night out. One of my houses in a prime student area came out of the student market about 10 years ago due to a brief dip in student numbers. It still hasn't fully returned. It currently houses 4 professionals and 2 PhD students. Although it now has to pay Council Tax that is balanced out by the fact it receives rent 12 months of the year, not 11. In other student cities it may well be that student areas aren't convenient for anyone else so the landlord will have to maybe look at benefit assisted or unemployed tenants to fill unexpectedly available rooms. Any houses in Article 4 areas certainly won't be let to families if students move out at the wrong time. Losing C4 status would be a very expensive mistake. It would be better to leave a house empty for several months than to lose C4. Either way if students can't find housing in their preferred areas they will widen their search and outbid anyone else.

From: Jo Westlake 30 August 2023 07:57 AM

How exactly is a suspended sentence appropriate for that level of behaviour? What kind of message does that send to anyone? The landlord and housemate were attacked and threatened in their own home, the place they should feel safest in.

From: Jo Westlake 30 August 2023 07:09 AM

More than 4 is considered portfolio. More than 10 is large portfolio. It always gets me that so many lenders will only lend to non portfolio landlords. They are far more likely to have no experience of so many things purely because they only have one or two properties. A major repair or non paying tenant is far more likely to cause a small landlord far more of a problem than it would a portfolio landlord. Even as a portfolio landlord with 16 properties and over 25 years experience I still occasionally face situations I have never encountered before.

From: Jo Westlake 29 August 2023 18:16 PM

It goes against the grain to say it but for me the Golden Age of BTL was under a Labour government. The only policy in the last election that really appealed to me was the Labour proposal to reinstate indexation relief on CGT. I don't care if I'm paying 40% or 45% on an indexed gain. It's 28% on an unindexed gain that is truly eyewatering (and basic theft).

From: Jo Westlake 29 August 2023 08:56 AM

John - there are various things to consider. If there is more than 80 years left on the lease it shouldn't cost much to extend. Marriage value kicks in at less than 80 years and premiums can ramp up rapidly. Both of mine had dropped to 67 years when I extended them. The procedure depends on if you are doing negotiated or statutory. That's largely down to the attitude of your freeholder. One of mine was a totally reasonable human being, the other was as difficult as they come. For the negotiated one I asked how much they wanted, thought the price sounded OK and paid it. Legal fees were fairly reasonable. At that point I was totally clueless and was incredibly lucky the freeholder was very fair about things. The second one was statutory and a very steep learning curve. The Leasehold Advice Centre in Guildford were very helpful. There are online calculators that will tell you roughly how much the extension will cost. Then you pay a valuer and submit your offer. The freeholder will then instruct a valuer (which you also have to pay for). They make a counter offer. Then your solicitor and their solicitor haggle. Once a price has been agreed their solicitor will probably try to "modernise" some of the wording of the lease. Your solicitor will argue about it a bit and they'll reach an agreement. A statutory extension gives you an extra 90 years on top of what you already have left and extinguishes all future ground rent. You will pay the lease extension premium, your valuer, their valuer, your solicitor and their solicitor. A negotiated extension is whatever you negotiate. I was lucky mine offered 90 years and kept the ground rent at £30 a year for the entire term. Other leaseholders in the other building did negotiated leases purely so they could sell their flats and have totally stitched up the new owners. For the statutory extension I paid £12050 premium plus about £5000 in fees. Other people in the building who did the negotiated route paid around £14000 including fees for an extra 30 years and ground rent of £300 a year. Use a solicitor who specialises in leasehold if you're going the statutory route as the time limits are very prescribed.

From: Jo Westlake 24 August 2023 16:15 PM

Robert - you're right to an extent. I guess I've come at it from the opposite end. I've actually bought two properties where tenants have been served Section 21s as the landlord wants to sell. One was as I've already described and worked well for all concerned. The other was next door to another property I already own and was a property I especially wanted due to the garage situation. I knew the tenants and told them I was interested in buying with them in situ. Whether they mentioned it to the landlord I don't know. Next thing was they moved out and the property was put on the market. I offered well below asking price which was initially rejected. A couple of weeks later the offer was accepted and it took a further six months to complete. So the previous owner got the price I had always intended to pay but had no rent for over 6 months and had to pay gas, electric, water and Council Tax bills.

From: Jo Westlake 24 August 2023 13:15 PM

Have you looked at extending the lease? I've extended two that had both dropped to about 67 years. One as a negotiated extension and one as a statutory extension. Short leases really are a problem for sale values. I bought one of mine as a repossession after a £40K reduction as it simply wouldn't sell even at a relatively low price for the space. I know we have all been hoping the leasehold reform proposals were going to improve things but it all seems to be taking a very long time with no sign of how it's going to work. All the while the leases are shortening and potentially becoming more and more expensive to extend.

From: Jo Westlake 24 August 2023 12:48 PM

Andrew - we take a risk with every tenant. References aren't always honest, employment may or may not continue. When buying a tenanted property it's perfect reasonable to ask to see bank statements proving rent payment history. You can meet the tenant in their home environment, you can see the cleanliness or otherwise of the property, you can see if the place is stuffed full of electronics and designer labels and you can draw whatever conclusion you want from the visual evidence. You can ask why the current landlord is selling and draw your own conclusions. One thing that is fairly certain is that the location and size of property suits the tenant.

From: Jo Westlake 24 August 2023 10:07 AM

I did say the numbers don't stack in the South. Yields are much higher in the NE. I bought a tenanted one back in 2015 and it was great. Income from day one and virtually nothing to do to the property for the first two years other than the gas safety checks. I even had the added bonus of paying a lower price as I bought it direct from the owner so no estate agent fees to factor in, no pre sale facelift costs and no void. It only happened because I already owned the house next door and the tenants were randomly chatting to eachother. The previous landlord had served a Section 21 as he wanted to sell. The tenants couldn't find anywhere to move to in the school catchment area. My tenants knew I usually bought something most years so it was worth asking. It wasn't what I was especially looking for at the time but has worked out really well for all concerned.

From: Jo Westlake 24 August 2023 07:19 AM

They should be rejoicing that only 55% of private renters have had a rent increase in the last year. Haven't 100% of Social Tenants had a rent increase in the last year, mainly at 7%? Anyone on a tracker or SVR mortgage has had multiple increases in housing costs over the last year. Anyone coming to the end of a mortgage fix is seeing stratospheric increases in housing costs. All are at risk of homelessness if they can't pay. Homeowners have far fewer options than tenants and no equivalent to LHA or Discretionary Housing Payments. Perhaps the activists should start to look at just how lucky PRS tenants are right now compared with pretty much everyone else. If they wanted to genuinely help tenants they would campaign for a reversal of Section 24, removal of the extra 3% SDLT on rental properties, restoration of taper relief on CGT (to encourage more people to become landlords) and an eviction system that actually works and gets rogue tenants out in a timely fashion.

From: Jo Westlake 24 August 2023 07:01 AM

It can be a good idea as there is rental income from day one but the numbers have to stack and the historic tenancy paperwork has to be comprehensive. Right now the numbers don't stack in the South. By the time the extra SDLT, Section 24 or the higher interest rates limited companies pay have been factored in it would be difficult to find a property where the rent was high enough to cover it's outgoings.

From: Jo Westlake 24 August 2023 06:40 AM

So it's difficult and expensive for Councils to get a banning order. What actually happens to the property and the tenants when one is obtained? Does it get boarded up and the tenants evicted or does it just get managed by someone else? Would that be the Local Authority, a Lettings Agent or the wife/brother/cousin of the banned owner? Are any of those alternatives much of an improvement for the tenant? The full article goes on to say "councils often pursue other penalties such as a civil charge notice, which can be up to £30,000". While criminal landlords should be penalised are Councils simply being pragmatic? As recent government policies have caused so many good landlords to sell up are LAs in the position of beginning to think criminal landlords are better than no landlords? Especially if they can get civil penalties out of them from time to time.

From: Jo Westlake 24 August 2023 06:17 AM

I've just paid £865 for a 5 year license. If I wasn't accredited it would have been £990. For 6 person HMOs we have the option of a dishwasher instead of a second sink and a microwave combi grill instead of a second oven. Obviously both are more expensive alternatives with a tendancy to need more frequent replacement but it can be useful from a kitchen design point of view.

From: Jo Westlake 23 August 2023 07:50 AM

It found the property housing five tenants had been an unlicensed HMO since at least 2018, meaning it was potentially unsafe for the tenants living there. Why does it automatically mean it was potentially unsafe? Why would it be assumed to be any less unsafe if only 3 or 4 people lived in it? Either it's well maintained and required safety checks are up to date or it isn't. The only real difference a 5th person would make is the licensing fee. It's only when 6 or more people live in an HMO that a second toilet, sink and oven are required. We all know any property with 5 or more unrelated tenants has to be licensed. Any anomalies or confusion on that one were removed 5 years ago. Pre 2018 one and two storey 5 person HMOs didn't have to be licensed. Their level of safety didn't suddenly change overnight. The only thing that changed was the requirement to pay a licence fee.

From: Jo Westlake 23 August 2023 06:43 AM

How is that £597 a week figure arrived at? Is it based on self contained properties managed by Foxtons or does it also include HMO rooms? What size properties does it represent? If it's mainly one or two bedroom properties it's a lot. If it includes a lot of 4 or 5 bedroom properties maybe it isn't too bad.

From: Jo Westlake 23 August 2023 06:21 AM

I have a holiday home in France and effectively pay double but that's only because France have reduced property taxes for people who are resident in France. Everyone used to pay Taxe d'habitation and Taxe Fonciere. Second home owners still pay both while residents no longer pay Taxe d'habitation. The services provided are far more extensive than in the UK. Grey waste and recycling are both collected weekly, there's a team of people looking after the town's floral displays, everything except asbestos can be taken to the local tip free of charge, we get a discount on the local swimming pool, etc.

From: Jo Westlake 22 August 2023 11:09 AM

Of course we need more social housing but no one wants it to be next door to them. Councils need to get back to building whole Council estates rather than dotting social housing randomly in all new build estates. Social rents need to be far more commercially realistic so social housing providers can afford to maintain their stock and build more. How many Local Authorities and Housing Associations are on the brink of bankruptcy right now? One of the most contentious issues with Social Housing is allocation. How should priority be determined? Should it go to low wage working local families, unemployed families, migrants, people who have been evicted from the PRS, people who have been repossessed, disabled people? It's highly unlikely enough could ever be built to house everyone who wanted to be a Social tenant. Although if a commercially viable rent was charged would the housing waiting list suddenly shrink dramatically? How many people are only on the list because they fancy having half price rent?

From: Jo Westlake 22 August 2023 05:57 AM

That still doesn't fully make sense. You rented for 9 years. I rented privately for 3 years and then got a Council tenancy. People moved on for various reasons.

From: Jo Westlake 21 August 2023 19:30 PM

Michael - I'm curious about your assertion there was virtually no letting before 1988. My grandfather was a landlord from about 1900 to 1975. I never had a landlord focused conversation with him as he died a year before I left school but no one in the family has ever said being a landlord was a bad thing for him. It was just something he did. I had no difficulty renting a bedsit in 1981. I was only 16 at the time. How many of us would dream of letting to a 16 year old today? So is your experience of pre 1988 indicative of the national situation or just something in London?

From: Jo Westlake 21 August 2023 16:54 PM

If the rent is that much in arrears why haven't you issued a Section 8?

From: Jo Westlake 21 August 2023 15:41 PM

Nick - we probably all want Section 21 to work in the way you describe. The simple fact is it no longer does. Section 21 was abused by Lettings Agents back in the days when fees could be charged for everything. Now we are all (landlords and tenants) suffering the consequences of their actions. How much of the current anecdotal evidence used by activists refers back to before tenants fees were outlawed? Councils don't help matters by advising tenants to stay put until the bailiffs turn up. That is blatant abuse of both landlords and tenants and highly stressful for all concerned. We need a clear, robust, fair eviction system to be invented and fully tested before abolishing the dysfunctional system we currently have. Properly separating fault based evictions would be a very good starting point. Fault based evictions need to be swift and certain to both free up properties for good tenants and encourage less than good tenants to adhere to the terms of their tenancy agreements. That would improve the quality of life for everyone. The real sticking point is what to do with genuinely bad tenants. Where are they going to live if they get evicted? No one is going to want them as next door neighbours and the government won't allow trailer parks in the middle of the countryside.

From: Jo Westlake 21 August 2023 13:53 PM

Nick - Ellie edited her original comment and changed "lack of intelligence" to "unwise". You have highlighted on many occasions exactly what is wrong with the current Section 21. It took you months to gain possession of your property. Theoretically it's fine but in practice you had a nightmare with it. Wouldn't it make more sense to campaign for a system that actually works rather than cling on to a system that is seriously flawed? I don't like some of the RRB proposals but have a horrible feeling some of the bits that will prove to be horrendous will sneak in because too much focus is being put on retaining Section 21 in its current format.

From: Jo Westlake 21 August 2023 10:17 AM

That's an interesting point about BTL mortgages on subsidised rents. I know the LHA varies around the country and in some places was lower than Social rents. I operate in an area where Social rents are quite a lot lower than LHA, which in turn is quite a lot lower than open market rent. Last time I checked on Rightmove there were only 6 properties at LHA rent in the entire 500 square mile BRMA. Clearly virtually no landlords are renting at LHA rent levels nevermind Social rent. Getting a mortgage would be virtually impossible without a huge deposit due to stress testing. Renting to people who would historically have been Social tenants doesn't mean they are Social tenants. It also doesn't mean they are unemployed or on minimum wage. Families can earn over £50K and still be entitled to LHA or Social Housing. I've never understood why Social rents are so ludicrously cheap. I know they're supposed to be non profit making but most Local Authorities and Housing Associations seem to be massively in debt. Leasing a property long-term to the Council would be about the only way the property would be occupied by Social tenants and that's a completely different concept. Mortgage lenders have quite strict rules on how long such arrangements can be for although they can usually be renewed multiple times. You're right that alternative forms of housing need to be looked at.

From: Jo Westlake 21 August 2023 10:00 AM

Ellie - could that be because I regard tenants as human beings not simply commodities to be pushed around on a whim? I also recognise that the PRS consists of both landlords and tenants who ideally are mutually supportive. We need tenants in order to be landlords. Tenants need landlords in order to have a roof over there heads. One can't exist without the other. Also I grew up in the poverty trap and fully understand how poverty feels. You said a couple of days ago you paid over a million in IHT so have presumably had very different life experiences to me. The PRS is a very wide reaching concept with many different tenant types. I'm happy with my method of operation and tenant profile and have no plans to exit the PRS. You seem to be less happy with yours. You certainly don't speak for me with your obsession with kicking tenants out at every opportunity. Just as I don't speak for you with my obsession with tax reforms and long term stability for tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 21 August 2023 09:15 AM

Ellie - there is no need to insult those of us who happily provide long term homes for people who would previously have qualified for Social housing. I have 5 tenants who 30 years ago would have easily got Council houses. One has been with us over 15 years, another is 14 years, another 7 years. The other two from the early days of the first lockdown. They are all decent people who just don't happen to earn enough to buy a house. My houses are the tools of my trade. I am happy to have long term tenants treating them as safe, secure homes. Tax changes would make an enormous difference. We didn't all inherit millions.

From: Jo Westlake 21 August 2023 08:19 AM

If only it was that simple. I had a credible plan earlier this year to get most of my end of fix properties onto about 4.49% rates this year and it was well and truly stuffed up by TransUnion and TMW. Although we have totally perfect credit reports from all credit reference agencies and well under 50% LTV borrowing across the portfolio TMW refused a remortgage on a property because my husband's unsecured credit card utilisation was showing as 51%. This was because TransUnion was months out of date and had double counted a balance transfer. So the plan involved 6 properties, one tracker, 2 fixes ending in April, 2 fixes ending in September and one in November. Property one was a very small mortgage with TMW so we cleared it to bring us down to 10 BTL mortgages which theoretically gives access to more lenders. Property two we product switched with TMW with the intention of getting a further advance to help reduce one of the September or November properties. Property three was the tracker and not easy to place with lenders (ex Council, flat roof, 3 separate tenancy agreements). It fitted TMWs criteria but then they turned it down due to the credit utilisation. So instead of the 4.44% fix we were hoping for it's still on it's tracker at 0.95% over base. Plus we couldn't release a load of equity to reduce some of the following mortgages. Plus the broker told us that as TMW had turned that one down they also wouldn't do the further advance on the property we had just done the product switch on. So that's over £200K of equity we had hoped to access at about 4.5% that we can't use or would be at a much higher rate now. Property four is being remortgaged away from TMW in September and we are releasing £100K of equity from that one at 4.24%. Property five is a licensed HMO (so higher interest rate). We had hoped to reduce the balance using some of the equity we were trying to release but have had to fix at 5.6% on a straight product switch with Leeds. Property six is another licensed HMO. This time with Paragon. Product switch options are between 6.39% and 6.95% depending on product fee. I will have a lump sum from property four but that means I can't sign up for a new rate until I physically have that money in October as Paragon only allow a 48 hour window to make capital repayments without penalty. Overall it's going to cost around £8000 a year more than we had hoped purely because TransUnion don't update credit files in a timely fashion and lenders rely on the incorrect information contained in them too heavily. We had done everything right. Perfect payment history, borrowed responsibly, made good use of Section 75 cover, 0% balance transfers, etc. All very prudent. Martin Lewis would be proud of us. Shame TMW were quite so intransigent, especially as we have been customers of theirs for many, many years and have an impeccable history with them. The broker we were using ceased trading a few weeks ago. They were one of the more mainstream ones owned by Paragon Bank.

From: Jo Westlake 21 August 2023 08:05 AM

Location and parking are the main concerns of most people.

From: Jo Westlake 21 August 2023 07:09 AM

Section 24 needs to be scrapped immediately and we need to be returned to being taxed in the same way as every other self employed person. Classifying rental income as unearned investment income is a complete nonsense. Owning one extra property may be accidental but any more than that is a conscious business decision and should be treated as a business 100% of the time, not just when it suits the government. Taper relief on CGT needs to be reinstated. Other countries pay zero CGT after a certain number of years ownership. We used to have taper relief so we weren't being taxed on inflation. In the last general election even Labour proposed indexation relief in their manifesto. Why would anyone enter the industry when there is no sensible exit route? The whole eviction situation needs to be sorted but I'm realistic enough to recognise that will take time and there will be much arguing and a complete lack of funding in the Court system will cause problems. Fixing the tax problems is easy and certain. Reforming eviction rights is much, much harder. Leaving it as it is isn't really satisfactory unless the Court capacity is boosted and all backlogs cleared. Section 21 is fine in theory as long as tenants don't actually understand it and believe they have to be out by the date on the original Section 21 notice. If they don't vacate that's when it clearly shows how broken the system is with lengthy waits for a Court date. I don't especially care what eviction notices are called but the system does need to be fit for purpose. Eviction of bad tenants needs to be swift and certain. It's hard to know how few genuinely good tenants actually get evicted as landlords tend to favour S21 over S8 even when there is clear fault.

From: Jo Westlake 21 August 2023 07:05 AM

Solar is interesting and not remotely stable in its tax treatment, therefore financial viability. Early adopters had the Feed In Tariff which meant the systems paid for themselves regardless of who was paying the utility bills. Right now they are a disaster from a funding point of view unless your objective is simply to get a quick relatively cheap EPC uplift without any disruptive internal work to your property. It only takes one day to install an array. They are classed as a capital improvement so aren't tax deductible. If your property is bills inclusive it may eventually work out if you have a good import tariff , batteries and a big array. Utility providers are constantly introducing new tariffs so it is very much a work in progress. I'm a big fan of solar as a product and have panels on 5 houses. Three arrays are 12 years old and were one of the best investments I've made. The two new arrays also have batteries. The bigger one seems to be doing well but the smaller one is more questionable.

From: Jo Westlake 19 August 2023 18:01 PM

It all seems very complicated. I probably should fully incorporate but there seems to be so much conflicting information and potential pitfalls.

From: Jo Westlake 19 August 2023 10:51 AM

I'm surprised it is felt that tenants actually read adverts to that detail. I mainly use SpareRoom and well over half the respondents clearly haven't read the advert. For example: Advert: All rooms are for single occupancy only. Enquiry: My wife and I need a double room for us and our baby. Advert: Room available on the second floor in a 5 person student house for 11 month tenancy. Enquiry: I am a 52 year old unemployed person with complex health conditions needing a long-term ground floor bedsit. Advert: En-suite double room in graduate professional household. Housemates would prefer someone friendly and sociable who works conventional hours. Enquiry: I work shifts but only do nights every third week. Day shift starts at 6am. I only really want somewhere to sleep and keep myself to myself. The list is endless. Some of the enquiries are quite amusing, some are genuinely desperate. Working out how or if to respond to some of them can be very time consuming. I feel not responding is rude but then again not reading the advert in the first place and wasting my time is equally rude. The whole discrimination thing is tricky. Is it discrimination if the applicant clearly isn't suitable and hasn't read the advert?

From: Jo Westlake 17 August 2023 07:10 AM

My fire alarms and emergency lighting are £180 + VAT per property for two visits a year.

From: Jo Westlake 16 August 2023 20:48 PM

I've just paid £150 + VAT each for 3 EICRs. Carried out by a very experienced NICEIC electrician I've been using for years. One of them needed something new in the meter cupboard so that was another £200 or so. I had two done a few months ago for about the same price by a NAPIT registered electrician who looked like he was just out of school. One passed, the other failed. He was supposed to come back the following week to do the remedial work but simply didn't turn up. No communication, nothing. He'd been paid for the inspections and that was all he was interested in. The NICEIC one came out as the fails sounded like they needed immediate action and couldn't see why two items had been failed in the first place. The first chap had left a screw loose in a socket face and didn't like the plastic back box on another socket. It was perfectly safe but should have been metal. The only other thing was an earthing continuity issue in the kitchen. To be fair to both electricians the state the tenant had let the kitchen get into didn't make it a very attractive job to trace the fault.

From: Jo Westlake 16 August 2023 11:56 AM

The product fees for some lenders are ridiculous and will cause LTV problems next time round if the market is stagnant or falling. Adding a 7% fee to the outstanding balance is only really helpful for landlords who are planning to die in the next 5 years and have an IHT problem. For anyone else it's storing up future remortgage or product switch problems. Brokers are a major problem. I had problems with one last year who applied for the wrong product and then failed to correct his error when I immediately pointed it out to him. I've had problems with a different broker this year. This year's broker lack of knowledge and general errors will cost me over £40000 in extra interest. She simply didn't understand the different criteria lenders have. An ex Council house with a flat roof and 3 separate tenancy agreements in the most sought after part of the city isn't exactly vanilla. There are lenders who will do it but there's a lot that won't. She wasted weeks messing about trying to place it with lenders who clearly state they won't allow multiple tenancy agreements. All the while rates were shooting up.

From: Jo Westlake 15 August 2023 10:18 AM

Ellie - it largely depends which country you're living in. If you're living in France you would obviously pay their Social charges because you are living there and receiving whatever it is Social Charges provide. If you're living in the UK you might pay French Social charges when you sell a house that isn't your main residence if you haven't owned it over 30 years. On the other hand if you're living in France you no longer pay taxe d'habitation, whereas if it's a second home you do. Basically that's about half of their equivalent to Council Tax. Taxe fonciere is the other half and paid by everyone. I wouldn't currently live in France because of their wealth tax, whereas my sister does live in France because she wanted a big old house with land. However, she only has 2 BTLs (one in the UK and one in France) and pays very little tax in either country.

From: Jo Westlake 14 August 2023 14:53 PM

Ellie - the system in France is different. Some bits are better, some worse. CGT tapers to nothing after 22 years, Social charges are a relatively new component. It didn't exist as a separate charge when I bought my house nearly 20 years ago but does now and disappears after 30 years of ownership. Either way it's a much lower rate of CGT than in the UK.

From: Jo Westlake 14 August 2023 12:46 PM

Ellie CGT is not payable on a main residence in France. A quick look on Google shows: Your principal home is exempt from capital gains tax in France. This is regardless of what you do with the proceeds, but it must be your main home at the time of sale. On second homes, holiday homes, rental properties, etc the French system is vastly superior to ours: If you have owned your second home: Up to five years: there is no allowance, and you will be subject to the full 19% capital gains tax rate. Between six and 21 years: there is a progressive allowance increased by 6% each year up to a maximum of 96%.

From: Jo Westlake 14 August 2023 11:44 AM

This sounds like a case of the Local Authority not managing the HMO situation effectively. HMOs are licensed for a specific number of occupants and it is required that the manager is a fit and proper person. The LA has extensive powers if these conditions aren't being fulfilled. However, what actually happens to the tenants if the LA discovers overcrowding? Does the LA have a duty to house them or are they just expected to find a comfortable cardboard box? What happens if they don't have the Right to Rent? Is this whole situation an example of the unworkable regulations the government dream up and LAs are reluctant to fully implement due to the knock on consequences?

From: Jo Westlake 14 August 2023 08:52 AM

The article fails to take into account the Early Repayment Charges landlords would have faced if they had randomly sold a property while it was on a fixed mortgage. Picking the optimum moment to sell doesn't just come down to having a fully functioning crystal ball. I'm with John on this one and think some landlords will regret selling. If it's time to retire that's a different matter.

From: Jo Westlake 14 August 2023 08:35 AM

What has this proposal got to do with joint tenancies? If someone leaves a joint tenancy the choices are either the whole tenancy ends, the remaining tenants each pay more rent to cover the share the former housemate paid or they ask for permission to assign the former housemates share of the tenancy to someone else. If you choose to use joint tenancies the property hasn't been abandoned if only one or two tenants leave. If you choose to run the HMO with individual tenancy agreements it is entirely possible an individual room may be abandoned, in which case this proposal is very welcome. In most cases it would be aimed at self contained properties occupied by one family or a single person. With single tenants it can be tricky to know if they have abandoned a property, become hospitalised, been jailed or died.

From: Jo Westlake 14 August 2023 08:14 AM

The things that make the most noticeable difference to HMO bills are LED light bulbs, good heating programmers and solar panels especially if combined with a hot water diverter or battery.

From: Jo Westlake 12 August 2023 22:11 PM

EPCs are a complete nonsense when 2 different assessors will come up with wildly differing results up to 20 points apart for the same property. A thick, technophobe tenant who doesn't engage with the heating programmer will use vastly more energy than someone who engages with the programmer.

From: Jo Westlake 12 August 2023 13:06 PM

CGT has got to be one of the main reasons very few young people want to be a landlord. Why would anyone want to enter an industry with no sensible exit route? Especially if they are also going to pay tax on money they don't have and lose their Child Benefit in the process. It used to be straightforward and reasonably fair. Now it is basically a life sentence if you don't want to effectively give the government a couple of bedrooms when you sell. When I bought my first batch of properties from 1998 to 2002 there was taper relief to encourage landlords to provide stable long-term homes for tenants while allowing them to retire when the time came. If I sold any of those houses now the CGT would be between about £80000 and £115000 per house, which is basically two bedrooms worth per property. I bought a few lower value properties between 2009 and 2012 almost all of which were either repossessions or probate sales. CGT was a concern but the purchase price was attractive enough to overlook it. Most of them would now have a CGT bill of around £19000 per property. When the Tories won a majority in 2015 I was full steam ahead and bought 2 more HMOs (putting one of them in 4 names to try and dilute the CGT impact). That decision caused later problems for my son when he was getting divorced and wanted to buy his own house and had the 3% extra SDLT issue). CGT on those 2 would be about £25000 and £50000. Another property was bought in 4 names in 2017 when another son separated from his wife. We had a family whip round to buy a flat for him and his children. He has now bought a house and the flat is let via one of the Council schemes. CGT about £9000. Another one in 4 names in 2019. CGT about £13000. The two after that have been bought via a limited company. Throw mortgage early repayment charges into the mix and the cost of selling some of those properties is obscene. Especially bearing in mind all the tax and VAT the government have received throughout my ownership of these properties. If CGT and SDLT were at sensible rates I may sell a couple of personally held properties and buy a few more through the limited company. My son would be keen for expansion in certain directions. At the current tax rates I'm not going to either sell or buy.

From: Jo Westlake 12 August 2023 12:26 PM

Obviously some small landlords can have many years experience and be very knowledgeable. Most portfolio landlords started small and may well downsize and become small again. I guess the level of knowledge and competence is really down to enthusiasm for the subject. However, lenders seem to encourage complete newbies with no experience whatsoever with better deals than portfolio landlords have access to. While around 85% of landlords may own between one and four properties each isn't it something like 18% of landlords own 50% of rental properties? So that presumably means a disproportionately high number of tenants are impacted by Section 24. Especially if you assume portfolio landlords are more likely to own HMOs as very few lenders are willing to grant HMO mortgages to inexperienced landlords. It's the fact we get charged more than a newbie for the vanilla stuff that really gets me.

From: Jo Westlake 11 August 2023 14:30 PM

It seems counterintuitive to favour amateur landlords with only a couple of properties. Surely they are more likely to be unaware of their legal obligations and therefore be at greater risk of being fined, treat being a landlord as a hobby to fit in after their day job, family life, etc. How many people try it and realise they hate being responsible for tenants, they resent the time it takes up and feel they have made a mistake? Personally I think it would make more sense if lending decisions were based on the overall portfolio LTV rather than the number of mortgages. Some of us live and breathe being a landlord. It's a very high priority to us. We fit other aspects of our lives around it. My husband and I both have zero hours or agency jobs which we do when we haven't got any landlord or family stuff to do. We then find mortgage lenders don't understand that concept. On a remortgage application one lender got very het up about my ZHC (which I've done for over 8 years as an alternative to a gym membership). I know lenders hate gym memberships but it seems they also hate a well paid alternative. It just seems bizarre lenders will lend millions of pounds and then not encourage us to nurture the assets that money is secured against.

From: Jo Westlake 11 August 2023 09:19 AM

You're right that most BTL mortgages are interest only. That's been standard for at least 15 years and fairly mainstream for several years before that. The criteria of lenders has caused some of us to consolidate borrowing onto the smallest number of properties to give access to the greatest number of lenders. Some will only lend to people with less than 3 properties, some with up to 10 BTL mortgages, etc. It can make borrowing decisions irrational. Small, self contained properties have lower mortgage rates than HMOs but because they are lower value it's easier to clear those mortgages and consolidate borrowing onto the more valuable HMOs. There are so many different factors skewing the whole situation. CGT is a major factor and again has an impact on which properties we mortgage. Most of my mortgages are now consolidated onto the properties I have owned the longest as I am least likely to sell those due to the CGT. My more recently bought stuff is mainly unencumbered so there are less barriers and penalties should I wish to sell anything. From a mortgage rate perspective it's a crazy way to operate but it's what the lenders and their treatment of portfolio landlords has led to.

From: Jo Westlake 11 August 2023 07:45 AM

Airbnb can be very problematic in residential blocks of flats. One of my flats is in a building converted into 4 flats in a seaside town. The owner of the top floor flat did Airbnb for a few months last summer and it was hell for the other residents. Drunk stag party attendees crashing around the building late at night. A couple of the female occupants were propositioned or indecently assaulted in the stairwell. It just made people feel unsafe and vulnerable.

From: Jo Westlake 11 August 2023 07:20 AM

A combination of mortgage increases, Section 24 and the Renters Reform Bill are obviously going to increase rents. Tenants can take some comfort from the fact their rent increases are nowhere even close to our mortgage increases this year. We are protecting them somewhat from the worst of the financial disaster Sunak and the BoE have created. The mortgage payment on one of my HMOs is going up nearly £600 a month in October. Rent increases at 9% will be £45 per tenant. It's a 6 person house. Throw in Section 24 and it bakes in that level of rent rises for at least 3 years. That allows nothing to go towards increasing costs for insurance, safety checks, repairs, EPC upgrades, etc. My 5 person HMO that comes to the end of its fix in November is even worse. Mortgage payments will increase £756 a month. Fortunately for tenants I can spread rent increases across my portfolio, some of which is unencumbered, so I have the choice of whether to stick with it or not. How many landlords with only a couple of properties can afford to absorb mortgage increases to that degree?

From: Jo Westlake 11 August 2023 07:08 AM

Good point. For the bit that is left after the government have taken the punitive CGT there are numerous options depending on circumstances. 1. Buy a sports car and have some expensive holidays. 2. Pay down other mortgages. 3. Gift it to children or grandchildren and hope you live over 7 years so it's out of the IHT calculation. 4. Trickle as much as possible into pensions (either yours or other people's). 5. Gamble on the horses, dogs, casino, etc. 6. Gamble on the stock market. 7. Invest in numerous tax friendly assets

From: Jo Westlake 10 August 2023 07:13 AM

Why is it now taking around 135 days to complete finance, conveyancing and legal checks? Back in 2001 it took less than 3 weeks from viewing to completion. In 2011 from first appearing on Rightmove to completion was 27 days. Both of those transactions involved obtaining mortgages. With all the modern technology why is it now taking an extra 4 or 5 months?

From: Jo Westlake 10 August 2023 06:56 AM

Tax deductibility is the absolute minimum assistance landlords should get. We don't benefit from any of the savings so why should we be expected to pay for EPC upgrades out of tax paid money? A good program of public information on how to heat a house efficiently would be useful. Demystify heating programmers and explain how walls act as heat stores, etc. Grants without ridiculous means testing criteria would be nice. Also the provision of decent heating controls. How little would it cost if the government bulk ordered a couple of million modern heating programmers and gave them to gas engineers so they could install them for anyone who was willing to pay a small fee for installation while they were doing the annual gas safety check? How much money and energy do tenants waste on inappropriately heating their houses? How much mould damage do they cause because they are too scared to even switch the boiler on? One of mine (low EPC C) spent huge amounts of money being cold last winter. For some bizarre reason she kept the heating programmer in her bedside drawer and only had it on for an hour in the morning (until the minute she left the house) then for half an hour in the afternoon when the kids got home from school. The rest of the time she used a convector heater as the government were paying £400 towards her electric so it must be cheaper! When I compared her bills with those of a similar age and size bills inclusive student house it turned out the student house paid about £100 more for gas but were warm all year and the student house paid over £500 less for electric even though they made extensive use of the tumble dryer. So the bill paying tenant didn't save any money and was cold and surrounded by wet washing in just about every room. The house became damp and mouldy and as her solution for overcoming the smell of damp was to burn scented candles there is also soot on most of the walls and ceilings.

From: Jo Westlake 09 August 2023 10:38 AM

Beverly's website says: What we won’t allow: You must not live or have lived in the property yourself. You must not have more than 3 Buy-to-Let properties already. Holiday Lets Mixed use First Time Buyers Second Charge Social Landlords

From: Jo Westlake 09 August 2023 07:52 AM

The headline is misleading. HMRC are increasing late payment charges for everyone. However, 2.5% over base is much cheaper than an overdraft from any bank and broadly in line with a personal loan assuming someone had a good credit score.

From: Jo Westlake 09 August 2023 07:36 AM

Why do lenders only lend to people with a maximum of 3 BTLs? It must be incredibly high risk for the lender. Isn't it more likely for novice landlords to be oblivious to some of their responsibilities and get fined for oversights or suddenly have to find money for tax bills they hadn't properly budgeted for? Surely it would be much lower risk to lend to experienced landlords.

From: Jo Westlake 09 August 2023 07:28 AM

If all prospective tenants were required to use the Share Code system it wouldn't disadvantage poorer British nationals. It would offer true equality to all legitimate prospective tenants and reassurance to all professional landlords about who they were letting to.

From: Jo Westlake 09 August 2023 07:17 AM

I've certainly got 2 or 3 properties I would happily sell to my local Council as long as they didn't evict the tenants. Basically the ones I charge the ludicrously low LHA for.

From: Jo Westlake 09 August 2023 07:11 AM

All energy saving upgrades need to be tax deductible in the year of purchase. Advances in technology mean specifically listing certain currently available upgrades would hamper innovation. Just think back to what was available 10 years ago and compare it to today's options. Heat pumps were pretty much unheard of, smart heating controls were very basic, etc. Solar panels are a good example of how quickly technology can change. Ones installed this year are far superior to ones installed 10 years ago. Today a combination of solar panels, battery storage and time of use electric tariffs made possible by smart meters are producing savings we couldn't have dreamt of a decade ago. Even something as basic has a low energy lightbulb has improved immeasurably in a decade.

From: Jo Westlake 09 August 2023 07:06 AM

If your tenant refuses to cooperate wouldn't you just assume they have overstayed and report them to the Home Office just in case?

From: Jo Westlake 08 August 2023 12:14 PM

You still have to do Right to Rent checks on people that appear to be British. Using a Share Code for an international tenant is a whole lot easier than trying to get sight of a passport for a lot of Brits. It's amazing how many leave their passport with their parents at the other side of the country.

From: Jo Westlake 08 August 2023 08:33 AM

Surely the whole point is if you do the Right to Rent checks and then report any overstayers or undocumented non tenants to the Home Office you have fully complied.

From: Jo Westlake 08 August 2023 08:18 AM

The Share Code is brilliant. It would make everything far more straightforward if all tenants including British ones had to be verified using the Share Code system.

From: Jo Westlake 08 August 2023 06:59 AM

Checking the Right to Rent using the Share Code is pretty simple. Putting the date the Right to Rent expires on your calendar is pretty simple. According to the government website "If the tenant no longer has the right to rent, you will need to report them to the Home Office and they will then take the relevant action. As long as you can evidence that you have done the relevant checks and then reported them when/if they no longer have the right to rent you will have a statutory excuse".

From: Jo Westlake 08 August 2023 06:56 AM

Michael - you make an interesting point about car charging. Charging a car at home costs a fraction of charging a car using a public charger. Having the ability to charge a car at home is potentially worth a lot to a tenant with an EV.

From: Jo Westlake 06 August 2023 13:26 PM

I've had solar panels on 3 houses for 12 years and they were one of the best investments I have ever made. I usually get them cleaned once a year. My regular window cleaner used to do them but someone has nicked his ladder so he's stopped doing them. So I'm in the process of finding someone else. Back in the early days it didn't matter who paid the electric bill as the owner of the panels got the Feed In Tariff. Very worthwhile. I had 2 more houses done earlier this year with solar panels and batteries. The tax situation is hideous so there's no way it would work if the tenants were paying the electric. On bills inclusive HMOs they may be a good or a very good investment. Don't know which yet. The Octopus Flux tariff is a game changer. However, the location of the inverter is important for that as you need to be able to change the time setting twice a year when the clocks change.

From: Jo Westlake 05 August 2023 14:20 PM

Even if you could increase rents that much the government would take the first £10000 or £15000 as extra Section 24 tax and then credit back only £5000. Either way the lender still wants their extra £25000. In reality how many of us can increase rents that much in one year? How are we supposed to then pay for EPC upgrades (which are mainly capital improvements) out of the much reduced income we are left with after paying the extra tax and interest?

From: Jo Westlake 05 August 2023 12:39 PM

I was hoping to stick with a 7% increase this year but after yesterday's rate rise it's going to have to be around 10%. It won't come anywhere close to covering the extra mortgage interest and Section 24 tax but every little helps. At least the rent increases on newly vacated rooms are much higher and the competition for them is staggering.

From: Jo Westlake 04 August 2023 14:18 PM

Heat pump tumble dryers usually have an option to plumb in the drainage hose or manually empty the water container in exactly the same way as condensing dryers do. All tumble dryers need the fluff filters to be regularly cleaned. The main advantages with the heat pump ones is they dry more gently so are less likely to shrink clothes, can be positioned just about anywhere as they don't need an outdoor vent and cost far less to run than other types. They cost a little bit more to buy but in a bills inclusive HMO are going to recoup the extra cost within a few months.

From: Jo Westlake 04 August 2023 11:08 AM

Could it be that any landlords with mortgages realise the fix they had or have will be replaced with something much more expensive? Five of my fixes end or have already ended this year. Payments will have increased by about £2500 a month by December. Then Section 24 also has to be taken into account so increases have to be even bigger.

From: Jo Westlake 04 August 2023 07:47 AM

The things that really make a difference in HMOs are light bulbs, heat pump tumble driers, good heating programmers and solar panels.

From: Jo Westlake 04 August 2023 07:37 AM

Although their demands are horribly badly phrased they do have a point about the grants in recent years. There used to be free or very cheap insulation available for just about all rental properties. I've certainly had loft and cavity wall insulation at very little cost in several houses. The only problems have been where the insulation companies have only done half the job. When it's supposed to be both loft and walls and they decide not to do the walls because it's only the back of the house and their hoses aren't long enough because they can't get a parking space outside the house. Leasehold properties are problematic as freeholder consent and agreement of other leaseholders is required. Other schemes have been aimed at properties with low income tenants. There have been a few occasions when I've got very excited about a tenant suddenly being in the right income bracket, only to discover the scheme has been changed and now excludes them. I was hoping to get something on the current Eco scheme but was told by their advisor it wasn't available for flats as it was more important to insulate 6 bedroom farmhouses!!!!! The other problem is that whatever we spend on EPC upgrades is very rarely tax deductible as nearly all of it is a capital improvement. So we are expected to pay for stuff that has no financial benefit to us out of tax paid money after Section 24 has been taken into account. If it was tax deductible we may be more enthusiastic.

From: Jo Westlake 04 August 2023 07:31 AM

We just need to increase what we can, when we can. That's assuming we want to stay in the industry. When rates stabilise we can change tack again. Tenants have had best part of 15 years of very infrequent rent rises from some of us. I'm not convinced they fully understand quite how lucky some of them have been. The economic climate has changed for all of us and it's unrealistic for tenants to expect someone else to shoulder the whole burden.

From: Jo Westlake 03 August 2023 13:16 PM

Mortgages are only one part of a landlords costs. Most of us know our current fix will end at some point and will be preparing for it by raising rents realistically in advance rather than having a huge increase when the fix actually ends. Some of us have a mix of mortgaged and unencumbered properties and will spread rent increases across the whole portfolio so one household isn't too harshly impacted. One thing that activists tend to overlook when making sweeping statements is that there are millions of landlords all with different ideas and circumstances.

From: Jo Westlake 03 August 2023 12:11 PM

Michael - How do you know they can't afford it? What are they spending their money on? Some of the rents you say you charge are way below LHA. Even on minimum wage or in gig economy jobs the rent would be a small percentage of income. Anyone on a really low or part time income would be entitled to benefit top ups, which is partly what your tax pays for. If they're in arrears they need to go for some budgeting advice from the local Council or Citizens Advice. Make sure they're claiming anything they're entitled to.

From: Jo Westlake 03 August 2023 12:03 PM

What's a HHHSH?

From: Jo Westlake 03 August 2023 07:56 AM

£480 seems quite cheap. I'm just renewing an HMO license for £990 minus a £125 discount for being accredited. Presumably most landlords will just increase the rent by an extra £20 a month on top of their normal planned increase to cover the licence fee. I wonder if tenants understand quite how much of their rent goes to the Local Authority and HMRC.

From: Jo Westlake 03 August 2023 07:53 AM

When utility companies went bust and didn't honour the contracts I had signed I couldn't just instantly increase rents on those properties to cover the huge extra cost. I raised rents as and when I could to cover a percentage of the extra £22000 I suddenly had to find. This year I have 5 mortgage fixes ending. My December mortgage payments will be close to £2500 higher than they were at the start of the year. Section 24 makes it even worse. It's going to take at least 3 years of realistic rent increases across the whole portfolio to get back to the position I was in a few months ago. Alternatively I could just sell up and send my tenants out into the world to compete with countless other people for a reducing pool of even more expensive rentals.

From: Jo Westlake 03 August 2023 07:42 AM

Today's decision will determine how much my October rent rises will be. Earlier in the year I had hoped to restrict rises to 7% as that was what Social Housing rises were capped at. My rationale was that anything lower would be treating my tenants like charity cases, inflation is higher, almost all of them had had pay rises, any on UC should be able to get a DHP as the Council certainly couldn't argue an increase that matched their own. Higher increases would have just given the government even more tax to waste and made absolutely certain I would be in the 60% tax bracket. However, the BoE has shown no restraint, clearly doesn't understand the time lag with interest rate rises and whatever they do I will be stuck with for 5 years on a fixed mortgage. The numbers just don't stack on shorter term fixes due to the product fees and rolling onto the SVR would be eyewatering. Rent rises that I had hoped would be £50 per person per month may have to be £70 or £90 depending on today's decision. Section 24 just magnifies the problem and the only winner in this is HMRC.

From: Jo Westlake 03 August 2023 07:26 AM

Get rid of CGT or at least lower it to something sensible and it would make the idea far more possible. Have 0% SDLT if the landlord buys a replacement house and it might even make the idea mainstream.

From: Jo Westlake 02 August 2023 08:07 AM

I don't understand why the government wants to mess up a system that has predominantly worked well for decades. Fixed term tenancies work perfectly for some landlords and tenants (especially students or seasonal workers) while an initial 6 months fixed AST followed by a rolling SPT works perfectly for others. Some landlords like the system of a series of fixed term contracts. Personally I don't know how most adults can plan their lives in fixed 6 or 12 month blocks. What happens if they get a fantastic job offer in another city a few days after signing a new fixed term? What happens if they get pregnant at the wrong time? What happens if they get badly injured and 3 flights of stairs are no longer practical? Isn't it horribly stressful wondering if you'll be offered a new fixed term or if you can plan your life to fit that fixed term? How many landlords would actually hold them to their contract in any of the above circumstances? On the other hand some tenants like to have the certainty of fixed terms. They don't like the idea a landlord could serve an eviction notice at any time. The fact the vast majority of landlords wouldn't dream of evicting a good tenant doesn't enter their head. It's still a risk they don't want to take. Tenants aren't all the same so trying to impose a one size fits all solution is clearly going to produce some unforeseen consequences. Minimum fixed terms are important if tenants want affordable rent. There needs to be a certain level of seriousness about the whole thing, especially if the government wants to clamp down on Airbnb and short term holiday lets. In reality as long as the outgoing tenant is liable to pay the rent until a new tenant moves in everyone should be happy. It would be nice if the figure suggested as reasonable for the admin fee was increased to something more realistic than £50. The downside of students being able to leave whenever they want is that if they choose to leave when other students don't want to move in the house stops being a student house. We had a glitch with student numbers about 10 years ago so I started letting one of my student houses to a mix of students and professionals. It still hasn't returned to the student market even though it is in a prime student area. While students would undoubtedly pay more rent, longer term HMO tenants are less work (especially in August). The local Council are now trying to widen the Article 4 area to prevent the spread of student houses into surrounding parts of the city. Presumably I'm not the only landlord who has changed a house from student to professional, so it is clearly already an issue. So how about the government accept the current system has something for everyone and just leave tenants and landlords to pick whichever method is mutually beneficial?

From: Jo Westlake 02 August 2023 07:59 AM

Until last summer I had almost never increased rents for existing tenants. When they were nearly all students or young professionals and only stayed a year or two that was fine. New tenants would pay market rent and existing ones just carried on with the same rent for however long they were my tenants. The few long term families I have were basically living in a timewarp as far as rent was concerned. Things came to a head last summer with the utility price rises. I had contracts with several of the utility companies that went bust and had tenancy agreements for 8 student houses and HMOs based on the prices I had signed up for. Suddenly the utility bills went from a predicted £8000 for the year to over £30000 combined total. There was nothing I could do with any tenancies that were still in the initial fixed term but all the ones that were trundling along on a SPT could be increased last October. I sent an email to all tenants explaining how much utilities had gone up and that some rents would have to increase. Then I went and talked to some of them to see how they felt about paying more. It was all uncharted territory for me. The reactions were far more positive than I had expected. Some thanked me for explaining why it was necessary, some said the increases were far lower than they had expected (between £25 and £70 per tenancy per month depending on how long they had been in situ) and one HMO household asked if the increase was sufficient and said they would be happy to have a whip round if it wasn't. The important thing for several of them was that I wasn't thinking of selling up and evicting them. This year I have 5 mortgages reaching the end of their fixes with increases of around £2000 a month in mortgage payments. I've very unsubtly dropped it into conversations with tenants and prepared them for the idea of another rent increase in October. I've increased a few other rents over the last few months after they've clocked up a year or for the LHA assisted ones that I didn't increase last year. This year my policy has so far been 7% on the basis that if it's OK for Social Housing tenants everyone else must be expecting at least that much. Some of them know I'm waiting for the August BoE meeting before deciding October's increase. The thing I've learnt is that communication is essential. I don't want to lose any tenants but equally they don't want to lose their homes.

From: Jo Westlake 31 July 2023 10:58 AM

Hi Catherine It was from the government English Private Landlord Survey 2021. I Googled 'Average number of properties per landlord UK'. There's loads of statistics from various sites. I can't put proper links on here but Statista has some good stuff and Property Tribes landlord statistics article is interesting as it has both mean and median figures. Most statistics are a year or two out of date but some have comparisons with earlier periods.

From: Jo Westlake 30 July 2023 14:02 PM

Ellie - The actual published statistics for May 2022 are: 43% of landlords owned one rental property, representing 20% of tenancies. A further 39% owned between two and four rental properties, representing 31% of tenancies. The remaining 18% of landlords owned five or more properties, representing almost half (48%) of tenancies. In most parts of the country the profit from one rental property would most certainly not be a primary income. Even if the property was unencumbered a state pension or minimum wage job would be the higher income. Maybe a large HMO in London could be a primary income but an average family BTL wouldn't be. New or expanding landlords are increasing looking at incorporation, which completely changes the financial picture.

From: Jo Westlake 29 July 2023 13:55 PM

Statistics can be twisted to support whatever point someone wants to make. The percentage of landlords selling has no bearing on the percentage of change in the number of rental properties. 70% of landlords only own one or two properties. Mainly as a top up to another source of income. They don't own 70% of rental properties. Several of us who read this forum own 10+ and we seem to be mainly sticking with it. Whether that's because it's our primary income or because of the horrific CGT bill we would face if we sold or because we are life long landlords and still enjoy it will vary from person to person. We are also the group who are most likely to house people who don't qualify for Social Housing and don't fit affordability criteria for the big corporate landlords. If large numbers of us go there really will be unprecedented problems. The government need to quickly come up with some policies that incentivise the small and mid range landlords. Especially getting new landlords into the industry. With CGT at 28% why would anyone become a long term landlord? There are better returns and far less hassle simply putting money in a savings account right now. Why would a youngish person have any truck with pouring all their savings into a deposit for a BTL, then pay tax on money they don't have, lose their Child Benefit and then have the government effectively steal a couple of bedrooms worth in CGT when they decide to sell? That's assuming it all goes well and they don't have a rogue tenant.

From: Jo Westlake 29 July 2023 10:32 AM

Ellie - so it looks like you use S21s as a reminder of the end of the fixed term and use it as an invitation to have a conversation about extending the tenancy. So not necessarily with any intention of actually evicting them. I just randomly ask them what their plans are if I have any suspicion they may be thinking of leaving. The difference is you have issued a S21 notice while I haven't. It sounds like neither of us especially want to lose good tenants. However, if activists are counting S21s from step one rather than step two simply the act of issuing one as a reminder of the end of fixed term is surely giving the activists ammunition. S21 has it's place and I'm not keen on losing it without a satisfactory replacement but I do question if the activists are getting confused with the subtleties of how we actually use it and how it often doesn't lead to an eviction.

From: Jo Westlake 27 July 2023 17:14 PM

Ellie - when I say expectation maybe that wasn't quite the right word. If you have a good tenant do you allow them to sign up for another fixed term? If so do they have any choice on the length of that fixed term? Or is it just a blanket ' your time is up, off you go'? Maybe there's a difference in understanding of eviction. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't count until you reach the point of applying to the court. Step one of a S21 is just a bit of paper that may simply be a reminder of the tenancy end date or it may be a warning of some sort for minor breach of tenancy or payment irregularities. It would be interesting to know at what point activists and the media are classing S21s as counting

From: Jo Westlake 27 July 2023 14:04 PM

The problem is this isn't just applicable to scum bags. Plenty of hard working people in essential jobs are also affected. Care assistants, shop workers, van drivers, starter grade nurses, etc. Any of them with children are likely to qualify for UC and LHA. Unlike the spongers they also have to pay for transport to get to work. The whole system needs a radical overhaul to reward work. The last thing we need is essential workers being forced to move from one Travel Lodge to another every few days. An easy starting point would be to unfreeze LHA so at least those who already have housing have a chance of being able to retain it without having to rely on the uncertainty of DHPs. Abolishing Section 24 would allow portfolio landlords to stop increasing rents quite so much. Having to factor in the extra tax is having a significant impact on those landlords and in turn their tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 27 July 2023 13:52 PM

Ellie - isn't that just an expectation difference? I expect my students to leave at the end of the academic year unless they have already signed up for the following year. They sign an 11 month AST. If they sign up again for the following year they get the intervening August free. I expect my non student tenants to stay as long as they want so start with a 6 month AST and let it roll onto a SPT. It's far easier to keep a well trained tenant long term than to constantly have new unknown ones. Due to the mix of letting I do I'm likely to have between 15 and 20 new tenants every year anyway. It's nice to have long term ones who look after their homes and appropriately deal with any repairs or other issues.

From: Jo Westlake 27 July 2023 12:48 PM

That's been the case for years. Only some people want Social Housing though. A great many people don't want to be on a waiting list and be allocated an inconveniently located house. They want to live in a location of their choosing for a time period that suits them. While there was an adequate supply of PRS properties things generally trundled along quite smoothly (apart from the Social Housing wannabes needing a Bailiff appointment). Now it's harder for everyone. When there is an average of 27 applicants per property it's difficult for people to find anywhere in a reasonable timeframe.

From: Jo Westlake 27 July 2023 08:59 AM

Ellie - however many tenants do you need to evict? What do they do to upset you? I know I am fairly tolerant and work incredibly hard to keep some tenancies sustainable but I would seriously question my whole tenant selection process if I had to routinely evict people. Or is this just a difference in attitude between fixed terms and SPTs? Or a location based thing? Are fixed terms more common in somewhere like London while SPTs are more common elsewhere?

From: Jo Westlake 27 July 2023 08:49 AM

There are times to buy and times to keep on saving. My crystal ball isn't always accurate, hindsight is a marvelous thing and all that but I'm pretty confident right now isn't a good time to be buying for anyone who needs a mortgage.

From: Jo Westlake 27 July 2023 08:38 AM

It makes perfect sense. Rattling round in a big family home with a huge garden you can't maintain in later life becomes increasingly stressful and difficult. Buying a McCarthy and Stone style retirement apartment is financially questionable but renting something similar would be very attractive in the right circumstances. The whole IHT situation is very complicated but you don't loose the million pound allowance just because you downsize. As long as the money came from the sale of your main residence I'm pretty sure it's ring fenced to a certain extent. The real advantage of renting retirement specific properties is the ease of moving on to the next step. Whether that's somewhere with more care provision or the ultimate final resting place.

From: Jo Westlake 27 July 2023 08:32 AM

There seems to be widespread misunderstanding and misinformation among the activists. If a mortgaged homeowner doesn't pay their mortgage or engage with the lender they will eventually be repossessed and evicted. Social tenants can be evicted. The number of genuinely blameless PRS tenants who are evicted is very small. Maybe a few if landlords are selling but even then if the tenant is genuinely good with a demonstrable perfect payment record selling the house with them in situ is possible. A Section 21 notice is wishful thinking that a tenant will leave within 2 months. Maybe the landlord gets lucky and they do but I think most of us are realistic to know the 2 month thing is just the earliest we can apply for a court date. It will take months to get that date after which we will be able to apply for a bailiff, which again we have to wait for. Overall it gives the tenants best part of a year to find somewhere else. One thing that I find very frustrating is when people who view available properties because their current landlord is selling then can't move in at the earliest possible date because their current landlord is insisting on them giving a month's notice ending on a rent due day. If they want their tenants to leave smoothly they need to be far more flexible on releasing people from their current contract.

From: Jo Westlake 27 July 2023 08:17 AM

Ferey - DHPs can be ongoing. One of my tenants has received about £137 a month for nearly a year. It used to be available for up to 3 months to give the tenant time to downsize into a property at LHA rent. Now that is totally unrealistic DHPs are more widely available for longer. The Council still like to think there is an end date or that the property is the cheapest available. In my case the tenant had a 3 bed LHA entitlement which due to a child's birthday increased to 4 bed last week. She kicked her husband out a year ago but up to that point had been self funding for many years. LHA for a 3 bed is £825 and a 4 bed is £1100. The cheapest 3 bed available last year in the entire city was £1050 but it wasn't allowing claimants, children or pets. The cheapest one that might have considered most elements was £1200. She would have failed affordability anyway. She was already living in a 4 bed for £1100 a month. The Council could see her benefit entitlement was due to increase this month anyway (unless she winds her son up so much he moves out and lives with his dad). Paying half the shortfall was a cheap, practical solution for the last year.

From: Jo Westlake 27 July 2023 07:54 AM

Being threatened with homelessness as a result of a Section 21 and it actually proceeding to eviction are two entirely different things. A great many Section 21 notices will be issued as a warning shot or a method to start a serious conversation. Whether that's relating to rent arrears or low level annoying breach of tenancy behaviour it can be the jolt that's needed. Proceeding to applying for step two is entirely optional and often unnecessary if the initial S21 notice has had the effect of making the tenancy sustainable. Waving a S21 notice at other creditors often has the effect of getting them to back off for long enough for the rent to be brought up to date. Some Councils will carry out a budgeting session with the tenant and make sure they're claiming everything they can and sometimes come up with a Discretionary Housing Payment to get things back on track. I've certainly issued a few S21 notices to make tenancies sustainable rather than to get rid of the tenant.

From: Jo Westlake 26 July 2023 07:28 AM

As they're almost certainly going to lose the next election anyway why don't they move the deadline to 2030 and announce there will be a 200% Super Tax Deduction for all improvements that increase an EPC score from April 2025 onwards? Didn't the last Labour government do something very similar when they introduced the 45% tax band a few weeks before losing an election? The next government would then be seen as the bad guys hurting tenants if they scrapped the new deadline or tax break. Even if they watered it down it would still be better than the current complete lack of funding. Of course the logical solution would be to tweak the EPC algorithm so more houses are C rated anyway.

From: Jo Westlake 24 July 2023 08:17 AM

He does add diversity to the conversation. Or should that be controversy? Is he any more out of touch with reality than all the politicians who are trying to destroy the PRS?

From: Jo Westlake 23 July 2023 16:00 PM

I'm all for energy efficiency measures when they make clear financial sense. LED light bulbs pay for themselves many times over, heat pump tumble driers save a huge amount, app controlled heating programmers are one of the best inventions ever, electric throws and blankets cost very little to run and allow you to be truly comfortable with the main heating a couple of degrees lower than usual. I have solar panels on 5 houses, own an EV and a Prius. All of these things make financial sense and pay for themselves over a reasonable period of time. What I can't see any point in is evicting a tenant so I can spend thousands on solid floor and internal wall insulation that will never pay for itself. I'm pretty certain most tenants would prefer to keep the home they are happily living in at a realistic rent, with a landlord they know rather than be evicted and have all the cost and upheaval of finding a new home. Surely the real test for energy performance upgrades should be the pay back time. Light bulbs, heating programmers, loft insulation and hot water cylinder jackets are all going to more than pay for themselves within a reasonable time frame. Solar panels can be very cost effective. The old Feed in Tariff was great and meant early adopters of solar had about a 7 year pay back. Currently the Octopus Flux tariff is a game changer. There's less certainty with it but right now it makes solar panels and batteries very worthwhile. The real fly in the ointment is who pays and who receives the financial benefit. It's completely unreasonable to expect a landlord to pay vast amounts of money out of tax paid income to install stuff that will maybe save the tenants a couple of quid a month. If it was fully tax deductable or if we were given a 130% Super Deduction like commercial buildings were given we may all be a bit more enthusiastic.

From: Jo Westlake 23 July 2023 14:40 PM

Just making it fully tax deductable would help. Currently it's classed as a capital improvement and we have to fund it out of tax paid income. That's after we have paid the totally unique Section 24 turnover tax.

From: Jo Westlake 23 July 2023 06:56 AM

EPCs are wildly inaccurate. One of my flats was F25 according to the estate agents assessor. My regular highly experienced assessor made it G14. Bearing in mind it was ground floor with 3 external uninsulated walls, had single glazing, no heating, no insulation of any type and the only hot water was from an electric shower I fail to see how it is possible to have an 11 point difference. Another one was E48 according to the estate agents assessor. My assessor made it D67. The first one had failed to notice the cavity wall insulation. The fact the insulation is soaking wet and causing damp problems doesn't matter from an EPC point of view. It exists so it gets lots of points regardless of how much damage it's doing to the building.

From: Jo Westlake 23 July 2023 06:35 AM

All tenants really care about is location. There's no point living in an A rated house if it means having to own 2 cars and spending an hour driving to work each morning plus an hour driving home again. Plus having to drive to everything else in your life. Far more energy efficient and cost effective to live in a conveniently located house that costs a little bit extra to heat for a few weeks in winter. Everyone seems to forget we use very little heating for half the year, a moderate amount for 3 or 4 months (depending where in the country you live) and a lot of heating for the remaining few weeks. We all know the bill for February will be painful but we also know the bill for August will be peanuts. Does anyone seriously want to leave a convenient location and pay all that extra money on petrol and parking?

From: Jo Westlake 23 July 2023 06:25 AM

Responsible Landlord - we can't charge any fees to tenants. They're referring to the fees they charge landlords. Obviously they all get rolled up as part of our overall costs and get passed onto tenants as higher rent. As a self managing landlord it costs me very little for tenant referencing and a tenancy agreement takes less than 15 minutes to churn out.

From: Jo Westlake 22 July 2023 18:10 PM

Only a 20% deposit? It's highly unlikely anything would clear stress tests with such a small deposit. 40% or 50% deposit is more likely. Only 2% product fee? To get a half decent interest rate several lenders are charging 5% or even 7% product fee. 3% or below is good going at the moment and tends to reflect in a higher interest rate. £400 tenancy set up fee seems excessive. Most referencing is automated these days. A credit check costs about £10. Companies such as Open Rent, Vouch or the NRLA tenant check service all do pretty good referencing. Tenancy agreements are all online so what exactly is the £400 supposed to cover?

From: Jo Westlake 22 July 2023 15:31 PM

If rents have only increased by 5.1% isn't that actually a real terms drop as wages rises and general inflation have been somewhat higher? Even most Social rents rose by 7% this year. Normally they would rise in line with inflation but this year rises were capped. Mortgage payments are increasing massively as fixes end. Far more than most rent increases will be. Especially for people who used the Help to Buy scheme and bought houses that were way more expensive than they would normally have bought. The real differences between rents and mortgages are time scale and penalties. Rents can only increase at tenancy change or annually. If a tenant wants to move it's usually just a few weeks notice and they're free to leave. If they think a rent increase is excessive they can go to a Tribunal and get a decision. That does risk the increase being bigger if that's what the Tribunal decides. Mortgages are normally fixed for 2 or 5 years. Wanting to make a big overpayment or sell and clear the mortgage before the end of the term usually involves paying a big early redemption penalty. On balance it's probably fair to say tenants are in a far better position than a great many homeowners right now. Below inflation rent increases, access to Discretionary Housing Payments, a Tribunal system to adjudicate if desired, freedom to move quickly, no unexpected repair bills to budget for. Shame the government are doing everything they can to destroy the PRS.

From: Jo Westlake 21 July 2023 07:47 AM

My husband changed from an AMG Mercedes to a Kia EV6 just over a year ago and the savings are huge. It was incredibly tax efficient to buy it through our limited company. He has to pay a tiny bit of BIK tax. We have solar panels and the Octopus Go cheap nighttime electric tariff, so charging it costs around £60 a month. The AMG cost well over £600 a month for petrol. The Kia has a 7 year warranty so there shouldn't be any repair bills for years. The AMG was much older and had the repair bills you would expect for an older car. EVs aren't right for everyone but in the right circumstances are brilliant.

From: Jo Westlake 20 July 2023 18:49 PM

No one evicts a good tenant unless they want to sell. Even then it's questionable if a good tenant would be evicted as it's possible to sell with the tenant in situ. If the rent is at a suitable level and the tenant clears whatever referencing the new landlord and mortgage lender require it can be good for all concerned. In the past didn't some tenants pay their landlord to issue a Section 21 so they got maximum priority on the Social Housing list? Does that still happen?

From: Jo Westlake 20 July 2023 09:04 AM

One of the main problems is EPC assessor's and insulation companies haven't got a clue about the construction of older buildings. Especially if walls are rendered. I've had EPC assessors recommend cavity wall insulation for buildings that have solid walls and insulation companies claim they can't do cavity wall insulation when they assume there isn't a cavity. Often part of a house is too old to have cavities while the newer kitchen and bathroom addition most certainly has (as we found out last week when drilling a hole for a new cooker hood). When so called professionals can't get the basics right it makes it hard to select the most appropriate measures. Tenants lack of understanding of heating controls and ventilation is a big problem. I include heating in the rent for half my houses so know exactly how much it costs to keep a house warm. Or more specifically how many kWhs of gas a year. I also have apps for some of the heating programmers that show exactly what the temperature is in a house and when the boiler is running. It was surprisingly how little a boiler needs to run to maintain a comfortable temperature. One of my tenants complains about being cold and not being able to afford to use the central heating for more than a few minutes morning and afternoon. When I looked at her bills she was paying about £100 a year less for gas than I pay to properly heat a bigger house of the same age. She was also paying about £400 a year more than them for electric. She uses a convector heater in the lounge during the evening. Her logic was that it was cheaper to use electric because the government were paying £400 of the bill. The other house use a tumble drier so the air in the house is reasonably dry and quicker to warm up. She dries washing on electric airers (even though she has a tumble drier and a washing line) and fills the house with damp air. They use trickle vents and extractor fans, she has her windows wide open all day which may be good for letting moist air escape but in winter really chills down the internal walls and ceilings leading to a lot of condensation. I guess I'm lucky she opens the windows.

From: Jo Westlake 20 July 2023 08:30 AM

Tenants have been far more protected from increased housing costs than mortgaged homeowners. Rents can only be increased once a year. Anyone on a tracker or variable rate mortgage will have had an increase nearly every month for the last year. Rents can only rise in line with local comparables and excessive rises can be challenged at a Tribunal. Mortgages coming off a fix are likely to double or treble overnight. Tenants have access to Discretionary Housing Payments from the Local Authority. Home owners get no help. Tenants can downsize or move to a cheaper area far more easily and cheaply than a home owner can.

From: Jo Westlake 18 July 2023 08:20 AM

When you're getting 30 or 40 enquiries for a property and listening to some truly desperate stories it means hard decisions have to be made. When the choice is a family with children at local schools and jobs in the area who have been served with a Section 21 because their landlord is selling or a new arrival from Afghanistan with no local ties and no job who would most of us choose. Especially if one can provide references while the other can't. There simply isn't enough housing for everyone.

From: Jo Westlake 18 July 2023 08:11 AM

The article didn't examine if people were renting from choice or circumstance. It seemed to imply renting in retirement was in some way a problem but is it really? People will rent in old age for many different reasons. 1. Some will have always rented due to low pay or unemployment. 2. Some will have lost a house in a divorce settlement. 3. Some will have had to wait until the youngest child is 18 before receiving their share of a former matrimonial home. At which point they realise that if they want to buy a house they will have to move hundreds of miles from their job, friends and children. So the choice is move away from everything you know and buy a house or retain your current life and carry on renting. 4. Some will choose to sell a house and rent because the property maintenance has got too much for them. 5. Some will have been widowed and want to live in a retirement complex for both companionship and support. Depending on health and age renting is often far more sensible than buying this type of accommodation. 6. Some will want to financially help grandchildren while they're still alive to see their money in action. 7. Some will have bought leasehold flats and be struggling with the service charge. 8. Some will have deliberately made the choice to remain as tenants as long as they had children and received far more in Benefit top ups than a family with a mortgage would be entitled to. 9. Some will have made the decision that investing in other assets will allow them a far greater income with which they can afford to rent somewhere far nicer than they could buy. I'm sure there are numerous other reasons.

From: Jo Westlake 18 July 2023 07:51 AM

Ellie - my long term ones are mainly older men who have been divorced a few times. It's too late for them to buy again and they have all been told they haven't got sufficient priority to even get on the Social Housing list. Where do you propose they live when home ownership and Social Housing aren't options? All of my tenancies start as 6 month ASTs for non students or 11 months for students.

From: Jo Westlake 17 July 2023 15:03 PM

Ellie - you view things pretty much exactly opposite to me on some points. Doesn't mean either of us are right or wrong, just different. I like to provide long term homes for people. I like to see them put down roots, make their homes their own, turn their gardens into a tropical oasis. One of my tenants has assured me he won't be leaving until he's in a pine box. I think it's nice to provide people with that sense of security. My younger tenants tend to move on when they meet their dream partner, get a job promotion that requires relocating or buy a house. I get genuinely excited for them. It's lovely to see them moving on to the next step. It probably helps that my son wants to be a landlord and continue with the business long term. I just hope the government sees sense and reverses some of the more unpalatable stuff they've done recently. Section 24 being the main problem.

From: Jo Westlake 17 July 2023 13:48 PM

Ellie - you may have a point where small landlords are concerned. Portfolio landlords are far more heavily impacted by Section 24, so it is of far greater concern to us. CGT is of far more concern to long term Southern landlords than short term or Northern landlords. Some of us have always let tenancies roll onto SPTs so having undefined length tenancies is what we have always done anyway. It will cause problems in the student market and winter lets but for everyone else works perfectly well. The vast majority of tenants move when they feel like it, the majority of landlords want to keep good tenants for as long as possible (often keeping rents artificially low to retain them). Not having regular tenancy renewal dates just means you don't have silly decisions being made and probably have less churn. Rents can be increased every 12 months on an SPT so that isn't a problem. A very small percentage of tenants get evicted each year. Of that very small percentage a lot would be fault based Section 8 so no compensation due.

From: Jo Westlake 17 July 2023 12:29 PM

Doesn't English usually have a capital E? Useful only has one l. Apart from that you've got a point.

From: Jo Westlake 17 July 2023 10:20 AM

Demanding more and more of the same is pointless. It's questionable if that's what we need. Demand something different. Demand a solution is found for what to do with evicted anti social or non paying tenants. Get them out of main stream housing and the whole system will work better. Demand suitable accommodation for young single parents. Managed blocks of flats with a crèche, adult education classes and security staff to keep out unwanted visitors. Stop the entitlement to a 2 bedroom independent property and instantly cut the number of babies conceived purely as a fast track to self contained housing and benefits. Demand more retirement housing is built to free up family size homes of all tenures. Those homes are often well located with all the infrastructure and community families could possibly want. Demand landlords are taxed in the same way as every other business so rents don't have to increase so much purely to pay the first slice as extra tax.

From: Jo Westlake 17 July 2023 09:21 AM

Maybe they only want to buy in the North? Still be tricky to fund the refurbs though.

From: Jo Westlake 17 July 2023 08:38 AM

Some stuff had been massively overpriced when it was listed. For at least 18 months asking prices and sale prices have been adrift. A couple of houses near me indicate the gap. Small 3 bed semi listed in December 2021 for £310000 completed in October 2022 for £292500. It was priced slightly over comparables and was cosmetically tired so room for a 5% drop was already built in to the price. Four bed detached listed in June 2022 for £595000 eventually completed last week. The asking price had dropped to £550000 so presumably it went for less than that. I actually own an identical one in the next street and had it valued for remortgage purposes in May 2022. That valuer reckoned £450000. So even with a price drop the sold one has done very, very well. The valuation is the bit the media often overlook. Estate agents can list any price they optimistically dream up. Sometimes a valuer will agree with it, sometimes they won't.

From: Jo Westlake 17 July 2023 08:31 AM

I feel sorry for the neighbours. Perhaps this is a case where NIMBYs really should spring into action. Something has to happen now private landlords have been so disincentivised from operating in the lower end of the market but some of the above proposals are horrendous. I'm not opposed to Social tenants in general (I used to be one myself). A great many are thoroughly decent people, however, some really aren't. I've experienced the reality of living next-door to a private sector house that was leased to the Council and currently own an ex Council flat directly under a Council owned one. I can confidently say the Council puts absolutely no consideration for the neighbours into their allocation procedures. Having also lived on a Council estate back in the 1980s I can see why there is sometimes a mismatch. When paying ludicrously low Council rent it's much easier to ignore some of less desirable behaviour of neighbours. Back then it was mainly domestic violence and petty theft. You kind of accept it's the price you pay for cheap rent. It doesn't transfer so well to the private sector where rent is more realistic. Local authorities are appalling at evicting anti social tenants. They happily house drug addicts and sex offenders in the most inappropriate housing and then sit back for years while they cause havoc. Paying rent for PRS housing at LHA minus a management fee would only work if LHA was restored to at least the 30th percentile rent, BRMAs were much, much smaller and they were appropriately adjusted every 12 months without fail. I'm not opposed to tweaking Section 21 for genuinely perfect long term tenants in the incredibly rare event of them being evicted. Someone who has fully adhered to their tenancy agreement and always paid their rent in full and on time shouldn't have to fully fund their moving costs just because the landlord wants to sell. Two months rent refunded along with their deposit within 10 days of vacating the property strikes me as fair to both sides. It would also be a powerful incentive to make the move within the eviction timeframe. Whether it's 2 months or 4 months for a genuinely blameless tenant is largely irrelevant as long as they do actually vacate within that period. Obviously the two months refund wouldn't happen if they overstayed. The real issue is what to do with anti social or non paying tenants. Until someone comes up with a suitable solution for where they go after eviction the whole system just creaks along.

From: Jo Westlake 17 July 2023 08:04 AM

Edwin - do you ever research anything before making uninformed comments? According to statista Nationwide is by far the largest BTL lender by value of gross lending (7.43billion). Barclays is 6th on the list with lending of 2.38 billion. The only lender I have that wasn't in the top 15 lenders is Leeds Building Society. A portfolio landlord is likely to use assorted lenders because each lender has a different lending criteria and won't lend on certain types of properties or number of owners. For example TMW (Nationwide) will only allow 2 owners and won't lend on a house if you already own the adjoining one. Several lenders won't lend if you have more than 10 BTL mortgages. Some don't lend on HMOs. BTL mortgages are usually interest only so technically no one is actually paying for the chunk of house that is mortgaged. The landlord has put in however much deposit or bought the property outright and expects a return on their investment. They're the one taking all the risk so of course they expect to make a profit. The PRS isn't supposed to be a charity. Now savings accounts are paying better interest it's questionable if there's any financial point in being a landlord right now. If you were a landlord you would know that owning a house has a great many costs other than mortgage interest. Insurance, safety inspections, licensing fees, repairs, maintenance, etc. All of these things are paid for from the rent. I would love it to be classed as (and taxed as) a business. Most of the problems causing the current housing crisis are linked to the government not treating the PRS as a business. Whether that's taxing us on turnover or trying to dictate who we let to and for how long.

From: Jo Westlake 16 July 2023 12:28 PM

The anti fraud thing is a good idea in theory and very straightforward to set up. However, when remortgaging it can be very expensive to get a conveyancer to provide the necessary certificate. Prices ranged from £90 (when my regular solicitor stopped being off sick) to £600 for his colleague. An online one would have been £200 but the lender took weeks to decide if an online one was acceptable, by which time my regular solicitor had reappeared. The lenders I use are about as mainstream as they come. TMW (part of Nationwide), Barclays, Leeds Building Society, Coventry, Birmingham Midshires, Paragon and Fleet. None of them are exactly unknown or specialize in bad risks.

From: Jo Westlake 15 July 2023 13:04 PM

The whole incorporated thing is another layer of complication and accountancy fees. When I started out as a landlord I didn't know how many houses I would eventually own. My accountant was adamant buying them in personal names was the best thing to do. Back then the tax system was totally different and none of the super enhanced tax rates that only apply to landlords had been invented. My most recent two purchases have been through a limited company but mortgages have been so difficult to obtain I finished up paying cash for both. It was far easier to release equity from personally held properties to fund the company. One of the flats had a very short lease and I had intended mortgaging it after extending the lease and doing a full renovation but the mortgage products and extra legal costs are crazy. The other one would have been mortgaged if the broker hadn't ticked the wrong box on the application form and then failed to correct his mistake before rates shot up. The lender insisted on us using one of only 8 conveyancing companies in the whole country that they approved for limited company transactions. We've used the same lender for personal remortgages and thousands of solicitors are fine for that. The good bits about having a company are that the money can be paid as salary, which then gives a NI credit, can be paid into a SIPP (which then extends your tax code) or straight into a pension. Either way it's better from an old age and death point of view. The trivial benefits and company Christmas do are nice. I basically don't understand all the other beneficial things that might happen if we incorporated all our personally held properties. I keep buying books and losing the will to live about a third of the way through. The thing that really scares me is reading articles about how landlords paid large fees for advice that was wrong and now face huge financial penalties to sort it out.

From: Jo Westlake 15 July 2023 11:08 AM

Pretty much covers most points apart from the extortionate CGT that effectively traps some of us until death do us part us from our properties. How I miss the tax system we had in the early 2000's. Just think how much more affordable rent would be if we were still taxed under that system.

From: Jo Westlake 15 July 2023 10:36 AM

So on the one hand Devon is concerned about the impact of Airbnb on the availability of rental properties and on the other Exeter City Council has just had a consultation on widening the area covered by an Article 4 Directive to clamp down on very affordable shared housing and HMOs. Exmouth has just proudly announced its turned down a planning application for more high density retirement flats on a bit of land that doesn't really lend itself to any viable alternative. Devon is a tourist area, a retirement favourite and has a very good university. These facts can't be ignored. Thousands of young professionals with good jobs rely on HMO accommodation so they can afford to save for a deposit and have some kind of lifestyle. It isn't just students and minimum wage workers who live in HMOs. Students are quantifiable due to Council Tax exemptions, professionals just quietly live in houses and get on with their lives. Devon needs to make its mind up what it wants. A tourist industry. Affordable shared housing for young professionals. Retirement housing so people can downsize and free up family homes elsewhere. An under utilisation of housing stock and a NIMBY attitude to everything isn't helping anyone.

From: Jo Westlake 13 July 2023 12:16 PM

John - you've got time to have a couple of decent rent increases to prepare for higher mortgage rates in June 2025. I guess most of us will be doing exactly that. Until last October I had never routinely increased rents for existing tenants. Some had paid the same for over 5 years. The utility increases last summer led to the first batch of rent increases. Vacant properties have all had hefty increases. Any conversations I'm having with tenants tend to touch on the probability of rent increases. I'm not exactly subtle. Earlier this year I decided if Social Housing rents were increasing by 7% that was the absolute minimum PRS tenants should expect. I had intended to stick to 7%, which with inflation running at 10% is a real terms reduction. However, with the BoE upping interest rates every month something as modest as 7% is looking woefully inadequate. In some respects my tenants are lucky I'm spreading the increases across the whole portfolio, not just on each individual house that is affected by a mortgage increase. It must be horrific for tenants with landlords who only own one or two mortgaged properties.

From: Jo Westlake 13 July 2023 10:59 AM

How is it only 3% of current mortgages? Rates started to increase dramatically a year ago. Something that was supposed to be 2.89% last May was 4.99% by July last year. I am bitterly aware of the timing on that one because a broker stuffed up the application by ticking the wrong box on the form and failing to correct his mistake when told about it. It's a good example of a lender either getting nervous or being inundated with applications due to the SDLT holiday. Most mortgages are either 2 year fixes or 5 year fixes or trackers. Very few are 7 or 10 year fixes. Of the 2 year fixes it's reasonable to assume 50% will end each year and 20% of 5 year fixes will end each year. Trackers go up (or down) with the base rate. One of the most frustrating things is having to wait for whatever product switch window a lender has or waiting for the time lag on a credit report if trying to remortgage to a different lender. The early repayment penalties are often huge if we want to make a lump sum payment.

From: Jo Westlake 13 July 2023 09:25 AM

One of my mortgages went up by £436 a month in May. Two more come off fixes in September and will go up by £260 and £557. The one on a tracker is currently £408 a month more than it was 12 months ago and still rising. Another one comes off its fix in November and I can't do anything about that one until October. If I'd taken the new fix that was available a few weeks ago the increase would have been £733 a month. However, I want to make an overpayment and the lender allows a 48 hour window to make a penalty free lump sum overpayment. I know I'll have a lump sum available in October after one of the September remortgages completes. Theoretically that should help but only if the BoE don't increase rates every month between now and October. Overall I'm expecting my mortgage payments to be close to £2500 a month more in December than they were in January. So to stand still as a 40% tax payer I would need to increase rents by £3335 a month. However, if I did that I would be likely to be catapulted into the 60% tax band, in which case rents would need to increase by closer to £5000 a month. I wouldn't receive a penny of that. HMRC would be the real winner. Obviously rents can't increase by that much in one hit. It's probably going to take at least 3 years of hefty rent increases across my entire portfolio to get back to the profit level I had at the start of 2023. How exactly are interest rate rises supposed to lower inflation if they automatically bake in 3 years of hefty price rises?

From: Jo Westlake 13 July 2023 07:54 AM

Only if the landlord is a basic rate taxpayer. Section 24 means the increase would need to be just over £365 for a 40% tax payer. HMRC get the first 40% of whatever rent increase (£146). The lender gets their £275. HMRC give back 20% if the interest (£55). The landlord wouldn't get a single penny of that rent increase. This isn't a question of greedy landlords. It's whether tenants can afford to pay this totally unique, outrageous tax in order to retain their home.

From: Jo Westlake 13 July 2023 07:17 AM

Conversions can be tricky. While the locations may be fantastic, the actual space and structure can be problematic. Three of my flats are conversions - two were originally office space above shops and the other one was a Victorian house divided into 4 flats. One of them has a great floorplan but various structural and access issues. The other two have slightly unfortunate floorplans. Tenants seem to like the locations so they rent out easily but I would question how appealing they would be to owner occupiers.

From: Jo Westlake 11 July 2023 10:10 AM

I wonder how many people get so fed up with the completely unreasonable jobsworth attitude of some of the assessors they just create the necessary paperwork to get a few extra points.

From: Jo Westlake 10 July 2023 21:45 PM

70% of landlords may be basic rate taxpayers. Personally I find that highly unlikely since the introduction of Section 24. I was a basic rate tax payer, now I'm not mainly because of Section 24. However, basic rate tax payers most certainly don't own 70% of rental properties. The vast majority will be owned by portfolio landlords and corporates.

From: Jo Westlake 10 July 2023 07:35 AM

Michael - you make a good point but have overlooked the fact we are currently millions of homes short and have an increasing population. Hundreds of thousands of people live in overcrowded households. Also the big corporate landlords will have a certain criteria for who they will rent to. As long as the government have bedroom entitlement legislation and Local Authorities persist with expanding Article 4 areas to prevent the creation of more HMOs we need more, more, more housing of every tenure. The fact a lot of the Build to Rent stuff is expensive does us a favour. It provides a comparable for when we are looking at rent increases and when the government eventually unfreeze the LHA should mean that increases to a more realistic figure, certainly in areas with the presence of BTR developments. One of my tenants mentioned he had been looking at a co-living development and was incredulous they wanted £1200 a month for a soulless studio. It was only slightly bigger than the HMO room he currently pays £500 a month for. He is earning enough to fit their affordability criteria, so has choices, but that £700 a month difference allows him to save for the future and support local businesses now. Plus it means whatever rent increase I decide on is still going to be a bargain by comparison.

From: Jo Westlake 09 July 2023 12:27 PM

As a landlord who is affected by Section 24 it is of far greater concern than most of the Rental Reform proposals. I fully accept Section 24 is only relevant to a certain section of landlords. It doesn't effect incorporated landlords, unencumbered landlords or people with only one or two properties and low other income that keeps them in the basic rate tax band. For those of us who are affected Section 24 is huge and massively disadvantages our tenants. If our mortgage payments increase by £500 a month we have to increase rents by at least £667 just to stand still. The government take the first 40% (£267) in tax, the lender gets the next £500 as extra mortgage interest, then HMRC give us back a 20% (£100) tax credit. If we increase rents to the point we are in the £100K taxable turnover situation we would need to increase rent by £1000 a month to stand still as the government would take the first 60% (£600). I'm probably fairly typical of an unincorporated portfolio landlord. I have 16 properties and house around 56 tenants. I have 10 BTL mortgages. Five fixes end this year. One is on a tracker. The increases are huge. I don't know how much the 5th one will be because I can't fix it yet and the tracker goes up almost every month. Most of the known increases are between £450 and £650 per property per month. So somewhere around £2500 extra mortgage interest a month across the portfolio plus the extra turnover tax. Plus general inflation on insurance, safety checks, maintenance, etc. There are bits of the Rental Reforms I don't like and other bits I'm fairly unconcerned about. Some of it will be drastically different by the time it has been kicked around Parliament. Mortgage interest rises are now and very real. Section 24 most impacts medium size landlords who have shown huge commitment to the PRS. We aren't doing it accidentally or just for a bit of a top up for our pension. We often provide the only option for people who don't fit the criteria for the corporate landlords and aren't needy enough for Social Housing. The very people who can least afford big rent increases in fact.

From: Jo Westlake 08 July 2023 16:05 PM

Section 24 is hell for those of us it affects. We are only one section of the landlord community though. It doesn't effect incorporated landlords or those with no mortgage or those with only one or two properties and a low earned income or pension that keeps them in the basic rate tax band. I guess it disproportionately affects the marginal tenants as we are the ones most likely to house people who don't quite pass referencing. About 25% of my tenants fail referencing on something. Usually the wrong type of employment contract or fractionally under in affordability.

From: Jo Westlake 07 July 2023 09:39 AM

A big part of the problem is under utilisation of housing stock. This is largely down to bedroom entitlements and HMO licensing. My mother used to be a midwife back in the 1950s. She frequently talked about the families on a nearby Council estate and the 13 or 14 children they had. Those houses have only ever had 2 or 3 bedrooms. Now they would be deemed to be overcrowded if more than 4 or 6 people lived in them. Wouldn't a square meter per person formula rather than number of bedrooms be a better idea? Something like one person needs 30m2 and each additional person needs an extra 8m2. So a 90m2 house could have an occupancy of 8 people regardless of the number of rooms. HMOs are often licensed for one person per bedroom even if the house has ample bathroom facilities for far more. The kitchen provision is a bit harder to provide for greater numbers but in this day and age of dishwashers and air fryers could probably do with modernising the wording. Retirement housing should be the number one building priority. Virtually every retirement property that is built frees up a family size house in an established area. It doesn't matter if it is Social, owner occupied or PRS virtually every new property aimed at the over 55s will result in better utilisation of existing housing stock. But those new properties need to be attractive to their target market. They need rooms big enough for full size furniture, all the nice bits downsizers have been used to - utility room, study, en-suite, private parking and to be priced attractively. More expensive than a FTB rabbit hutch but significantly less than in a luxury retirement village.

From: Jo Westlake 07 July 2023 09:02 AM

The whole Council Tax exemption situation is contentious. It would be far more administratively straightforward to simply give any qualifying person a grant towards their Council Tax payment if they applied for it. Why should holiday let's be able to wriggle out if it and pay much lower business rates? Why should international students be exempt from CT when they can afford over £20000 a year to do a Masters? I know the government bung the Councils a bit for students but the government only has tax payers money to play with, so it's ultimately the tax payer paying it. In both cases the properties are there and the Local Authority needs to provide whatever services CT is supposed to cover for the whole area. If loads of properties are exempt everyone else will have to pay more. However, if there weren't exemptions Councils wouldn't be able to easily identify student houses or holiday lets and it would make it much harder to come up with poorly informed Article 4 expansions. We've just had an HMO consultation which completely overlooked the fact that huge numbers of young professionals live in small HMOs. They pay CT so are almost impossible to identify. The whole focus of the consultation was that HMOs are destroying family neighbourhoods because students live in them and are only there half the year having parties and creating more rubbish than their inadequate bins can accommodate. Absolutely no mention of the fact that well paid young professionals (engineers, teachers, doctors) live in HMOs because it allows them to both save towards a house deposit and have money to spend in local businesses. The impact on local businesses seems to have totally escaped the planners with trying to restrict both holiday lets and HMOs.

From: Jo Westlake 07 July 2023 08:36 AM

Could the price falls here be bigger than in Europe because the preceding prices rises here were bigger? We had Sunak with all his ridiculous schemes that massively over heated the market. Stamp Duty holidays and turbo charged Help to Buy for example. In France prices don't seem to have changed much in the entire 19 years I've owned a house there. I believe they have much stricter lending criteria regarding the percentage of income that can be used for debt servicing. Mortgage payments , insurance, car loans, other loans, and child maintenance payments must require no more than 35% of income. Here lenders tend to lend on a multiple of gross salary. There it is the percentage of income all debt servicing payments will consume. The higher the interest rate the lower the amount that can be lent.

From: Jo Westlake 07 July 2023 07:52 AM

I pay the utility bills for 9 houses ranging from EPC A to EPC E. The only one that has noticeably much higher bills is a 6 person HMO which does a lot of cooking. Two of the tenants bake bread daily and they all seem to use the oven one after the other instead of simultaneously. The electric bill drops significantly when either of the keenest bakers are on holiday. The only way to really cut energy bills in most existing houses is a combined use of solar panels, batteries and time of use electric tariffs. That's assuming they've already done all the standard low energy light bulbs, cylinder jacket, smart heating programmer and loft insulation stuff. The biggest challenge is getting occupiers to engage with whatever energy saving systems are in place. It doesn't matter if it's an A rated modern house or a D rated Victorian terrace, a tenant can still have ridiculous bills if they use the heating system in the wrong way.

From: Jo Westlake 06 July 2023 08:53 AM

I personally don't object to letting to families with children but government laws on overcrowding and bedroom entitlements make it quite unusual for a families legal requirements for bedrooms to match their budget, especially if UC is involved. It's quite distressing when a hard working, fairly well paid, single dad with 3 children is pleading for the 2 bedroom flat you're advertising because it's the only property in the area anywhere close to his UC aided budget. The new school year starts next week and he doesn't know which school he should be trying to get his kids into as he doesn't know which town he will be living in. I was the first person who explained the bedroom entitlements rules to him and that we would be demonised if we knowingly allowed an overcrowding situation. The bit he found really hard to understand was why all 4 of them sharing a room in a hotel or homeless facility was OK while a 2 bedroom flat would be overcrowded.

From: Jo Westlake 06 July 2023 08:09 AM

I grew up in the poverty trap. I left school at 16 and moved into a rented bedsit 3 days later. I had a disastrous first marriage. I was a widowed single parent with 3 young children on Income Support for several years. Then I got a part time job (in the railway ticket office). Then I got my taxi licence and within a few weeks was working 84 hours a week. I managed to scrape together a deposit for my first BTL which needed substantial improvement before it could be let. So in addition to working 84 hours a week and occasionally bumping into my children, I somehow managed to fit in sleeping and renovating a flat. If I could do it so could Jim. He has chosen to do the bare minimum in life. Had he chosen to put in a bit more effort he may have "increased his value in the world".

From: Jo Westlake 05 July 2023 08:51 AM

I'm surprised asking rents are only 20 per cent above their pre-Covid level in March 2020. That's well over 3 years ago. Inflation has been over 10% a year for a fair chunk of that period. Is a 20% rise even keeping pace with inflation or is it a price drop in real terms?

From: Jo Westlake 05 July 2023 08:33 AM

It would be interesting to know exactly what type of properties Landbay typically lend on and in which parts of the country. There are different lenders for different scenarios. Some are better priced, others have more flexible lending criteria (at a cost). Some are better for incorporated landlords while others don't even enter that market. I'm aware of Landbay but have never used them. There's always been a more suitable product from another lender. Right now I'm certainly not buying. I'm vaguely pondering trying to sell one or two but really don't like the idea of making anyone homeless or the huge CGT bill.

From: Jo Westlake 05 July 2023 08:27 AM

I do pay for it because I get far more back in terms of discounts than I pay in. Discount on insured version of deposit protection, discount at B&Q, discount on HMO licensing fees. Their tenancy agreement is better written than some of the alternatives (although incredibly tedious to keep filling out when your PC won't recognise or install Adobe, it doesn't like something about Chromebooks and trying to do it on a phone is very fiddly). I miss the old days, pre GDPR, when it took about 30 seconds to just change the names and numbers on an existing tenancy agreement stored on the NLA website.

From: Jo Westlake 04 July 2023 13:53 PM

Twomey is campaigning for the wrong things. The Rental Reform proposals will increase rents simply by encouraging a lot of landlords to sell up. A large number of independent landlords are over 55 and don't need the stress and uncertainty of all the half baked ideas in the RR. The financial climate is also conducive to selling up. For the last 15 years there's been very little incentive to put money elsewhere. Interest rates were rock bottom, the Stock market just feels like posh gambling and then we were suddenly trapped with sky high CGT liabilities. Now with a combination of higher mortgage rates, Section 24 and higher interest rates on savings plus the possibility of falling property prices selling is suddenly looking far more attractive. Twomey needs to look more closely at why tenants are evicted. Section 21 doesn't mean 'no fault', it means 'no reason given'. The only time a good tenant is evicted is if the landlord wants to sell or if the property needs major work. Maybe occasionally if the landlord hasn't increased the rent for the last few years and now finds themselves in the position of doubling mortgage costs, Section 24 and rents that are way below the current market rate. It's an awkward conversation to have with long term tenants. If Twomey wants stability and high standards in the PRS he should be campaigning for landlords to be treated fairly. If we were taxed in the traditional way rents could be lower. Does he understand the first 20%, 40% or 25% of a tenants rent goes straight to HMRC if they rent from an unincorporated landlord who owns more than about 2 properties? That's on top of the normal tax a landlord pays. It isn't the landlord who gets this money, it is HMRC. It is a tenant tax and I'm staggered all the activists haven't campaigned vigorously to get Section 24 abolished. Making fault based evictions incredibly slow and difficult leaves good tenants homeless for longer. Get the feckless tenants out quickly and free up homes for decent tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 04 July 2023 07:41 AM

If we're so vital stop treating us like sh*t.

From: Jo Westlake 04 July 2023 07:00 AM

I find the figures surprising. Do big landlords really own so many expensive properties with poor EPCs? I own 16 rental properties and most of them are EPC C or above. Of the others one just needs a new night storage heater to get to C, so less than £1500. Another one used to be D but currently shows as E (assessor deliberately downgraded it for insulation scheme). In reality it is certainly at least a very high D and probably already a C. Two more are flats so have more limited options. I was most disappointed when I was cold called last week by the Eco 4 people and told that flats are excluded from their freebie upgrades. I very rarely have qualifying tenants but currently have one in a flat that could do with a gas central heating system. Both flats are likely to be exempt as any further upgrades such as cavity wall or external insulation would require freeholder consent and the agreement of other leaseholders.

From: Jo Westlake 03 July 2023 07:45 AM

Very sad this is affecting the Help to Buy young home buyers the most. These were mainly naive young people coerced into buying something way more expensive than they could normally afford. I certainly had tenants who bought a £325000 4 bedroom new build as their starter home instead of the traditional FTB property at less than £200000. It's fine until their mortgage fix ends and they have to start paying interest on the 20% government slice. At that point will they be able to make the huge higher mortgage payments? Paying sky high mortgage rates on £300K is going to be far more painful than paying it on £150K. Will they be repossessed? Will they spend years in negative equity, unable to move if offered job promotions elsewhere? Pretty much like the 1990s. Sunak deliberately over heated the property market with his completely unnecessary Stamp Duty holiday and then overheated it even more by extending that Stamp Duty holiday. His totally inept actions are going to cause years of misery for countless homeowners.

From: Jo Westlake 03 July 2023 07:23 AM

Owning the freehold of a big block of flats may be OK. The likelihood is the majority of the leaseholders are people with the financial ability to pay their share of everything. The majority would probably be in favour of swiftly dealing with the minority who think they'll freeload. Small blocks have a greater likelihood of the majority being potless. My private sector ones are all in converted buildings of 4 or 6 flats. I bought 2 of them very cheaply because the leases had dropped to 67 years and both needed full renovation. One was a repossession and the other was just desperate to off load the flat before he had to pay his share of a fire alarm system. So I've extended the leases and renovated the flats and I'm willing and able to pay my share of exterior maintenance. I have no idea why the freeholders or management companies haven't been a bit more heavy handed with unable to pay leaseholders. Maybe because both are owner occupiers while the majority of flats in both buildings are BTL? Both have leases that are only about 63 years now. Both are ladies in their 60s. While forfeiting their leases may be the best thing that could possibly happen to them I don't think either would see it that way. I certainly wouldn't want to be painted as the wicked witch who made poor defenceless little old ladies homeless.

From: Jo Westlake 30 June 2023 15:39 PM

The Maluka One of the buildings had RTM before I bought my flat and it was revoked as the leaseholders did nothing. One of them has addictions, health problems (physical and mental) and can't or won't pay for anything. She's actually told me she's too frightened to open letters from the management company because she knows she can't afford the contents. I came close to buying another block last summer but a retired bloke in London just beat me to it. That one is 4 shops and 6 flats. The one with the roof. I don't think we can do RTM because of the shops. Even if we could it would be difficult as one of the owner occupiers has affordability issues. I absolutely horrified her a couple of days ago when she tried telling me we paid a lot of money for building maintenance and I pointed out we had been paying a very small fraction of what I pay in most other buildings. Last year it was about £350 for everything (insurance, electric, seagull control, repairs, etc). The other building has a Head Leaseholder between us and the freeholder. He is desperate for us to take over the head lease but we're all landlords and can't quite see why we would want the hassle. The idea of dealing with 4 absent leaseholders doesn't enthuse me.

From: Jo Westlake 30 June 2023 10:37 AM

The really difficult one is leasehold flats. The tenants quite rightly expect a damp free home, the landlord would love to provide them with a damp free home but the freeholder refuses to do the necessary work and threatens the landlord with breach of lease if they do work to the exterior of the building or communal areas themselves. I own 5 leasehold flats. Two ex Council and three private sector. All 5 buildings have had water ingress issues over the last few months, two of which directly affect my flats. The Council have repaired the roof leak and repointed one building purely because the flat they still owned was directly affected. The other ex Council one has had water ingress for the entire 11 years I've owned it. Mainly caused by soaking wet cavity wall insulation, cantilevered balconies that drain into the brickwork and washed out pointing due to balconies. Last time I saw the building surveyor he said it would be a big job as every building on the estate had the same problem. Half the flats are privately owned, half are still Council. That means there are huge affordability problems for funding required works. Council rents are ludicrously low and don't allow for an adequate maintenance budget. The owner occupied flats are mainly owned by people on relatively low incomes who don't have access to money for big repair bills. The rest are landlords who may or may not know or care about the damp. I do know and I do care but I'm absolutely powerless to get the repairs carried out. It's not for lack of trying. One of the private sector ones has a problem with water ingress via the chimney. It needs repointing or removing. The building management company have said I should get 3 quotes and then they'll send the other leaseholders the correct notices and allow a consultation period, etc. Problem is as soon as I mention the management company name to roofers they either refuse to quote or come in with an incredibly high price. Another building has water ingress in a newly converted flat which should be covered by a warranty. The final one has a new freeholder who has appointed a new management company. They have found fault with just about everything. The previous freeholder certainly kept repair bills to the minimum but some of it was a false economy. It's an old converted commercial building so has its issues. About 5 years ago we had the roof felt replaced. It's now leaking again. I wanted the roof to be done properly then but no one else wanted to pay for it. So now we all have to pay twice. I guess the shocking thing about all of these is that it is genuine water ingress, not just tenant lifestyle.

From: Jo Westlake 30 June 2023 09:35 AM

Personally I'm not a fan of Airbnb. Maybe certain well located character properties lend themselves to it but in general I'm with the hoteliers on this one. The main reason for the expansion of Airbnb is the punitive taxation of traditional BTL. If we were taxed in a conventional way how many landlords could be bothered with the uncertainty and hassle of Airbnb? Just one bad review can decimate future bookings.

From: Jo Westlake 29 June 2023 09:16 AM

I thought it was a decent letter, covering most points. Whether it achieves anything remains to be seen but if you don't ask you don't get. The one thing I would add is that in order to incentivise new landlords into the industry and existing ones to remain a bit longer there needs to be a clear exit route such as zero CGT after so many years of ownership. It's the way it's done in other countries, so there is no valid reason not to do it here.

From: Jo Westlake 29 June 2023 07:34 AM

Does this recognise that the over 55s have access to much cheaper rental properties that aren't available to younger people? Alms houses and Council retirement flats for example. Does it recognise that some people don't trust the pension industry and have invested in other ways?

From: Jo Westlake 28 June 2023 08:23 AM

Having a mortgage until you die can be a very good thing from an IHT perspective. Even better if you have used surplus income to help your children or grandchildren at the stage in their lives where that help is most beneficial instead of using it to pay off your mortgage. For anyone with a good pension or investment income a mortgage in later life isn't a problem.

From: Jo Westlake 28 June 2023 08:14 AM

Love the typo. It made me chuckle and conjured up all sorts of mental images.

From: Jo Westlake 26 June 2023 11:34 AM

Other than not repossessing for 12 months what new stuff have lenders agreed to? Could they even get a possession hearing in less than 12 months? Most of it was already standard practice: Customers approaching the end of a fixed rate deal will be offered the chance to lock in a deal up to six months ahead. They will also be able to apply for a better deal right up until their new term starts, if one is available; Most lenders have done that for years. Support for customers who are up-to-date with payments to switch to a new mortgage deal at the end of their existing fixed rate deal without another affordability check; Again this has been standard practice for years with the majority of lenders. The one that would be an improvement (if it happens) is: Providing well-timed information to help customers plan ahead should their current rate be due to end; Lenders have been appalling at communicating recent changes to their procedures. TMW lengthened their product switch window from 6 weeks to 3 months without actually telling impacted customers. How many thousands of landlords could have snapped up a much lower rate if they had known they could apply 7 weeks earlier? The letter was still sent out 6 weeks before the end of the current fix. Paragon now allow very restricted overpayment at product switch time. Previously a customer had to either roll onto the SVR for a month or pay an Early Repayment penalty if they wanted to make a lump sum payment. Now they allow a 48 hour window to make a lump sum payment. That 48 hours is from when you agree a new fix, not from when that fix starts. That makes a huge difference. It's an improvement but hasn't been communicated to their customers so we haven't had the lead time to financially prepare for it. Even cashing in an existing Stocks and Shares ISA takes more than 48 hours. For remortgaging it would be useful to know the lenders exact criteria, especially around credit utilisation rates and overall lender exposure in an area. Weeks can be wasted applying to a lender who suddenly turns it down for some unfathomable reason by which time rates have massively increased elsewhere.

From: Jo Westlake 26 June 2023 07:57 AM

Nice to know I'm one of someone's favourites. Thank you. You're right that a great deal of what we say falls on deaf ears but it's useful throwing ideas around on this forum. Makes me feel less isolated and more confident about some of my thought processes. I do a bit more than just bang on on here. Yesterday I responded to an HMO Article 4 expansion consultation being held by my Local Authority and suggested to 2 sets of HMO tenants in the existing Article 4 area they should also respond. One household did so immediately, so at least now the LA actually have a tenants perspective. They had been under the impression only students and very low income people lived in HMOs. Most of my HMO households are graduate professionals with each tenant earning around £30K to £45K. As my tenant pointed out on the consultation, by living in an HMO he can both save money for when he eventually wants to buy a house and more importantly spend money supporting local independent businesses. Last Tuesday I attended the public information session regarding the above consultation and spent a couple of hours talking to the Council planning staff and local residents. I have quite strong feelings regarding Article 4 as I felt forced out of my much loved family home back in 2011 when the original Article 4 was introduced. Back then we lived very close to the university in a 5 bedroom house with a tiny garden and a long walk from a secondary school that was in Special measures. Not exactly somewhere families would be queuing to buy. We knew we would eventually want to downsize so decided to bail while we still could. It cost us £25K in estate agent fees, SDLT, legal fees, etc but at least my husband got his dream garage. Our current house is actually more convenient than the old one but we didn't know that at the time. The old house was snapped up by a landlord and has been a 6 bed HMO ever since. The week before I was at a local residents meeting attended by my MP and had a lengthy chat with him about Section 24, Section 21, the Rental Reforms and Airbnb. Followed up with an email.

From: Jo Westlake 26 June 2023 07:26 AM

I had a credible plan but the mortgage lenders over reliance on out of date credit reports has completely stuffed it up. 5 fixes ending this year. The plan was product switch the first one then get a further advance. Pay off second one to bring us down to 10 BTL mortgages which gives access to more lenders. Remortgage one that's on a tracker and a student house to release enough money to clear the mortgage on a licensed HMO. Then see how much was left over to reduce the final HMO. If everything had gone to plan nearly all the borrowing would have been below 4.49%. Even though we have perfect credit reports with no missed payments whatsoever TMW decided my husband's unsecured credit utilisation rate was too high (51%). Last year lenders were perfectly happy with much higher utilisation. The really frustrating thing was that the report was months out of date. It didn't matter how much evidence we offered to prove it was wrong they just wouldn't change their mind. Problem was they kept pretending they might and all the while rates were increasing with other lenders. So instead of getting everything on 5 year fixes at 4.49% or less we now have accepted 5.6% on £245000 and have no idea how much we'll be paying for the final £280000. Last week I could have got 6.59% but couldn't bring myself to accept it. So around £8000 a year more than it should have been or more than £40000 extra over 5 years purely because TransUnion can't be bothered to update credit reports in a timely fashion and had double counted a balance transfer.

From: Jo Westlake 24 June 2023 17:05 PM

Echis - mortgages at around 40% LTV is hardly leveraging to the hilt. Mortgage payments doubling or tripling on top of all the other price increases over the last couple of years is a huge amount of money for people to find. Whether those people happen to be the landlords or the tenants is the only question. The only clear winner is HMRC as they get the first 40%, 60% or 45% of any rent increase.

From: Jo Westlake 23 June 2023 09:18 AM

The biggest help to landlords with lowest cost implications for the government would be to reclassify BTL as a business, not an investment. Tax us in the same way as any other self employed person with profits being the bit left over after ALL expenses have been deducted. Treat us as respected housing providers not bumbling armchair investors. Remember the PRS houses around 20% of all households and it tends to be the ones that don't readily fit into other housing tenures. Not needy enough for Social Housing, not earning enough for Build to Rent, not expecting to be in the area long enough to buy. People who simply want to live in a house of their choosing in a timeframe that works for them. If we were taxed in a traditional way (like we were prior to 2015) rent rises would be far more modest and more landlords could justify remaining in the industry. The drop in tax revenue would be more than made up for with the lower requirement for funding emergency housing, Discretionary Housing Payments, etc

From: Jo Westlake 23 June 2023 08:27 AM

StepChange says "but new grounds for possession introduced through the Bill run the risk of no-fault evictions reappearing under a new name". Would that be because Section 21 was often used as a more certain alternative to Section 8 when there was fault? In reality Section 21 should have been known as 'no reason given' not 'no fault'. A professional landlord will almost never want to evict a good tenant. Circumstances beyond their control such as major health scares (cancer, heart attack, mental health problems caused by the stress of constant government attacks on their profession, etc) or unsustainable mortgage increases due to an inept government would be about the only reasons a landlord would want to evict a good tenant.

From: Jo Westlake 23 June 2023 08:00 AM

Isn't about time Sunak, Hunt and Bailey did the decent thing and resigned? They are clearly out of their depth and the country needs some responsible adults to try and deal with the fiasco this trio have orchestrated.

From: Jo Westlake 22 June 2023 18:34 PM

A big problem we have is having to wait to be in the product switch time window or pay big Early Repayment penalties. Some lenders have extended the window without actually telling their customers. TMW was always 6 weeks (which basically meant there wasn't time to remortgage elsewhere). Now the window is 3 months. I only came across this by pure chance. Paragon didn't used to allow capital repayments unless you let the product roll onto the SVR for a month. Now they give you 48 hours to make an overpayment from the time you accept the new rate up to 6 months before it kicks in. Unfortunately they haven't publicised this so it took me completely by surprise. I was all set to agree to the eyewatering 6.59% rate they were offering last week and got all excited about the 48 hour window (which I'd assumed was from 1st December when the new product kicked in). I was bitterly disappointed that the 48 hours was from the moment a new rate was selected so now I can't do anything until October when another remortgage completes and funds are available. Then there is the added complication of lenders relying too heavily on out of date credit scores. We both have totally perfect credit scores, with no missed payments whatsoever. We have been turned down for a remortgage and further advance by TMW (who we have had several mortgages with for many years) because my husband's credit report showed a 51% utilisation rate on unsecured credit. They had double counted a balance transfer and the report was about 2 months out of date. So my plan to consolidate as much borrowing as possible on the cheaper to mortgage properties (not licenced HMOs) is being thwarted at every turn. Then people will be complaining about sky rocketing rents!

From: Jo Westlake 22 June 2023 09:18 AM

I don't understand why a 2% inflation figure is either desirable or considered to be achievable. What's so magic about 2% or is it just a number that seemed like a good idea in a bygone age and has just somehow become written in stone? With minimum wage increasing by around 10% how are businesses supposed to restrict price rises to 2%? Almost all other business costs have risen. Even if energy is striped out of the figures huge rises in electric and diesel are going to have fed into the cost of everything in the shops. Just about everything we buy has to be processed and transported. If the goal of 2% inflation was abandoned and replaced with maybe a floating goal of something more realistic would the BoE be able to avoid more interest rate rises and in doing so actually facilitate a drop in inflation?

From: Jo Westlake 22 June 2023 06:58 AM

I don't operate in Wales so I don't know the exact tax regime there but assuming it's fairly similar to England I would suggest a multiple strand approach to encourage existing landlords to stay and new ones into the industry. Treat anyone with 2 or more rentals in the same way as any other self employed person. One extra property may be accidental, two or more is a commercial decision. Calculate taxable profit in the same way as for every other self employed person with finance costs being a fully tax deductable expense. Class it as earned income so it can be paid into a SIPP. The downside would be that younger landlords may have to pay a bit of NI but is that a bad thing from a pension point of view? The additional Land Transaction Tax could be paid at the time of purchase and then refunded after 3 years of tax returns have been submitted clearly proving the property is being used as a BTL. Not perfect but probably a workable compromise if they want to retain a higher rate to penalise people who buy second homes for personal use only. To retain existing landlords for the long haul and get new ones in there needs to be a clear exit route. Other countries achieve this with CGT reducing to zero after a certain number of years of ownership. I would initially suggest zero CGT after 30 years of ownership reducing to 20 or 25 years within a ten year period. The current method of taxing inflation is basic theft and often condemns us to sticking with our portfolios until death do us part. How many young people would sign up to that?

From: Jo Westlake 21 June 2023 07:09 AM

Andy - you might be surprised. I had a long chat with my MP at a local residents meeting last week. Although I had previously emailed him about Section 24 and received the generic copy and pasted nonsense in reply he had no idea how it worked and seemed to be genuinely horrified.

From: Jo Westlake 20 June 2023 10:07 AM

If Twomey has an issue with rent increases he needs to lobby the government to get rid of Section 24. If a mortgage goes up £500 the rent needs to go up £667 for the landlord to stand still. HMRC take the first 40% (£267), the mortgage lender take their £500, then HMRC give back 20% of the interest payment (£100). Due to this some landlords will be pushed into the 60% tax band so would need to raise rent £1000 just to stand still. In both cases the Landlord receives NOTHING to go towards other increasing costs. Very few will be able to raise rents sufficiently to cover the mortgage increases so more and more will decide to sell before the sales market drops too much. Landlords aren't the bad guys. Many of us are passionate about providing decent, long term housing at affordable prices. The government just treat us as a cash cow. When I became a landlord we paid standard Stamp Duty (no 3% surcharge), were taxed in the same way as every other business or self employed person on profit (not turnover) and had taper relief on CGT instead of paying it at a far higher rate than on any other asset and encompassing inflation based rises (effectively actually stealing some of our asset). It we sell a 5 bed we finish up with enough money to buy a 3 bed if we've owned the property for maybe 20 years. On top of this we can't pay rental profit into a SIPP so are denied the tax relief everyone else enjoys. So Twomey if you want to support tenants do what you can to make the PRS work for landlords, instead of painting us as the problem. In the current climate with very limited building and a mortgage market in melt down the PRS is more crucial than it has ever been before. So nurture and support us. Don't make us all decide to throw in the towel due to the relentless attacks we have suffered for the last 7 or 8 years.

From: Jo Westlake 20 June 2023 07:48 AM

Michael - my husband certainly wouldn't entertain selling his much loved double garage (man cave). It took us about 5 years to find a house with his dream garage. The house also happens to be perfect for old age should we require things like stair lifts or mobility scooters. So however attractive the CGT situation that garage is non negotiable.

From: Jo Westlake 19 June 2023 20:58 PM

Back in 2015 when the election results were announced I was convinced good times were ahead for landlords. So much so I went out and bought another 2 HMOs. Shortly after that the attack on landlords began. Since then I have been scrabbling around trying to cope with all the new taxes that have been heaped on us. I bought another 3 properties in my personal name between 2016 and 2019. These were all much smaller. The 3% SDLT surcharge saw to that. Run down 2 and 3 beds that prior to HTB would have been the stuff FTBs with DIY skills would have bought. All had been languishing on the market for a prolonged period. One was for sale for so long it was repossessed. Then we set up a limited company and bought another two in 2020 and 2022. Again they were smaller properties FTBs didn't want. Both had been on the market for many, many months. Right up until last summer I was in buying mode. How things have changed in the last 12 months. Right now there isn't a cat's chance in hell of me buying anything. Even if I wanted to it would be impossible to find anything that stacked without a huge deposit. Even if I was willing to operate with no profit the extra SDLT and mortgage product fees would make it unattractive. Even buying as a limited company doesn't make the numbers work. It's even got to the point where we got an estate agent round to value one of the houses last week and are weighing up whether to try and sell it. It's a tricky decision. The CGT would be £90K. It rents out very easily, two of the tenants are leaving this summer so there will be big rent rises if we stick with it. It has sentimental attachment as my husband grew up in the house. However, we're almost certainly going to be in the 60% tax bracket this year due to Section 24 so selling it would help prevent that.

From: Jo Westlake 19 June 2023 07:25 AM

In some respects tenants are lucky. A great many will be living in properties that either aren't mortgaged or are owned by portfolio landlords who can spread the necessary rent increases across the whole portfolio not dump it all on the specific properties that have the mortgage increase. For example I have 5 mortgage fixes ending this year. The first one increased by around £450 a month, the second one was very small so we paid it off, the third one will be increasing by around £300, the next one by £590 and the other one by at least £709. We also have a tracker that has increased by over £500 a month. So over £2500 a month increase. Due to Section 24 the rent increase would need to be at least £3335 a month to cover the £2500. Those houses contain 22 tenants so that would be at least £150 per person per month increase. Nearly £38 of that is for HMRC as the extra Section 24 tax we pay. That's on top of the Section 24 bit they're already paying in their current rent. By spreading the increases across the whole portfolio they can be far more modest. Getting rid of Section 24 would make a huge difference.

From: Jo Westlake 16 June 2023 08:17 AM

With the massive increase in mortgage rates and Section 24 rent rises are going to have to be huge. This isn't a case of the landlord being greedy as the landlord is unlikely to be able to increase rent enough to cover the extra mortgage payments and turnover tax. All of the rent increase will go to HMRC and the mortgage lender. The alternative is for the landlord to sell up as the property may be loss making without a rent increase. If that is the route the landlord chooses to go the tenant will then have to pay market rent to someone else plus have the expense and inconvenience of moving. Tenants aren't being impacted as much as homeowners by increased housing costs and have far more help available to them. A homeowner coming off a mortgage fix is likely to see their payments increase by hundreds a month. Anyone who bought in the last 2 or 3 years is unlikely to be able to sell for as much as they paid for the property, so are effectively trapped. Tenants have various options - apply for Discretionary Housing Payments, move to a cheaper area, etc. Tenants also don't have the added expenses of insurance or maintenance that homeowners have to pay. Even Social Housing rents rose by 7% this year, so tenant groups need to start being realistic about the financial realities of landlords and realise that we aren't charities. We went into this to provide for our families and our futures. Some of us feel very responsible for our tenants and fully understand how upsetting it would be if we decided to sell. But we aren't charities. The properties have to be financially viable. For many years there was little point in selling as it was hard to get any kind of return on the money if it was invested elsewhere. That's all changed now and has to be factored in to our calculations. If Citizens Advice want to do something useful they should lobby the government to reverse Section 24, which would allow us to survive with much lower rent increases. Also campaign for reinstatement of CGT taper relief to give us an incentive to stay in the industry for the long haul. Other countries have zero CGT after a certain number of years so it's perfectly standard practice.

From: Jo Westlake 16 June 2023 07:42 AM

Very light on detail. The sentence seems to be very lenient unless there was significant provocation. Violence should never be the answer. The correct solution would be a timely eviction hearing in the local court followed by a bailiff visit on the earliest permitted day. Was that option available to the landlord or had he been subjected to months of non payment or destruction of his property?

From: Jo Westlake 16 June 2023 07:02 AM

As far as I can see there are several different types of landlords, just as there are several different types of tenants. There are the big corporate landlords who charge top price for whatever their style of property happens to be, mainly in big cities. Their tenants must match whatever criteria they have. At the other end of the spectrum is the retired person with just one BTL which was intended to supplement their pension. If they self manage they can choose who to let to and some will take a very human approach to tenant selection. If they use a letting agent the tenant will usually have to pass the agents criteria. In between there are private landlords with varying numbers of properties owned either by themselves in their own personal capacity or as a limited company. These are the landlords who tend to house the tenants who don't fully match referencing criteria. The ones who work in non standard employment (self employed, zero hours, gig, agency), people recently arrived from abroad without a UK guarantor, people with a chequered financial history (maybe even a small CCJ), people who don't quite pass affordability referencing. We are the ones who will make an individual judgement and don't have to take a computer says no approach. We are also the sector that are being absolutely screwed with Section 24. Incorporated landlords don't pay it but their mortgage rates are usually higher anyway. The unincorporated ones are being hit hard. If our mortgage payments go up £500 a month we have to charge between £667 and £1000 a month extra rent just to stand still. For a 40% tax payer it would be £667 as the government would take the first £267 of the increased rent, then give back a 20% interest tax credit (£100). The mortgage lender would want their £500. The one saving grace for tenants of portfolio landlords is that not all the mortgage fixes are likely to end at the same time and the necessary rent increases can be spread across the portfolio, not just heaped on one tenancy. It's still going to be a big increase though if we are going to stay in business. If tenants can't afford to pay and landlords can't justify keeping the properties on wafer thin returns or running at a loss where are all these tenants going to live? A great many of them already fell outside mainstream referencing criteria. As the article says, we are getting older. One of my son's jointly owns a couple of my properties because 7 years ago he wanted to be a landlord and it seemed like a great idea for him to gradually take over the day to day stuff as we got older. With hindsight it was a big mistake as it has caused him all sorts of problems with extra SDLT when he wanted to buy his own home, having to restrict his hours in his day job to retain his Child Benefit, etc. It was an added complication when he got divorced. He's seen the astronomical amounts of CGT we would have to pay if we sold anything and has pretty much said there must be better ways to invest money. He's right but if his generation has realised BTL is now financially toxic where are tenants going to live? Especially the ones who don't fit standard referencing criteria.

From: Jo Westlake 15 June 2023 08:29 AM

Section 24 is making it a whole lot worse. Thank goodness product switches exist with most lenders as getting a remortgage is incredibly difficult right now. Either way the rates are eye watering. Section 24 means rent rises need to be stratospheric just to stand still. The government are absolutely raking in all the extra turnover tax. The activists need to realise the landlords aren't the bad guys here. We're just unpaid tax collectors.

From: Jo Westlake 13 June 2023 07:50 AM

People can only buy if lenders are willing to lend. Right now lenders are being unbelievably cautious even on remortgaging. I've just had a month of trying to remortgage a couple of houses. We both have perfect credit histories, very high credit scores and no missed payments whatsoever. We were told by one lender our unsecured credit utilisation rate was too high and by another we had adverse credit. We paid for our Checkmyfile credit reports and discovered it was weeks out of date and some stuff had been double counted (balance transfers tend to show on both the old and new lender for a while). It shows 100% of payments have been made on time for the entire 6 year period it covers. What it doesn't show is savings, investments, unencumbered houses, other assets or earnings. I freely admit I use credit cards for just about everything. Firstly for the Section 75 protection and secondly for the Tesco Clubcard points (which then pay for a significant amount of hotel accommodation when we're on holiday). The card is usually paid off in full at least once a month, sometimes two or three times as the limit isn't always enough. Very occasionally a bit is balance transferred onto a 0% card if I've made a really large purchase (2 sets of solar panels and batteries for example). I'm basically doing exactly what Martin Lewis recommends. It would seem lenders don't approve of his ideas. The other thing one of the lenders has been really fixated on is our earned income. We're portfolio landlords so only work because we would be bored if we didn't. It keeps us in touch with reality. I actually do zero hours warehouse work as an alternative to a gym membership. Apparently lenders disapprove of gym memberships but equally they disapprove of a well paid zero hours alternative. You can't win! My husband likes driving big boys toys so works as an agency HGV driver. He will accept the highest paying, most convenient shift on offer. It also has the benefit of 2 goes at the NI free pay so is effectively a 12% pay rise on some of it. All very sensible but thoroughly confuses lenders. As it is only the icing on an already substantial cake their fixation on it is mystifying. So my plan to increase the borrowing on my non HMO properties to reduce the more expensive borrowing on my HMOs is failing miserably. I thought I was being prudent and responsible. Clearly not traits mortgage lenders are very keen on.

From: Jo Westlake 10 June 2023 15:38 PM

The longer the better as far as I'm concerned. Having the lowest possible payment and the ability to make overpayments is far better than a shorter initial term where payments are a struggle. Very few people only buy one house in their life so will take out a new mortgage when they move. That may be for another 25 or 35 year term or it can be shorter if paying it off quicker is the priority. Retaining choices and flexibility in payment levels makes financial blips easier to deal with. Having a mortgage until death can be very beneficial from an IHT point of view. I certainly have no intention of ever paying mine off as it would just result in an even bigger pay day for the government.

From: Jo Westlake 07 June 2023 06:45 AM

Pensions are another issue. Any other sole trader can contribute to a SIPP and enjoy the tax relief that goes with it. Landlords can only pay in £2880 of rental profits as it is classed as unearned investment income. Back in the day when we had taper relief on the CGT that may have been fair enough. Our properties should have provided a decent index linked retirement lump sum. Now the government take 28% of the increase that has only been caused by inflation and artificially turned us into higher rate tax payers it's a double whammy. Or blatant discrimination. We also lose out on savings interest. If we were taxed in a traditional way a great many more of us would be basic rate tax payers and would keep the first £1000 a year in interest on savings tax free. Now we only get £500 tax free.

From: Jo Westlake 01 June 2023 12:18 PM

Simple fact is mortgage costs are more than doubling as they come off their fixes. I had 5 due to end this year. A product switch on the first one added nearly £500 a month to the payments. That's just on one of them. More are due in September and November. In order to cover that extra £500 I need to increase rents. If I increase them by £500 it doesn't cover it because of Section 24. We have been artificially catapulted into a higher tax band as our finance costs aren't deducted from our taxable income. The government take the first 40%, 60% or 45% of the increased rent as extra tax then credit back 20% of the mortgage payment as a small tax rebate. So if I increase the rent by £500 they take between £200 and £300 and then credit back £100. Either way I'm out of pocket by either £100 or £200 a month. If I want to increase the rent by enough to cover the extra interest it would need to go up by between £670 and £1000 a month. I haven't made a penny extra. All of that increase has gone to HMRC and the mortgage lender. I then have to work out how to pay for all the standard price rises on insurance, maintenance, safety checks, etc. Luckily for my tenants I don't need to concentrate all of the pain on one household. I can spread it across all my houses. While some of the rent increases will seem hefty they will be well within general market rent rises. For landlords with only one or two properties they don't have that option. How many have tenants that can afford an extra £670 a month on their rent? How many can afford to make a loss? Even if you have fantastic tenants and hate the thought of making them homeless how much of your own standard of living are you willing to sacrifice for them?

From: Jo Westlake 01 June 2023 07:00 AM

If they want to increase rental supply the government need to address the massive over taxation we currently face. Reclassifying rental income as earned instead of investment would be a start. Calculate our taxable profits in the same way as every other business. Allow us to contribute to SIPPs and get the same tax benefits as everyone else. Restore indexation relief on Capital Gains so we aren't being double taxed.

From: Jo Westlake 30 May 2023 07:54 AM

Trickett must surely be aware Section 24 is requiring rent increases to be much higher than they would be if our taxable profits were calculated in a conventional way (the same method as EVERY other business). Several of my mortgages are coming off their fixes this year and the payments are increasing by around £500 per month per property. If I increased rent by £500 the government would take the first 40% or 60% as extra tax and then credit back 20%. So that leaves me short by £100 or £200 a month. To fully cover the mortgage increase the rent has to go up by £670 or £1000. That's not the landlord being greedy. The landlord doesn't get a penny extra as that entire increase goes to HMRC and the mortgage lender. Obviously most tenants can't afford £670 or £1000 a month rent increase and most landlords can't afford to subsidize their properties by that amount so the only choices are to evict and sell or evict and try a different style of letting or maybe look at incorporating (but there would still be a £500 mortgage hike to factor in).

From: Jo Westlake 30 May 2023 07:38 AM

I'm all for doing it early but mortgage and pension companies seem to be incapable of recognising the beginning of April as being the end of the tax year and issuing annual statements accordingly. My accountant has had 95% of the information since mid April but without those last 2 or 3 statements can't finalise or submit my tax return. If HMRC wanted to do something useful they would get the government to mandate that all financial institutions issue annual statements in April.

From: Jo Westlake 30 May 2023 07:11 AM

I would like some clarification on Ground 8A. In the event a tenant is subject to the UC 5 week wait and persistently pays his rent 5 weeks late does that mean there will be a mandatory eviction route open to the landlord whenever they get fed up with these persistent arrears? For example I have a tenant who is supposed to pay rent on the 1st of each month. He actually pays it on the 3rd or 4th of the following month. So for 2 or 3 days every month he owes 2 months rent. This has been happening since the 1st January. I don't want to evict him as he is a really good tenant but I would like the rent to be on time. It's horrendous for his mental health to be put in this position by UC.

From: Jo Westlake 27 May 2023 10:13 AM

I've also emailed my MP.

From: Jo Westlake 26 May 2023 18:11 PM

I don't see any need for our personal information to be on a public register. Doesn't GDPR apply to us? I don't object to the Council holding the information for their use but it could cause serious safety issues if widely published. I already get bombarded with letters from people wanting to buy or manage my HMOs due to being on the HMO register. If anyone really wants to find out who owns a property they just need to pay £3 to Land Registry. At least that way there would be a record of who had searched for our information and a good starting point should the Police need to get involved in the event of harassment.

From: Jo Westlake 26 May 2023 13:53 PM

Very valid point.

From: Jo Westlake 26 May 2023 10:49 AM

Simon Jupp is fully aware Section 24 is the main cause of the proliferation of holiday let's. When challenged on this point he just copies and pastes the nonsense the government came up with in 2017 to justify Section 24. If he had any knowledge of housing matters he would know "his" idea of reserving properties for locals is an old tried and tested idea known as Section 106. It has been extensively used for decades in the West Country. In a buoyant market it may be OK. In a sticky market it can be extremely difficult and expensive to get a mortgage on a property with a Section 106 restriction.

From: Jo Westlake 26 May 2023 08:03 AM

I have licensed HMOs so I'm already on the Council's radar. For anyone who owns properties of a decent standard I can't see there's anything to fear. The only concern may be the fees. If its per landlord it would be possibly be OK. If it's per property it could get expensive, especially if it's on top of licence fees we are already paying.

From: Jo Westlake 26 May 2023 07:34 AM

If PRS rents are rising at less than 5% while inflation has been running at over 10% for most of the year doesn't this indicate what a fantasticly good deal tenants are getting? Social housing tenants have mainly had 7% increases this year. Mortgage interest rates are up about 125% on a 5 year fix. Doesn't this indicate PRS tenants have been shielded the most from all the economic turmoil?

From: Jo Westlake 25 May 2023 06:50 AM

Was that £2000 a week or a month?

From: Jo Westlake 24 May 2023 07:25 AM

Isn't that one of the red flags for cannabis farms or other undesirable activities?

From: Jo Westlake 23 May 2023 08:43 AM

Part of the problem is that Social rents are too cheap and there is no real mechanism to ensure these properties are exclusively for the lowest paid tenants. High paid Trade Union leaders living in bargain Social Housing springs to mind. Why are Social rents below LHA? Comparing rents with average mortgage payments is a ridiculous comparison. Rents are real time, mortgages are on properties that may have been bought at any time over the last 25 years, so of course historic prices will pull down the average. Also most homeowners have put down a massive deposit so the mortgage is only on 60% or 75% of the value of the house. Then there's insurance and maintenance to take into account. Renters are sometimes not very good at budgeting and have strange spending priorities. One of mine pays his rent in installments but has frequent Deliveroo deliveries and quite an online shopping habit. His flat is full of electronics but new shoes or trousers often derail his rent payments. To be fair his employer makes things as difficult as possible by paying fortnightly and randomly paying holiday pay throughout the year instead of during the Christmas shutdown. This completely messes up his UC claim numerous times throughout the year and costs him a lot more than it should in NI contributions. Another tenant is 5 weeks behind with rent because UC is designed that way. Absolutely horrendous for his mental health as he has never been in debt before in his life. Every time he sees me he says he'll move out if I want and that he's really embarrassed about the rent arrears. So clearly the system isn't working at certain points. Social housing is poorly targeted and too cheap. UC doesn't work with tenancy agreements or anything other than monthly salaries. It has been deliberately designed to put people in debt from day one. How many claimants are paying sky high interest rates on debt that has only been incurred because of the 5 week wait?

From: Jo Westlake 23 May 2023 07:48 AM

Most damp and mould is caused by tenants failing to heat and ventilate properties sufficiently. Even when provided with tumble dryers they still insist on having racks of wet laundry all over the house.

From: Jo Westlake 23 May 2023 07:19 AM

As long as people understand both the plus and minus points of high LTV mortgages and homeownership there's not really a problem. Plus points: You can buy whatever a mortgage lender says you can afford. You can decorate it any way you want. You can live in it as long as you keep paying the mortgage. You can keep whatever pets you want as long as it isn't leasehold. If interest rates drop your mortgage will become cheaper. Minus points: If interest rates rise your mortgage will become more expensive. There is no link between interest rate rises and wage rises. Due to income multiples the property you can afford to buy is nowhere near as good as the property you can afford to rent. If you need to move selling takes time and is expensive. Insurance and maintenance are additional costs. If your income drops there is no equivalent to Housing Benefit. If you don't pay your mortgage the lender will evict you and sell the house as quickly as possible for a low price. Maybe not as much as the mortgaged amount so you will still have a debt. If house prices drop you will owe the lender more than the house is worth (negative equity), which makes selling or remortgaging extremely difficult. Having said all that if you buy the right property in a location you are happy with and can prioritise your mortgage payments over luxuries (such as food, car, holidays, social life), the likelihood is that it will all come good in the fullness of time. I bought a house in 1991 on a 95% LTV mortgage and spent the entire 1990s in negative equity. We lived in it for 8 years and still own it. It's been a student HMO since 1999. In hindsight I can say it was one of the best investments I've ever made, even with the experience of negative equity, although it may not have felt like it at the time. In 1999 we bought a renovation project with a self cert mortgage (marvelous product). That was what really kick started things. Self cert made just about anything possible.

From: Jo Westlake 23 May 2023 07:11 AM

Can't they see that all the anti landlord policies are causing a spike in evictions? Some of it will simply be a bulge after the eviction ban and court backlogs during the pandemic. Some of it will be Section 24 and the fact some landlords can no longer afford to subsidize their rental properties. Some of it will be because tenants don't understand the need for rent rises to cover the much higher maintenance, insurance and mortgage costs landlords are now incurring. Some will be because a great many landlords are around retirement age and simply don't need the stress and hassle of constant government inference in their business. Better to take the CGT hit than put up with any more anti landlord policies. Well done Crisis - you have been instrumental in creating exactly that. Aided by Shelter and Generation Rant.

From: Jo Westlake 22 May 2023 07:02 AM

Paragon is a very specific lender with a very specific pool of borrowers. They're the lender you go to when you've outgrown the more mainstream lenders such as TMW. I have mortgages with both and would very much like to remortgage an HMO later this year to one of them. TMW would be the preference as they have 35 year terms and allow overpayments. However, they are unbelievably picky about unsecured debt and don't seem to be capable of scaling up for multi property portfolios. They don't seem to know what their criteria is in terms of credit utilisation rates. As it would be insane not to use a credit card due to Section 75 protection, it makes TMW tricky to use for remortgaging. On that basis it's likely that remortgage will go to Paragon, purely because they seem to have a better understanding of bigger numbers. I did a couple of remortgages with them last year and they were very good to deal with. The fact they will deal direct with the customer and don't insist on having a broker involved also makes them attractive to portfolio landlords.

From: Jo Westlake 20 May 2023 11:34 AM

Tricia It's also the way the UC taper works. The extra money someone gets for working more hours is negligible after their extra travel to work costs have been taken into account. I played with a benefit calculator for one of my tenants to see why he wouldn't work more hours and by the time he had paid the extra bus fare, tax and NI he would have finished up with £4 for working an extra 5 hours. 80p an hour to clean toilets really isn't a very attractive option. Especially as he was likely to spend the extra 5 hours fishing for mackerel, which would cut his food bill by far more than the £4 he wasn't earning. The system is basically wrong, especially the disparity between single people and claimants with children. Minimum wage is too low for anyone with any kind of work ethic or ability but it could be argued far too high for some of the completely useless people in some work places.

From: Jo Westlake 19 May 2023 13:33 PM

Tricia A great many people can't work full time as they are caring for other generations such as elderly parents or grandchildren. There needs to be far more part time contracts available. It is actually far more lucrative to have 2 or 3 part time jobs instead of one full time one due to how NI works. Also some jobs are incredibly boring, especially at the minimum wage end of employment. I deliberately work in this type of employment so I am fully aware of the realities of bottom end employment and because I need exercise and am too tight to pay for gym membership.

From: Jo Westlake 19 May 2023 09:54 AM

I agree that benefits should be classed as taxable income as it would make the transition to work easier to understand. I don't see the link between LHA and rent inflation. Most claimants would fail referencing for various reasons so would be excluded from most rental properties anyway. Any lower priced housing would be in very high demand from fully self funding applicants.

From: Jo Westlake 19 May 2023 09:18 AM

Are the job vacancies anywhere near where the unemployed live?

From: Jo Westlake 19 May 2023 09:12 AM

Who is going to build that "affordable"housing? Define "affordable" housing. Everything is affordable to someone. How much is it going to cost the tax payer to subsidize "affordable" housing?

From: Jo Westlake 19 May 2023 09:11 AM

I don't object to working with my local Councils and occasionally housing people via their various schemes but the money and conditions have to be right. In the current climate: LHA plus 10% is nowhere near. LHA plus 40% would be more realistic. LHA plus 60% would be attractive.

From: Jo Westlake 19 May 2023 09:08 AM

It doesn't matter how much LHA is to a certain extent as a great many landlords simply won't put themselves through the hassle of dealing with the UC department. It's the most unresponsive, unreasonable department ever created. I have got some UC tenants and it is on the basis they pay their rent to me and I don't have to deal with the Benefits department. I tried it about 4 years ago and it was awful. They put random amounts of money in my bank account with no indication of who it was from or who it was for or what period of time. It certainly didn't correspond to the tenancy agreement. Some months they just didn't pay anything with no notification there was a problem. The problem was usually that they had sanctioned the tenant for not putting enough information on his online journal. He was suffering from depression and had some very bad days made worse by the journal system. At one point he was £1800 in arrears mainly due to the DWP. I currently have one tenant who has recently been signed off sick and has started claiming UC. His rent has been in arrears since he stopped working at Christmas. It's due on the 1st of the month and he's currently paying it on about the 4th of the following month when he gets his UC. So if I wanted I could evict on the basis of persistent arrears purely because UC have deliberately created that situation. I'm not planning to because I bought that flat specifically for that tenant in one of my more altruistic moments. He had been my plasterer for a few years and had had a fairly chequered past. A couple of spells of homelessness resulted in him living in his van for a while. We were chatting one day while he was plastering and he mentioned his dream home would be in the seaside town where he grew up. I spotted the ideal renovation project in the perfect location for him on Rightmove, which could still fit into LHA rent when renovated. Market rent for that flat would be at least £750 a month. He pays £570 (which is LHA level). He only gets £11 a day on top of the housing part of his UC and that has to cover food, electric, water, phone contract, clothes, entertainment, transport, etc. How many adult men can survive on £11 a day nevermind using some of it to fund a rent shortfall? I have other properties which are way below market rent. Some at LHA level, some slightly above as the tenants dip in and out if entitlement. Most of them are long term and I haven't increased rents due to Benefit freezes. With mortgage rate rises that is no longer sustainable. Across the 6 properties that I have at below market rent or LHA the rents are collectively at least £1200 a month lower than they should be. Just think how much extra tax I would have to pay if all my tenants paid market rent.

From: Jo Westlake 19 May 2023 08:39 AM

Council house rent has historically been very much below PRS rent. Last time I looked at it properly about 4 years ago it was less than half price in my local area.

From: Jo Westlake 19 May 2023 07:30 AM

In my experience tenants with pets don't stay as long as other tenants. I have one property where I allow pets which I bought in 2019. It's now got it's 4th set of tenants. First ones had a dog. Due to the doggy smell when they left I targeted dog owners for the next tenancy in the hope they were nose blind. Second ones had a dog. Due to doggy smell when they left (after professional carpet cleaning with pet neutralising cleaning solution) I had problems with finding anyone who was likely to pass referencing so finished up with a self employed single dad who failed referencing. He was actually great at paying rent and had a real fondness for air fresheners and deep cleaning. I currently have a young couple with two guinea pigs in there. The guinea pigs have a huge cage in the second bedroom and the flat currently looks and smells good. Maybe the way forward with this whole allowing pets idea is that they need to be the type that lives in a cage and has their own bedroom?

From: Jo Westlake 18 May 2023 09:07 AM

A great many FTBs aren't already renting. They are living in their parents spare room trying to save a deposit so when they do eventually buy an ex rental property that's one less rental available to a tenant and another under occupied house that their parents are living in.

From: Jo Westlake 18 May 2023 08:45 AM

Paying mortgage interest isn't funding someone's wealth. Paying towards the capital repayments would be funding their wealth.

From: Jo Westlake 16 May 2023 13:38 PM

This time last year I was planning to buy, buy, buy. Due to a completely incompetent mortgage broker well and truly stuffing up a mortgage application I finished up just buying one instead of the several I'd intended. Paying cash for that one wiped out the deposits for 2 more and the stress of dealing with useless brokers put me off attempting anything else at the time. I guess with what has since happened he may have done me a favour???? Who knows how things will eventually turn out. Right now I'm certainly not buying anything and have been having vague thoughts about which would be the best properties to sell should things get even more toxic. A certain amount will depend on how terrifying my tax return is. I strongly suspect I would be financially better off selling one or two properties. The problem is which tenants to make homeless. All of them are decent people who simply don't deserve to be treated like that but equally I'm not a charity.

From: Jo Westlake 16 May 2023 08:07 AM

If he really wants to help FTBs and second steppers having a HTB scheme solely for second hand starter homes may have some validity. Maximum of 3 bedrooms and maximum of the average house price in the area. Let people start with the traditional affordable FTB properties and in doing so enable the second steppers to sell and move up the ladder. Create housing chains with lots of SDLT and VAT receipts rather than just one stand alone transaction. If landlords choose to sell to FTBs the government would also get loads of CGT. Also have an allowance in UC to cover a certain amount of mortgage interest. I was working with a young mum the other night. Her partner has left her with 2 pre school children and a mortgage. She has to work 5 nights a week and survive on 3 hours sleep a day just to keep her home. She gets some UC but nothing towards her housing costs. All her friends are tenants and have far better work/life balance thanks to the LHA element of UC. Why exactly is it OK for the children of homeowners to be raised in poverty?

From: Jo Westlake 16 May 2023 07:37 AM

MPs need to be worried. Where are they going to house all the people who won't be able to find a rental property? How much is it going to cost the tax payer for whatever temporary housing they have to resort to?

From: Jo Westlake 16 May 2023 06:36 AM

Tricia A great many of these businesses that pay low wages are either public or private sector care providers. If they increased wages everyone's taxes would have to rise to pay for it. The other people in Cornwall on low wages are usually working in seasonal tourism or agriculture jobs. Their hours fluctuate through the year and the pay may actually be OK for the hours they work. It just isn't consistent. LHA was supposed to cover the cheapest 30% of properties. Now it is hard to find anything at all at LHA rates. So Local Authorities just make additional Discretionary Housing Payments to bridge the gap for existing tenancies. It makes it virtually impossible for low income families to move house or young people to leave their parents home. A great many landlords won't rent to Benefit assisted tenants anyway so I don't really see the link in LHA rates and general rent rises.

From: Jo Westlake 15 May 2023 16:53 PM

The main reason rental prices are beyond their means is because Cornwall is a low wage economy and the LHA has been frozen at ludicrously low levels for several years.

From: Jo Westlake 15 May 2023 06:44 AM

Make or take? There's a huge difference in turnover and profit. Why shouldn't MPs have rental properties? They earn a reasonable salary. Most of them are old enough to have been around when buying BTLs was easy. All sorts of people own rental properties. It either suits you or it doesn't. The thing that puts most people off is the amount of debt that is involved. They simply couldn't sleep. It doesn't matter what your day job is, landlords come from all walks of life. I was a single parent taxi driver when I started. Lots of self employed people had BTL as an alternative to a traditional pension. Just about every tradesperson I know either has a BTL or is saving to buy one. Several of my current colleagues have BTLs. For many years it was very popular among the middle class dinner party brigade. So it would be surprising if a sizeable number of MPs didn't have BTLs.

From: Jo Westlake 10 May 2023 07:34 AM

Of course we're no better off. Due to Section 24 the government take the first 40%, 60% or 45% of any extra rent the tenants pay. Then we have the much higher mortgage payments to make. One of mine has just increased by £430 a month. Even with the 20% tax credit I would need to increase the rent by nearly £900 a month to cover that increase. On a per house basis that's clearly impossible. Fortunately (for my tenants) I can spread it across the portfolio so the rent increases aren't exceeding their pay rises (in most cases). I'm certainly no better off and just feel like an unpaid tax collector.

From: Jo Westlake 09 May 2023 09:19 AM

I would love to know how many evictions are genuinely no fault and how many only use Section 21 because Section 8 is too uncertain. I would also like to know how much of the evidence used to come to the decision to abolish Section 21 is recent and how much dates back to before the Tenant Fees Act. Letting Agents used to be notorious for evicting at the end of a fixed term purely because they could charge huge fees to both landlords and tenants on everything. That's no longer the case and there is no longer an incentive for LAs to behave in that way.

From: Jo Westlake 09 May 2023 09:02 AM

I would far prefer to keep Section 21 even if there was the requirement to pay up to 2 months rent as compensation if you need to evict long term tenants in order to sell. You only sell a property once. Over the many years of ownership dozens of tenants will have come and gone. Most landlords will choose to wait until a tenant leaves before trying to sell so it's only the few that really need to sell that would be affected anyway. The vast majority of tenants vacate of their own accord. No one is going to stay in a house just on the off chance the landlord may decide to sell at some point in the next couple of decades. There will still be fault based evictions with no compensation due. As long as Section 8 is made fit for purpose most evictions would be fault based. In reality 2 months rent would be a bargain compared to some of the loses incurred in contentious evictions currently. If you have a good long term tenant who has looked after your property, maintained or enhanced it's value, reliably paid rent on time why would you want them to be out of pocket just because you suddenly decide to sell? Losing their home will be devastating. To leave them £'00s out of pocket due to moving costs, etc is just barbaric.

From: Jo Westlake 09 May 2023 08:52 AM

It will work for some people in some parts of the country. Probably mainly the North where due to generally higher rental yields the rents are actually high enough for the numbers to stack. The really positive thing is that it indicates the Skipton can't be expecting the market to crash any time soon.

From: Jo Westlake 09 May 2023 08:24 AM

I grew up in a 1960s bungalow built for my parents to whatever specification they wanted. It had huge single glazed, metal frame windows. In the winter we used to draw pictures in the ice on the inside of our bedroom windows. It had tiny little radiators along some of the skirting boards that never worked. They were connected to a coal fired contraption in the kitchen. For my entire childhood we had either paraffin or calor gas portable heaters in the lounge as our primary heat source. The wardrobes were full of mould and mildew. The toilet was in it's own little room down a very long unheated corridor with lino tiles on an uninsulated concrete floor. We used to get dressed under the eiderdown or if the coal fired contraption was lit we'd make a mad dash into the kitchen to get dressed. That was the reality of a modern, custom built home in the 1960s. I assume it was the normal standard of the day and not some twisted torture method invented by my parents.

From: Jo Westlake 06 May 2023 14:27 PM

In the last six years 14 of my tenants have bought. Nearly all of them were under 30. Most used the HTB scheme. All bought houses not flats. Most of those houses had either 3 or 4 bedrooms. When else in history have FTBs been able to buy the traditional 3rd rung on the ladder as their starter home?

From: Jo Westlake 06 May 2023 13:41 PM

The extra 3% SDLT if you own another property anywhere in the world is an added complication. Previously it was OK for someone to buy a cheap holiday home for less than the price of a second hand car in Bulgaria, France, Spain, etc but now it would cause very expensive problems when they wanted to buy their first UK property. No FTB freebies and extra SDLT. Covid travel restrictions will have put some people off. Property ownership is a big responsibility and being legally banned from visiting or maintaining a property has all sorts of implications with insurance companies. Holiday home ownership is becoming contentious in several countries as it is perceived to deny local families a home. Even France is beginning to make anti holiday home noises, although many towns and villages have numerous abandoned houses that the French don't seem to want to do up and live in themselves.

From: Jo Westlake 06 May 2023 13:11 PM

Interesting use of statistics. As houses were so much more "affordable" at only 5 times average salary in 1953 why did so few people own? Could it be something to do with lending criteria and the whole role of women in 1950s Britain? Wasn't a woman still counted as her husband's property back in 1953 with pretty much no rights? Didn't mortgage lenders more or less refuse to count a woman's income? As contraception was exceedingly limited and a man had a right to his conjugals lenders may have had a point. In 1950s Britain a woman's place was regarded as being in the home looking after her children and husband. Some employers still operated a marriage bar and sacked women as soon as they got married. That continued until 1973 in some Civil Service departments. Back in 1953 a man was expected to house, feed and clothe himself and his wife and children out of his £333 average salary. Today the whole joint income is counted. Women have strong employment rights, often experience positive discrimination when promotions are afoot, get generous maternity pay and childcare is both available and subsidised. That has given women the ability to demand far higher standards, which comes at a cost. In general houses were far more basic back in the 1950s. Indoor bathrooms were still a luxury and an en-suite was pretty much unheard of. The article certainly isn't comparing like with like. An average house today is so much better equipped than an average house in the 1950s.

From: Jo Westlake 06 May 2023 12:51 PM

Could the average price FTBs have paid over the last 5 years have risen because they simply aren't buying traditional FTB properties? Several of my tenants have bought using the HTB scheme and nearly all of those properties were 3 or 4 bedroom houses. Only 2 of them bought 2 bedroom houses. None of them bought flats. Most of those properties cost between £275000 and £325000. In this area a traditional FTB property costs between £130000 and £200000.

From: Jo Westlake 04 May 2023 08:06 AM

I don't know if my tenants are typical but the younger ones are mainly renting in HMOs because it is so much cheaper than buying and enables to have both lifestyle and save a deposit for when they decide to buy. I'm pretty sure the majority of them are well on target in every financial measure. The older ones have made expensive lifestyle choices such as alcohol or multiple divorces.

From: Jo Westlake 04 May 2023 07:32 AM

Obviously older people have more housing wealth than younger people as we've had longer to accumulate it. Even if that simply means we've had longer to pay down standard repayment mortgages. Every generation has access to different housing assistance schemes but it is up to the individual to grab whatever opportunity is offered to them. We had the Right to Buy (if we were Council tenants), interest only and self cert mortgages. More recently there has been shared ownership, HTB, various ISAs with government bonuses lumped on top. It's different to what we had and far more tax payer funded. Millions of us jumped on the BTL bandwagon and some have done quite nicely out of it for many years. For a great many self employed people it was the only way we could make any retirement provision as our incomes were very erratic. Younger people could try BTL but there are huge barriers that didn't previously exist. Extra SDLT, loss of Child Benefit due to being taxed on turnover, no sensible long term exit route due to staggeringly high CGT with no indexation relief. They could buy through a limited company but how many first time landlords would want the expense and extra accountancy fees if they don't even know how many BTLs they are likely to finish up with?

From: Jo Westlake 02 May 2023 09:40 AM

I'm a huge fan of long term mortgages. Back in the late 1990s we had self cert interest only, which enabled people to buy big enough properties much sooner. Avoiding one or two moves saves a fortune. In reality how many people have ever been mortgage free after 25 years? Most will have started with a 25 year mortgage. Then when they buy a bigger house they will take out another 25 year mortgage. Then a few years later move again and take out another 25 year mortgage. So they've actually got 40 years of mortgage payments. Unless they choose to make over payments. That's the real beauty of 40 year mortgages. The initial payment is low enough for people to qualify to get one. Then as they get pay rises, stop paying for nursery places, get bonuses, children leave home, etc they can make over payments to reduce the term. If they want to. Or they can keep the mortgage high by taking further advances, invest in whatever, give lump sums to adult children, travel, etc and see it as a way of reducing IHT.

From: Jo Westlake 02 May 2023 09:11 AM

I operate in the HMO market and this proposal is a recipe for disaster. Filling a house with random migrants who are unfamiliar with UK plumbing, rubbish disposal, heating systems, etc and then holding the HMO license holder responsible for every half baked mistake they make. Nearly all of my HMO tenants are graduate professionals. Yesterday I sent them all an email reminding them about fire safety (keeping hall, stairs and landings clear and not wedging fire doors), rubbish disposal (actually taking it from the kitchen to the wheelie bin outside the front door), the likelihood of pest infestation if they persist in storing rubbish in the houses, the necessity of ventilation if they will insist on using drying racks instead of the tumble dryer. If highly educated British citizens need that level of instruction how on earth is it going to work in HMOs filled with migrants with limited English and the expectation that they will be housed in hotels? Has anyone thought about how it would impact on the neighbours?

From: Jo Westlake 02 May 2023 08:58 AM

There are times in almost everyone's lives when renting suits them. Maybe for their time at university, when they relocate for a new job, when they meet a new partner and want to try living together without the huge financial commitment and legal tie of a mortgage, when they have a big building project, etc. It doesn't matter if it's for 3 months or 5 years - the PRS has for many years had a solution to suit those requirements. That sort of renting isn't what Social Housing is for and it doesn't fit the Holiday Sector either. It is a distinct and very necessary class in its own right. It's about time politicians recognised it and nurtured it instead of confusing us with Social Housing.

From: Jo Westlake 02 May 2023 08:38 AM

I had the Labour candidate come round a couple of weeks ago and he started off on Airbnbs. When pressed he couldn't actually pinpoint any in this ward. There are a few but this actual ward isn't a tourist hotspot so it's not a problem. The few that do exist are used by people visiting nearby friends and family or for work related training courses or relocation. We don't have the drunken stag party issue. Nine miles down the road is a whole different story. The candidates clearly aren't targeting their campaigning to locally relevant issues, which for prospective local councillors is a bit stupid.

From: Jo Westlake 29 April 2023 12:43 PM

At least they're old enough to be able to apply for properties specifically built for the over 55s. Council retirement properties were excluded from the Right to Buy and have a constant stream of people vacating. Some areas also have alms houses with interesting resident criteria.

From: Jo Westlake 29 April 2023 12:28 PM

Theoretically I agree but in practice getting a job isn't always easy. I'm just off for an interview this morning to do part time warehouse work via an employment agency. I've actually been turned down for the last 3 similar jobs I applied for. No idea why as I've done similar jobs for 8 years and genuinely want the job as it's a great alternative to a gym membership, which I'm too tight to pay for. But if someone who is physically fit, articulate and actually wants the job is getting turned down at minimum wage level it really isn't just a question of people being too lazy to work.

From: Jo Westlake 28 April 2023 10:40 AM

Tricia - I'm paying off one next week and then hopefully another one in September purely so it's one less hurdle in case I need to sell any. The CGT would be too eye watering to sell some of my longest held houses, so I may as well max out the borrowing on them to fully clear the borrowing on some of my more recently bought properties with lower CGT liabilities. The mortgage rates available this week are slightly less horrific than they were a couple of months ago and I'm in the remortgaging time window, so I'm trying to it's grab it while it's there. If things perk up and I decide to expand I can always remortgage unencumbered houses later.

From: Jo Westlake 28 April 2023 09:56 AM

This article certainly galvanized me into leaping out of bed this morning and submitting a couple of remortgage applications before rates rise.

From: Jo Westlake 28 April 2023 09:02 AM

I didn't watch the program but in my opinion the UK is under performing due to too much taxation and too many regulations. Too much pandering to minorities at the expense of everyone else. A complete unwillingness to allow market forces to operate. Back in 2000 anything was possible. We had systems that worked and allowed people to reach potential they didn't even know they had. The indigenous population weren't at the bottom of the jobs queue, self employment was straightforward and financially viable, people could get Social Housing after a few months wait, the PRS was expanding, mortgages were readily available due to self cert. We had endless choices that various government policies have now taken away with all their interference, greed and nanny state tendancies. It was a different world.

From: Jo Westlake 28 April 2023 07:05 AM

Matthew - I was trying not to be completely negative but in reality only 2 of my 18 properties would be even vaguely suitable for an air source heat pump. The others are all either flats or terraced houses where the noise would be too intrusive even if we could find the space to put one and for the flats got freeholder consent. Consent would be unlikely due to the noise and loss of communal space.

From: Jo Westlake 27 April 2023 09:38 AM

When are leaseholders of ex Council flats going to be given training courses in how to make the freeholder Council take responsibility for carrying out exterior repairs in a timely fashion? Our leases prohibit us from doing anything to the exterior and the Council take forever to get round to doing even the smallest repair.

From: Jo Westlake 27 April 2023 08:46 AM

I'm not opposed to low energy renewables in the right situations but I do struggle with the idea of retro fitting air source heat pumps. If they are any good why aren't they already being fitted in new builds as standard? As a retro fit even relatively modern houses don't have sufficient underfloor or wall insulation for low temperature heat sources to work in a convenient way. People are used to the speed a conventional gas central heating system with standard size radiators will heat a building. Low temperature heat sources require a whole different approach. It needs to be set to a much smaller temperature variation and effectively on for much longer periods. It doesn't necessarily cost anywhere near as much per hour to run as a gas boiler (depending on the price per kWh of gas and electricity) but it will need to run for more hours. A bit like a heat pump tumble drier costs a fraction of a conventional one to dry a load of washing but takes much longer. I can't see how the general public are going to be convinced to retro fit such an expensive system when it is highly questionable it would work in older buildings. Especially if they expect it to be as responsive and controllable as every source of heating they have ever previously encountered. I still have a gas boiler but had underfloor heating fitted last autumn, so it runs at a lower temperature than standard radiators. It's definitely been a steep learning curve and I was very glad of my gas fire and electric throws a few times. I'd left it on a holiday setting at 16 degrees while I was away last week and had forgotten to switch it back onto its normal programme before I got home. It took nearly 9 hours to bring the temperature up to 19 degrees in the lounge. My house was built in 2004. Instead of grants it may be more effective if the installation of any major systems that lead towards Net Zero were fully tax deductable. Heat pumps, solar panels, wind turbines, etc. Solar panels are by far my preferred option. Even at this time of year my new systems are producing significantly more electricity than the houses are using. So far this month my small 3.16kw array has produced 293kWh while the 4 person household consumption has been 246kWh. The larger 5.8kw array has produced 525kWh while that 5 person household has consumed 335kWh. Seeing a miniscule electric bill and an export payment is surely something people would be more likely to engage with than trying to cope with slow, unresponsive heating systems.

From: Jo Westlake 27 April 2023 08:34 AM

The ONLY people who will benefit from the abolition of Section 21 are the Local Authority housing departments. There will no longer be a duty to ensure anyone has a roof over their heads. People will still get evicted for numerous legitimate reasons but the LAs will have no obligation to offer any kind of assistance. The unforeseen consequence of the proposal to abolish Section 21 is that it has prompted far more landlords to sell and is yet another disincentive for new landlords to enter the industry.

From: Jo Westlake 25 April 2023 08:08 AM

Do people not realise how much worse off and more vulnerable homeowners are? A homeowner with children gets significantly less take home income than a tenant in similar circumstances due to the housing element of UC and the benefit taper. Roughly a homeowner with a couple of children will lose all entitlement to UC at about £33K while a tenant will still receive some benefit with an income of over £50K. If a tenant loses their job UC kicks in after 5 weeks. A homeowner gets no help with housing costs for several months and then it's a loan not a gift. Mortgage rates can increase far more than rents. How many people are seeing mortgage payments suddenly double when their last fix ended? Rents may have increased but by nowhere near as much and there are Discretionary Housing Payments available to tenants that homeowners don't have an equivalent to. Obviously it saves the government a fortune if they can convince people buying is the better option but at the same time it condemns a lot of children to growing up in poverty.

From: Jo Westlake 25 April 2023 07:25 AM

Yet another thing we spend inordinate amounts of time on as part of our hobby. Who else would class hours of admin work as unearned income? Wouldn't it be great if an insurance company existed that just insured any property and didn't suddenly change the level of cover?

From: Jo Westlake 24 April 2023 11:10 AM

I suppose it is one way to keep your taxable income in basic rate territory. Maybe alternative payment methods are another unintended consequence of Section 24? So if Section 24 is revoked fewer women will be exploited.

From: Jo Westlake 24 April 2023 08:34 AM

Just goes to show how statistics can be manipulated. The previous article mentioned 1 in 50 in the last 5 years. So 2% in 5 years. Presumably that's 0.4% in one year. Some of which would have misunderstood and some would have been enthusiastic. By carefully selecting respondents this article has increased this to 10% of low income women who fill in surveys on Mumsnet.

From: Jo Westlake 24 April 2023 08:07 AM

Obviously it happens and the article does eventually mention it may sometimes be consensual. Prior to that the words exploited and victim were used. In those cases it's wrong but how often are the advances unwanted? If it's 1 woman in 50 at some point over the last 5 years it's reasonable to assume some of them will have misunderstood and weren't being propositioned at all and some would have been enthusiastic and may even have made the suggestion themselves. I worked as a taxi driver for 17 years and it's fair to say a certain amount of female passengers were very disappointed to get a female driver. They were certainly hoping for payment options. Is was fairly standard for male passengers to get in the car and jokingly say "Hey, a woman driver, can I offer to have sex with you for a free ride home"? It was a joke. Just something myth and legend obliges drunk people to say. I'm old enough to understand politically incorrect humour. How many of these alleged victims simply misunderstood an inappropriate attempt at humour?

From: Jo Westlake 24 April 2023 07:47 AM

I don't understand why occupancy levels and best utilisation of housing stock isn't considered to be far more important. The PRS has fewest spare bedrooms, so clearly best utilizes the assets it controls. Owner occupiers can have whatever they can afford and the cost of moving incentivises them to move as infrequently as possible, so clearly they are going to have surplus rooms for chunks of their ownership. It's Social Housing that is baffling. People whinging about the bedroom tax but being unable to downsize. Surely it would make sense for Social Housing providers to build large numbers of retirement housing for people to downsize into, thereby freeing up desperately needed family size housing.

From: Jo Westlake 21 April 2023 16:30 PM

I don't really understand the rationale for it. I was talking to one of the ECO scheme people at a landlord show a while ago and it all sounded fantastic for anyone who qualified. Reading through the website this morning left me a bit confused. The way it's written it looks like landlords can apply if the property is E or below but a tenant can apply if it's D or below. One of my tenants has recently been signed off work due to poor health and is now on UC. His flat is currently a low D so I'm going to see if we qualify for anything. It'll be interesting to see if they can do anything as when I bought the flat it was G14 and my EPC assessor ran various what if scenarios. The best he could get it to was a D. However, one of the freeholders has since died so the remaining ones may be less opposed to cavity wall insulation.

From: Jo Westlake 21 April 2023 09:05 AM

I thought there were various grants and energy efficiency schemes available if people housed benefit claimants. Isn't one of them called ECO4? So if all this free or heavily subsidized stuff is available for people housing claimants why are so many claimants living in cold or dilapidated housing?

From: Jo Westlake 21 April 2023 07:52 AM

Airbnb has largely proliferated because of the punitive tax on standard BTL and the length of time it takes to evict rogue tenants. Eviction bans and rent holidays during the pandemic seriously dented landlord confidence and it will take a lot for most landlords to have any trust in being treated fairly. Why exactly is providing accommodation for 3 weeks treated as a business whereas providing long term accommodation is taxed as unearned investment income. Actually higher than other investments when the super enhanced CGT is taken into account. With all the extra regulations that are constantly added to standard BTL it is far from being a passive investment. If standard BTL was taxed in the same way as EVERY other business it's highly likely a great many of the more contentious Airbnbs would revert to traditional long term letting as long as there remains the ability to regain possession. The ones that have less than fantastic tourist locations and can't command premium rates or be too picky with their clientele. Whether long term tenants would be an improvement is of course questionable and without Section 21 getting rid of them may be protracted. Without the ability to regain possession either because it's a holiday let or because Section 21 or an acceptable alternative exists it's unlikely a sizeable percentage of landlords would remain in any form of letting. How is that in any way helpful for anyone?

From: Jo Westlake 21 April 2023 07:29 AM

The EPC upgrades will be more onerous for Northern landlords. Upgrades cost broadly the same all over the country. Spending £10K to upgrade a house in the South is painful enough. Spending £10K on a house that's only worth £70K or £80K is completely disproportionate.

From: Jo Westlake 20 April 2023 23:24 PM

Michael - most landlords don't suddenly think 'Shall I buy one house in London or 7 up North'. They buy them one or two at a time. The majority of landlords only own one or two BTLs in total. My point is that it is more likely for Southern landlords to be more heavily impacted by Section 24 and in fact all the other anti landlord taxes. We pay vastly more SDLT because we pay more to buy each house. In your example of one house for £700K or 7 at £100K each the Southern landlord would have to pay £43500 SDLT while the Northern one would pay £21000 (7 x £3000). Our rents are higher per house (but not on an overall yield basis) so it's harder to not be impacted by Section 24. Because we pay more for houses our mortgages are likely to be higher so we have to pay much higher finance costs that aren't tax deductible. If we decide to sell we pay far more CGT. If I decided to sell some of my longest held properties the CGT per house would be around £100K. That's more than the entire cost of a house up North. It's much easier for Northern landlords to best utilize CGT allowances. So Northern landlords have choices to operate to their best advantage within the tax system. Those choices simply aren't available to Southern landlords purely because the numbers are all bigger even on just one property.

From: Jo Westlake 20 April 2023 21:48 PM

Given a choice of invisible, highly invasive floor or internal wall insulation or solar panels I would opt for the solar panels every time. They take one day to install with virtually no disruption for the tenant and provide a tangible discount on every electric bill. They are totally visible and can't possibly be "accidentally" overlooked by an assessor. I've actually got them on 5 houses and the newest ones really are a serious improvement on the older ones. One of my systems produced over 34kWh of electric today which is nearly 3 times the daily consumption of the house.

From: Jo Westlake 20 April 2023 19:15 PM

Section 24 only affects people when their taxable income exceeds £50K. As rents are higher in the South Southern landlords are more likely to exceed £50K with a combination of their day job or pension plus rent. Allowable costs are going to be broadly the same regardless of location (insurance, safety checks, letting fees, etc). The purchase price is much higher in most of the South so the necessary mortgage is also likely to be much higher. Just a quick look on Rightmove shows within a 5 mile radius of Newcastle there are numerous 3 bedroom houses for less than £100K and rents are around £600 or £700 a month. Within 5 miles of Southampton a 3 bed is at least £225000 and rents start at around £1100 a month. In the South East the costs will be higher. So for the amount a Southern landlord needs as a deposit a Northern landlord can virtually pay for an entire house, which then removes Section 24 anyway. While you're totally right about 3 houses being less of a problem if one tenant is trouble, from an EPC upgrade point of view the costs will be 3 times higher. Three lots of insulation, 3 central heating systems, etc.

From: Jo Westlake 20 April 2023 19:05 PM

I think it's a North/South thing. While Section 21 obviously affects all landlords nationally, Section 24 only really affects Southern landlords. We have much higher house prices (so bigger mortgages) and much lower yields. EPCs are more problematic for Northern landlords. The costs of improvements are completely disproportionate to the value of their properties.

From: Jo Westlake 20 April 2023 08:18 AM

Since when did installing a smart meter give an improved EPC score? If it did we'd all be queuing up to have them installed. It's only function is to measure the amount of energy consumed and report back to your supplier. It's fairly standard for the In House Display to not work properly. I think only one out of the four houses I have them in show any kind of meaningful information relating to the cost of energy being used. The IHDs don't work with time of use energy tariffs. There's no consistency with what information they give. One of mine can show daily, weekly, monthly and annual kWh usage if I scroll through it. The others don't have that information. The actual smart meter itself gives access to some very good electric tariffs but they only save money if people are willing to change their usage to outside the peak times. They don't reduce consumption and if people don't shift usage can make those time of use tariffs very expensive.

From: Jo Westlake 20 April 2023 08:07 AM

In reality none of us know what our EPC would be if it was reassessed tomorrow so none of us know what upgrades (if any) would be required. I have several houses that have varied by up to 19 points in either direction depending on who is doing the assessment. Ground floor flat in need of renovation: Estate agents assessor F25, experienced independent assessor G14. Large HMO: Independent assessor D57, insulation grant company assessor E47. Ex Council maisonette: Independent assessor E48, a different independent assessor D67. In all those examples nothing had changed between those EPC assessments. It was purely down to the different interpretation by the different assessors.

From: Jo Westlake 18 April 2023 07:27 AM

Decent homes standards are all well and good if tenants understand how to live decently and maintain the standard of the home. How many of us have experienced mould this winter after decades of not having mould purely because tenants don't understand the importance of the combination of heating AND ventilation? How many tenants don't mention when repairs or maintenance is required? Things like blocked gutters won't be evident on routine inspections if it doesn't happen to be raining. How many international tenants don't understand how standard UK plumbing works?

From: Jo Westlake 18 April 2023 07:14 AM

I find it very hard to believe there are that many landlords who are unaware of the whole EPC thing. If it's true it makes me wonder what else they are unaware of. The requirements for annual gas safety checks, carbon monoxide detectors, deposit protection, repairs and maintenance perhaps?

From: Jo Westlake 18 April 2023 06:39 AM

There's bound to be a time lag because rents can only be increased once every 12 months. Also student tenancies are often signed up 10 months before they commence. I can't hit any tenant with the full extra mortgage cost as it occurs on a per property basis but I can spread most of it across my portfolio over a period of time. I have one tracker mortgage where the payments have increased by nearly 450% in the last 15 months. 5 fixes ending this year and then another 5 are fixed until 2025 or 2027. Several are unencumbered so that helps. The biggest problem is that because of Section 24 the government take at least 40% of any rent increase even though the mortgage lender has to be given that money, so the rent increase has to be bigger than would otherwise be the case. It still won't fully cover the increased costs for at least a year or so but it will come right over a period of time. The thing to remember is that homeowners are also facing massive mortgage hikes so tenants certainly aren't alone in this. In a lot of respects they are in a better position because market forces dictate rent increases are far more modest than mortgage rate increases and rent includes all other property related costs such as insurance and maintenance.

From: Jo Westlake 17 April 2023 08:08 AM

Inflation is running at 10% and she's achieving rent increases of between 5% and 9%. The government are taking 40% of that increase in extra tax. Mortgage interest has more than doubled for any mortgages coming to the end of their fix. Chuck in the cost of EPC upgrades and tenants deliberately damaging the properties by refusing to heat and ventilate properly and it's hardly surprising her landlords are selling.

From: Jo Westlake 17 April 2023 07:42 AM

He's right that "properties with planning permission for holiday lets will suddenly become more valuable than regular houses". We've certainly seen that for the last decade with HMOs in Article 4 areas. The whole thing is an example of unintended consequences for a string of government interference. Section 24 on traditional BTL so landlords turn to short lets. Proposal to abolish Section 21 so landlords turn to short lets. Lockdowns and travel restrictions so there's suddenly a much bigger market for UK holiday accommodation. Does anyone seriously think most landlords would prefer the extra work and uncertainty of short lets if the government and activists hadn't been so hostile towards traditional BTL?

From: Jo Westlake 17 April 2023 07:31 AM

It always gives me a sense of satisfaction when parents delivering new student tenants say how much nicer the kitchen is than the one they have at home. Many years experience has taught me a decent mid range kitchen with good quality worktops will last much longer than a cheap flat pack one. As I have no intention of selling most of my houses (due to eyewatering CGT) it makes sense to install stuff that will last and look good long term. High quality GRP shower pods are another favourite. Similar overall installation cost to a cheap shower tray and tiles but minimal ongoing issues. No grout or silicone to go mouldy. One problem we encounter is the demarcation between tax deductible replacement, improvement or non tax deductible upgrade. It's a very grey area. The timing of improvements can play a big part. If we do the work immediately after purchasing the property it's pretty much a non deductible (until we sell, if we sell) capital expense. If we do it after renting it out for a period of time a lot of it will be classed as a tax deductible replacement. Double glazing as a replacement for single glazing is classed as a tax deductible replacement (as it's the modern product) even though it's clearly an upgrade. Other things are arguable. A shower pod costs the same as a conventional enclosure and will cost far less to maintain, so I would guess it should be regarded as a modern replacement. (No idea if I'm correct). A laminate kitchen worktop replaced with another laminate worktop is clearly a replacement whereas granite may be treated as an upgrade (capital improvement). Where does that leave all the worktop types that fall between the two? Additional insulation on top of existing insulation is an upgrade whereas if you take out the old insulation (would anyone ever do that?) and replace it with the modern standard it's a replacement.

From: Jo Westlake 15 April 2023 11:14 AM

The thing that is very rarely mentioned is that the owners of leasehold flats often don't have the right to install most types of insulation. We can't have cavity or exterior wall insulation if the other leaseholders and freeholders don't want it. We often can't install internal insulation without making the flat too small to fit mortgage criteria or minimum space standards. We can't insulate the roof if the freeholder doesn't agree. We can only do internal ceiling insulation if the ceilings are high enough. We can't upgrade the windows without paying hundreds of pounds for a consent licence. It would be interesting to know how many properties with EPC or below are actually flats where the leaseholder isn't allowed to install insulation. It would also be interesting to know how many of the registered EPCs are still in any way accurate. I know at least 4 of mine are miles out.

From: Jo Westlake 14 April 2023 07:34 AM

Scrap Section 24 and retain Section 21 and watch hundreds of thousands of Airbnb properties return to the standard long term rental market.

From: Jo Westlake 13 April 2023 06:47 AM

I've been using landlord software for the first time this year in preparation for MTD and have very mixed feelings about it. Initially it involved many, many hours of complete confusion and large amounts of swearing. That phase lasted about 3 months. The next 3 months were better. I gained confidence and even undid some of my earlier errors. More recently I got to the point where I thought I was getting quite good at using it. I was using more elements of the package, not just the accounting bit. It has details of all the tenants, churns out tenancy agreements, stores copies of gas safety certificates, etc. Then we got towards the end of my financial year (31st March) and it completely freaked me out. It contains a SA105 report which is supposed to show how much each of us have earned, spent, etc and how much tax we will each pay. My portfolio is unequally owned so this report is probably more important for me than it might be for less complicated situations. It's caused me to have 2 completely panic stricken phone calls with my accountant. One relating to how it doesn't deal with other earned income and SIPP contributions properly. The second call was yesterday because it hadn't recognised my year end and continued adding this year's income into last year's accounts. Much Googling about year ends, cash basis and accrual accounting and several emails to the software provider later it turns out that while most of their system recognises my actual financial year end that particular report doesn't. There is no warning on their website mentioning this fact. So that aspect of it has been very disappointing and frustrating. Overall I guess I predominantly get on with it OK. I could probably submit all my property related accounts to my accountant this week. I have made a list of errors I haven't been able to sort out and areas that won't tally with bank statements such as utility bills. He has access to the software anyway. It's probably taught me better accounting procedures and as I pay for everything by Direct Debit or credit card the live banking reconciliation has been really good. If the government think the switch to MTD is going to go smoothly they are seriously deluded. I made a very big effort to engage with the software and picked a year where I could make every mistake going. It's been a very steep learning curve. I'm a landlord not an accountant

From: Jo Westlake 05 April 2023 12:38 PM

I've signed it and so have some of my tenants. Quite a few of them are bright enough to fully understand their rent wouldn't need to be at the level it is if Section 24 hadn't happened.

From: Jo Westlake 05 April 2023 11:25 AM

Steve - exactly. Break the cycle. Get the teenagers out of that environment and let them experience a better alternative. It wouldn't be free housing. Even 16 year olds have minimum wage entitlements and apprentice wages are only lowish for the first year. Moving an overcrowded family into a bigger family size house isn't free. Paying UC for a teenage single parent and providing her with a self contained 2 bedroom flat certainly isn't free. You're right that we shouldn't be throwing ever more money at irresponsible parents but under the current system that's exactly what the government will continue to do. Removing pregnancy as the only viable escape route reduces the problem longer term. If those meal ticket babies aren't conceived in the first place you have fewer feckless families in the future. A 15 or 16 year old doesn't have much idea about career opportunities, especially if every adult around them is living on handouts. I've certainly known teenage girls who have 2 alternative plans: get pregnant, leave school, get Council flat or leave school, get pregnant, get Council flat The idea of getting a job doesn't occur to them because their main aim is to escape from their parents home. The idea of having their own room in a child free, parent free managed student housing style environment would be far more attractive than having a baby and a Social Worker.

From: Jo Westlake 04 April 2023 15:56 PM

France is a good country to compare. Their ideas and housing standards are wildly different to ours. Not necessarily better or worse, just different. I've had a house over there for 19 years and had to rent an apartment for a year while dry rot was being dealt with. The buying process in France is great. Far more certainty at a much earlier point in proceedings. Consent for exterior building alterations is very transparent and straightforward. They don't seem to have a policy of objecting just because they can in the way UK planning departments often do. Rentals are interesting because they are often much smaller and more basically equipped than here. A kitchen often only has a sink. You are expected to provide your own kitchen cupboards and worktop. Double glazing isn't an automatic expectation. Heating may exist or you may need to buy your own heaters. While by UK standards it can look very cheap to rent in France you often aren't comparing like with like. The question really is do we need our standards to be quite so high or would people be happier paying a bit less for a more basic option?

From: Jo Westlake 04 April 2023 11:47 AM

Section 21 was largely instrumental in improving standards in the PRS. Pre 1988 standards were often horrendous. Why risk providing something decent with no guarantee of getting it back? I left home in 1981 and moved into seedy bedsit land. As a 16 year old the only 2 options were an absolutely disgusting bedsit in a very run down house full of unemployed men or a less disgusting studio flat in a very rundown house with a live in landlady, numerous cats and 7 other bedsits occupied mainly by seedy old men. I actually lived there for 3 years until the Council rehoused me shortly before putting a prohibition notice on the building. When the single glazed window broke the landlady replaced the glass with cardboard. When the gas fire was condeemed she suggested I bought more blankets. Is a return to that style of letting what the government and activists really want? Without Section 21 and the ability to make a reasonable profit that's exactly what they will have left.

From: Jo Westlake 04 April 2023 10:47 AM

Green mortgages are great if your property already qualifies but not a big enough incentive to specifically upgrade a property. On a £200K mortgage the saving would be £200 a year if the difference was 0.1% (some are less generous). Assuming a 5 year term a saving of £1000. Nowhere near enough to pay for many energy efficiency upgrades. Especially as upgrades aren't tax deductible and mortgage interest partially is.

From: Jo Westlake 04 April 2023 09:25 AM

In my opinion we need major building of two different types of high density social housing to reduce current shortages of family size housing in both the PRS and Social Housing sectors. Firstly social retirement housing. Small to medium size developments for the over 55s. It makes great use of small brownfield sites in locations with existing amenity and creates a supportive community for people who may otherwise be quite isolated. Good Council retirement housing is something people aspire to move into, not resist until the bitter end. Most people who move into a retirement bungalow or flat move out of a bigger house, which is then available for a family. My husband owns the ex matron's house on a Council retirement development of 16 bungalows so I have spent the last several years observing the community and talking to the residents. For many it improves their quality of life immeasurably. Secondly there needs to be far more accomodation for teenagers who need to leave home. If Councils built something similar to managed student halls for non student 16 to 21 year olds it would have numerous benefits. Currently a great many families are in the situation where they are suddenly entitled to an extra bedroom just because a child has reached 16. If they eventually get rehoused into a bigger house the likelihood is the child will leave home relatively soon and the family will then be under occupying the new home. Wouldn't it make more sense for the child to have the option of moving into purpose built accomodation instead of uprooting the entire family? Teenagers often do very unfortunate things to escape from abusive or overcrowded homes. Getting pregnant or getting sucked into criminal activity for example. Having a readily available option of moving into purpose built student style co living accomodation would reduce such behaviour. Very few of these teenagers would pass affordability referencing for the PRS so it would have to be Social. There would be no need for teenagers to get pregnant just to get housing. It would be cooler to go into the standard co living type. If the housing that was offered to young single parents was in managed blocks complete with a crèche and education opportunities (instead of a 2 bed flat goodness knows where) it would be a disincentive to get pregnant for many but a better chance of a decent future for those that did.

From: Jo Westlake 04 April 2023 09:17 AM

How many of us would have become landlords or expanded our portfolios if we had had any indication of quite how punitive taxation was going to become? When I started out we paid standard SDLT, profit was calculated in the same way as for every other business and we had taper relief on CGT. We've never been allowed to enjoy the tax perks everyone else has from contributing to a pension but that used to be OK when we were treated fairly on general taxation. Having to constantly adapt our business models to accommodate completely new tax assaults makes any kind of long-term planning impossible.

From: Jo Westlake 01 April 2023 13:41 PM

The most accurate sentence in the article is: "Critically, we also need to incentivise improvement and not see sustainability requirements as a burden." As long as energy efficiency improvements are treated as a Capital expediture and therefore not tax deductible there really is no incentive for landlords to do anything. Even if we do stuff there's no guarantee the tenant will engage with it. How many of us have installed better heating controls and then found the tenants don't understand anything other than ON and OFF? Also there's no guarantee an EPC assessor will even acknowledge work has been done. The burden of proof gets more onerous with every inspection. Roof insulation started out as a Building Control certificate was sufficient evidence, then they wanted photos of the installation taking place, now they want a photo of the installer holding a tape measure next to the insulation. How many of us can produce all of that 20 years after the insulation was installed? Without it they assume no insulation exists and downgrade the EPC.

From: Jo Westlake 01 April 2023 10:29 AM

Tricia Thanks for the tip. It looks like a very interesting offer.

From: Jo Westlake 30 March 2023 14:16 PM

The big problem with extortionate CGT is it leaves us with no viable exit route. Why would new landlords enter the industry if they perceive it to be a life sentence? The whole point of taper relief used to be that it incentivised landlords to own properties long term and provide stable long-term homes to tenants, while enabling them to retire at some point.

From: Jo Westlake 30 March 2023 11:18 AM

When I did my Right to Buy in the 1980s the house needed gutting as it had dry rot throughout. The windows were the old single glazed sash type and were all rotten. The kitchen was falling apart. There were very few electric sockets. I fully renovated it, lived in it for a while and then sold it. My son bought an ex Council house that was virtually derelict, did it up and sold it on as a nice modernized family home. Two of my flats are ex Council and getting them to do exterior repairs is challenging. So at least separate any statistics into freehold and leasehold.

From: Jo Westlake 30 March 2023 11:00 AM

Could be a lot of us are staying because the CGT is too high for us to contemplate leaving. Any of us who have owned properties for 20 years+ in the South would be facing CGT bills of around £100K per property if we sold. Effectively the government would be stealing 2 bedrooms per property sold. Without indexation relief we simply aren't going to sell.

From: Jo Westlake 30 March 2023 10:39 AM

Michael - it was quite cleverly worded: "over one in four social housing residents had been affected by anti-social behaviour in the past year". The antisocial behaviour of one person may affect 100 people in the neighborhood. Remove that one antisocial person and instantly improve the lives of 100 people. Then it says: "One in three (PRS) landlords who have ended a tenancy report that they did so because their tenant engaged in antisocial behaviour." That figure surprises me. I thought the narrative was we evicted people because they had mentioned a repair needed doing, we wanted to charge someone else far more rent, we wanted to sell, there were rent arrears or because we were generally evil people. Now it turns out in a third of cases it's because the tenants are terrorising their neighbours with ASB. I guess that paints us in a somewhat better light and indicates we actually care about the communities our properties are located in.

From: Jo Westlake 30 March 2023 10:13 AM

One of my fixes is ending next month. It is currently 1.99% and will be 4.99% (if I don't want to add a big product fee). That's a 150% increase. I'm not convinced it was much to do with Liz Truss though. Interest rates had risen multiple times before her few weeks as PM. Reckless spending by Sunak during the pandemic and dithering by the BoE would be my guess.

From: Jo Westlake 30 March 2023 09:52 AM

Insulation has often been installed by cowboys and can cause damp problems. I own an ex Council maisonette that the council installed fibre cavity wall insulation in before I bought it. That building has a water ingress problem, the insulation is wringing wet and damp seeps through into the lounge. It's on a program to have it removed and replaced with bead type insulation but there are thousands of properties on that list and they have recently told me mine is several years away. So it looks like I'm going to have to either hack off the plaster and tank the room or pvc clad it. Either way it's a chunky expense only incurred because the freeholder installed the wrong insulation. I have had loft and cavity wall insulation installed under grant schemes and in both cases have been left with a completely fictious EPCs much lower than it should be. In order for the companies to claim payment under the scheme they have churned out fraudulent EPCs up to 10 points below the previous one (E47 instead of the previous D57 in one case). Then they don't issue a correct one after the work is done. They also didn't fully do the work they were supposed to do. One property was supposed to have loft and cavity wall insulation but when they turned up the installation team decided there weren't enough cavity walls to make it worth setting up their equipment so only did the loft. The other one did the walls but decided there wasn't enough loft to bother with, so I finished up doing that one myself. So you pay the grant contribution and only get half the work done. There's currently no reason for me to pay for a proper assessor to issue a correct EPC on one of those properties so it can stay as being registered as an E for another 2 years. How many hundreds of thousands of properties currently have completely wrong EPC scores registered? Either accidentally because the assessors abilities vary or downright fraudulently because of how the insulation grant schemes worked? Other types of insulation such as underfloor or flat roof insulation have almost never been encompassed by the grant schemes. I hate to think how much Celotex I've bought over the years to insulate flat roofs or to use internally with suspended ceilings.

From: Jo Westlake 30 March 2023 09:45 AM

Very well said. Especially "The problem is what does society do with all these antisocial and nonpaying tenants?" Even if they're evicted from your property they are still the same anti social problem who will move on to blight another neighbourhood.

From: Jo Westlake 30 March 2023 08:58 AM

Ellie It is particularly badly phrased. "what you do counts as running a business, FOR EXAMPLE IF ALL the following apply:" Is it an example of various scenarios or explicitly that combination? "being a landlord is your main job". Since when did the government acknowledge being a landlord is a job? Usually they insist it's unearned income. "you rent out more than one property". That one is easy and absolutely clear-cut. "you’re buying new properties to rent out". In what time frame? Do they mean every year? Do they mean you think you might buy another one at some unspecified time in the future? Then again you might not. What if you've been looking but haven't found anything suitable for several years? For me it's pretty straightforward. I'm a career, portfolio landlord. Most of my income comes from my portfolio, most of my time is spent doing property management type things, my taxable income is significantly higher than £11908. Even if Section 24 was abolished it still would be. I haven't ruled out buying more properties. So I clearly fully fit the criteria but I can see it has potentially left hundreds of thousands of landlords in a bit of an uncertain situation.

From: Jo Westlake 28 March 2023 17:28 PM

I've just Googled exactly what the current NI situation is for landlords: You have to pay Class 2 National Insurance if your profits are more than £11,908 a year and what you do counts as running a business, for example if all the following apply: being a landlord is your main job you rent out more than one property you’re buying new properties to rent out. So any of us who aren't retired, have more than one rental property and earn over £11908 a year already pay NI. If we were taxed in the same way as every other business we would be deemed to have lower profits and pay less NI. We would still be classed as self employed so still wouldn't get the full range of perks that go with PAYE. It's very frustrating that the government describe us as a business when it suits them but not when it would actually benefit us.

From: Jo Westlake 28 March 2023 16:31 PM

Catherine NI would be a very small price to pay compared to the other suggestions I have made. As Robert says retired people don't pay NI. If we returned to a traditional method of calculating profit (income minus all expenses) most small landlords wouldn't earn enough to pay NI. Don't forget NI is charged on each separate earning activity in isolation, not a cumulative total like income tax. Anyone can have multiple part time sources of income and get an NI free allowance on each. Also a lot of BTLs are jointly owned so there would be 2 NI free allowances to utilize. Even if we did earn enough to pay NI it's negligible compared to being able to fully offset our mortgage payments and being able to receive the tax benefits of being able to fully contribute to a SIPP. Restricting our SIPP contributions to a measly £2880 a year is woefully inadequate for a decent retirement. When we used to get taper relief on Capital Gains there may have been an argument for restricting pension tax relief but now the government want 28% of our Capital Gains it is totally unreasonable to restrict our alternative pension options.

From: Jo Westlake 28 March 2023 14:25 PM

Mortgage interest rates for BTL mortgages up from 1.99% to 4.99%. Isn't that a 150% increase? Tradespersons day rate up from £160 a day to £220 a day. Isn't that a 37% increase? All of our costs have increased. We can only increase rent once a year. Even the subsidized Social Housing is increasing rent by 7% this year. However, Minimum wage has increased. Some employers have just announced the 4th pay rise in a year. Other wages have risen significantly. So effectively even if we increase rents by 10% we are one of the only sectors that will experience a genuine pay cut. Our costs are up by way more than 10% and we are taxed on turnover not profit. So the government get the first 40% or 60% of any extra rent we charge the tenants before we can put the remaining increase towards our massively increased mortgage costs.

From: Jo Westlake 28 March 2023 09:35 AM

Airbnb has largely proliferated because of changes in how traditional BTL has been treated. If the government want a fluid, functioning PRS, so employers can more easily recruit staff, they need to treat landlords fairly and make traditional BTL a more attractive investment. 1- classify BTL as a business 100% of the time (not just when it suits the government). 2- tax us in the same way as every other business (abolish Section 24). 3- classify our profits as earned income, not investment income, so we can contribute to a SIPP and enjoy the same tax relief as everyone else. 4- in order to attract new landlords into the industry ensure we have a clear exit route by reinstating indexation relief on CGT. 5- ensure we have the necessary legal sanctions to control our properties. Effective support from the Police, Local Authorities and Courts.

From: Jo Westlake 28 March 2023 08:59 AM

Andrew - I get your point about the long-term unemployed, don't want a job brigade. However, there's a whole range between that and 2 working parents. Where do we draw the line? Is a working widow OK? A single parent working in the NHS as a consultant (on a 2 year contract from New Yealand)? A married couple with self-employed or gig economy income? A couple with the mother on maternity leave and no firm intention of returning to work? What about when the nice stable family gets divorced? Does the entire family lose their home as well?

From: Jo Westlake 27 March 2023 11:02 AM

Even with 2 working parents a lot of families are still entitled to UC top ups, especially if they're paying for childcare.

From: Jo Westlake 27 March 2023 10:21 AM

How many of these families are turned down because they are applying for the wrong size properties? How many people understand the rules on sharing bedrooms in rented housing? How many understand that if a landlord allows overcrowding they risk a fine and being placed on a rogue landlord register? How many prospective tenants don't read the property description before applying for a viewing? I had a room in an HMO advertised last week as for single occupancy only. Several couples and people with children asked for viewing appointments. Why? Which bit of "single occupancy" in any way indicates they would be able to rent it?

From: Jo Westlake 27 March 2023 09:06 AM

While some types of insulation can be beneficial other types cause damp problems. Older cavity walls often have bridging problems when filled with insulation. Some older buildings need to breath and either internal or external insulation can hinder that. Anything with lime mortar or render for example. It seems bizarre new builds aren't going to have to have solar panels, batteries and heat pump heating. Retro fitting any of this stuff is far more expensive than simply doing it at build stage. The PRS needs some kind of government commitment to at least partially fund any energy saving improvements we make. At the absolute minimum it needs to be tax deductible at the point of installation, not classed as a Capital improvement. If they really wanted us to engage they could do a super deduction at 130% which is exactly what they did for commercial buildings.

From: Jo Westlake 27 March 2023 08:54 AM

"All this nonsense about cracking down on anti social behaviour comes from a middle-class populist view that the criminal law can deal with what are often very damaged individuals whose criminality is just a symptom of their mental state". This really is the crux of it. Policies that sound theoretically OK are being drawn up by middle class people who have never experienced the consequences of ASB. They have never had a drug dealer or addict as a neighbour. They have never experienced unemployment or poverty. They don't understand the consequences of being labeled a grass or the kind of retribution that can be experienced. The other thing the awfully middle class policy makers don't acknowledge is we have a whole generation of over medicated underclass children hitting adulthood. These kids were bred for benefits and have been neglected their entire childhood. In many cases have been fed Ritalin or other medication and been labeled with whatever condition best enhances the parents rights to extra disability and carers benefits. These kids have no idea about how to be part of a cohesive society. Politicians have badly failed everyone with their policies that encourage the least suitable parents to have more children purely as meal tickets.

From: Jo Westlake 27 March 2023 08:27 AM

Note to tenants: If there is any possibility of you needing any degree of flexibility in your tenancy term ensure the property is a proper BTL owned by a professional landlord.

From: Jo Westlake 25 March 2023 11:28 AM

John - I fully agree. Almost all of this stuff is online. Why are we expected to spoon feed fully grown adults? Deposit protection paperwork is the one that really bugs me. Mydeposits email everything to the tenant so why are we expected to track them down and get them to sign the paper certificate? The ones that physically pay the deposit before they turn up to actually move in are easy but the ones that wait until you're poised to hand over the keys means another journey.

From: Jo Westlake 24 March 2023 14:53 PM

Last summer I was fully intending to buy multiple properties through a limited company structure. I remortgaged some of my personally held properties to fund the deposits. Anyway the market changed dramatically, a mortgage broker monumentally stuffed up a mortgage application for one new property, so I finished up paying cash for it, which used the deposit money for 2 others. I've still not spent some of the money I raised and right now there's nothing attractive to buy. So I currently have the option of using that money to either buy something, fully pay off one of my smaller personally held ones, improve multiple existing properties or go on a big holiday and buy a racehorse or sports car. Right now I'm keeping every option open. I've got 2 mortgages coming off fixes at the end of April so have reserved but not committed to a new 5 year fix at 4.24% on both. My inclination is to fully pay off one of those mortgages purely because it will give me more options for another remortgage later in the year. Why do so many lenders object to more than 10 mortgaged properties? This week's theory is to consolidate as much borrowing as possible on the properties with the biggest CGT liability. The ones I am least likely to ever sell. By the end of the year I may have consolidated down to 9 mortgages if all goes to plan. That would have the benefit of having several unencumbered properties, any of which could be sold without having to factor in mortgage early redemption penalties. That would then leave enough to replace some kitchens and boilers and probably some roofing and double glazing. As I'll be in the 60% tax bracket due to Section 24 for the upcoming tax year it seems like a good time to do some hefty spending on fully deductible repairs and replacements. I don't want a racehorse and a sports car would be completely impractical. A cruise is a nice idea for 2024. I quite fancy the Great Lakes.

From: Jo Westlake 24 March 2023 10:05 AM

I don't usually have several weeks between viewing and moving in. It's only really students that do anything in advance.

From: Jo Westlake 24 March 2023 09:07 AM

I was looking for the carbon monoxide detector in one of my houses on Tuesday when the gas boiler was being serviced. It's always been on the wall above the picture rail in a location described as suitable in the instruction leaflet. This time there was no sign of it. We eventually found it on the floor behind a waste bin. Apparently her boyfriend had told her they should be on the floor?????? This is the same tenant that keeps the heating thermostat in her bedside drawer. If the government really want to produce endless guides couldn't they do one instructing tenants on appropriate behaviour? Things like heating, ventilation, cleaning, refuse disposal, the positioning of thermostats and detectors, the use of extractors, what not to put down drains and toilets, appropriate reporting of maintenance issues complete with relevant photos, etc. Something useful and consistent for landlords, Environmental Health officers and tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 24 March 2023 09:03 AM

Sunak's completely unnecessary Stamp Duty holiday and even more unnecessary extension of it caused asking prices to rise far more than they otherwise would have. How many times have we seen how tax changes distort the housing market? The announcement that joint MIRAS was being scrapped in the late 1980s caused 6 months of panic buying. Followed by prices falling off a cliff and 10 years of negative equity. Asking prices and sale prices have been a fair way apart for well over a year. In many cases estate agents were kite flying and mortgage valuers somewhat more grounded. My son bought a house last year. It went on the market in December 2021 at £310000. His offer of £292500 was accepted in March 2022. It eventually completed in October 2022. So all of that was before the current market conditions. I did a few remortgages last year and valuers were cautious (certainly compared to asking prices). One of mine valued at £450000 in May 2022. An identical one on the same estate went on the market 2 weeks later at £595000. They've dropped the asking price 4 times and it's just gone sale agreed off an asking price of £550000. No idea what they've actually accepted or if a valuer will agree with it. So has that house dropped in value by 7.5% or was it simply 32% over priced in the first place? Or was mine undervalued? It's not an exact science and journalists plucking random statistics and inappropriately quoting them isn't doing anyone any favours. Ultimately houses can only sell if people can afford to buy them. Equally they can only sell if the current owners can get enough to clear the current mortgage and cover all selling and moving costs. Lenders get very picky in a falling market and demand much higher deposits, which makes it fall even further.

From: Jo Westlake 24 March 2023 08:39 AM

All these things are far too complicated with too many rules and confusing allowances. Isn't the 40% refering to IHT if you happen to die too soon after making the gift? I'm not a tax expert but I was under the impression that a gift is classed as potentially exempt for the 7 years after it is given. If you're still alive at the 7 year point the gift has disappeared from your estate. There is a taper applied towards the end of the 7 years. Anything you give from regular surplus income is immediately exempt. For example I contribute every month to SIPPs for my grandchildren from surplus income so that is immediately exempt and the grandchildren also get the 20% top up from the government. It's kind of crazy because I can't contribute most of that money to my own SIPP because it's classed as unearned investment income, but I can contribute to numerous other people's SIPPs.

From: Jo Westlake 22 March 2023 17:51 PM

Of course over taxation is hurting property. How many of us aren't selling because CGT is far too high? How many aren't buying because the extra 3% SDLT means the property simply isn't viable? Especially with higher mortgage interest rates. How many are remortgaging their long term properties so they can distribute as much equity as possible to minimise the IHT liability? All of these things distort the property market and have unintended consequences. If the government focused on creating a fluid housing market, which wasn't distorted by punitive taxation, their VAT receipts would be immense.

From: Jo Westlake 22 March 2023 08:10 AM

I love renovating properties and making them into comfortable, durable, desirable long term rental homes. Over the years I've bought numerous truly unfortunate flats and houses that have required extensive work to make them habitable. Probate sales, repossessions, a large house where squatters had just been evicted, flats with no heating or hot water and a lease too short to mortgage, an old terraced house with a total of. 4 electric sockets and the bath was in the coal shed, several that were so squalid the estate agent waited outside while we viewed, etc. None of them were FTB territory. It's questionable how many would even have been legal to let at the point of purchase. In the early days I'd renovate them, let them for 3 or 4 years and then sell so I could buy something else. Those properties were all bought by FTBs or second steppers. Back then the tax system made that sort of thing possible but now with the extra 3% SDLT and no relief on CGT it simply isn't viable to take that middle road. It's either buy to flip immediately or buy to let long term.

From: Jo Westlake 22 March 2023 07:56 AM

Supply and demand.

From: Jo Westlake 22 March 2023 07:30 AM

Ellie - what I am proposing is they get the 2 months refunded along with their deposit within 10 days of vacating the property. I imagine Local Authorities would come up with short term funding to bridge the few weeks between paying a new deposit and holding fee and receiving the money from the previous landlord. It would certainly be cheaper for LAs than the current way. If they've breached the tenancy agreement or not paid the last 2 months rent they would be evicted under Section 8 with no compensation due. From a landlords perspective Section 8 is stressful, long-winded and even if the Court awards a repayment order what is the likelihood of the landlord getting the money? So essentially it usually costs to get rid of a bad tenant. Overall it would give tenants more incentive to comply with the tenancy agreement and prioritise paying their rent on time while at the same time meaning genuinely blameless tenants don't suddenly find themselves having to find a big lump of money for an unwanted, expected move. Obviously most tenancies would still end of their own accord anyway. No tenant is going to stay in a property for maybe 20 years just waiting for the day the landlord wants to sell up and retire.

From: Jo Westlake 20 March 2023 12:07 PM

In the 25+ years I've been a landlord I've never needed to evict anyone. It's nice to know I could but I never actually have. I have handed out a few Section 21 notices mainly as warning shots. They are incredibly useful in helping to get other creditors to back off so someone can get their finances back on track and actually retain their home. My main concern is that Section 8 isn't fully fit for purpose. As others have said the evidence required is often hard to obtain, especially where ASB is concerned. Fear of reprisals makes it almost impossible to get statements from neighbours who are being terrorised. I know some of you don't like the idea of my suggestion but I would favour beefing up Section 8 so it properly encompasses all at fault tenants and retaining Section 21 with the requirement that blameless, fully complying tenants get two months rent as compensation for being evicted. Why should a good tenant be out of pocket because we have suddenly decided to have a change of direction? Wouldn't such a system prove just how rarely perfect tenants get evicted?

From: Jo Westlake 20 March 2023 08:44 AM

Wasn't it Lettings Agents who were especially keen on issuing Section 21s before the tenant fees ban? All those lovely fees from both tenants and landlords were a pretty powerful incentive for the Agent to create as much churn as possible. I don't think landlords have ever randomly evicted good tenants for no reason.

From: Jo Westlake 20 March 2023 08:24 AM

If you give a house away you have to pay CGT and live 7 years for the gift to be outside IHT. If you remortgage the house and give the money away you have to live 7 years for it to be outside IHT. If you buy jointly with children or grandchildren you stuff up any FTB freebies and make them liable to pay the extra 3% SDLT should they go on to buy their own home. If you incorporate you can more easily distribute shares in the company and pay yourself a salary, which can then go into a SIPP, which is outside your estate and can go towards any IHT payment when the time comes. If you put it in trust there are charges. So there are lots of options with various costs and implications. It's all just ridiculously complicated and feels like legalised theft. We've worked hard for what we have and have often taken risks and foregone the instant gratification so many other people have had. We have also been denied the opportunity to pay profits into a SIPP and enjoy the tax relief EVERYONE else has unless we are incorporated.

From: Jo Westlake 19 March 2023 14:04 PM

Simon - that's quite a negative outlook. We have had boom and bust before. We've had negative equity, sky high interest rates, mass unemployment, etc. The housing market has always recovered after a few years. This time may be slightly different as far more people have wealth that needs to be protected from IHT. I can see a lot more grandchildren being the beneficiaries of financial assistance at an earlier age.

From: Jo Westlake 18 March 2023 16:27 PM

It's certainly going to take time for house prices, mortgages, wages and rents to regain any degree of alignment.

From: Jo Westlake 18 March 2023 10:44 AM

These comparisons are always nonsense because they don't take into account the buying and selling costs most people experience. Very few people buy a forever home as their first purchase. I'm in my 7th home as an owner occupier. I thought my previous one was my forever home but then the Council decided it was an Article 4 area so we bailed before we became trapped in a massively devalued, almost impossible to sell house in student heartland. That move cost £25000 in estate agent fees, SDLT, mortgage arrangement fees, conveyancing fees and removal fees. That was 12 years ago so that £25K needs to be spread over the ownership costs somehow.

From: Jo Westlake 18 March 2023 10:39 AM

The beer index is an interesting way to calculate. Back in the 1990s I was working in a nightclub and beer was about £3 a pint. My wages were £3.25 an hour. Now beer is about £5 or £6 a pint and minimum wage is nearly £10 an hour.

From: Jo Westlake 17 March 2023 11:11 AM

Long term you're right but it takes decades to get planning permission and funding. The government picked a timeframe that is unlikely to be achievable if they rely on nuclear.

From: Jo Westlake 17 March 2023 08:59 AM

Interest rates at 4% or 5% may have been normal many years ago but house prices were much lower then so monthly mortgage payments were far more affordable. Ultimately the only thing that matters is the monthly payment. People have paid whatever they have paid for their house because mortgage lenders have decided they can afford the monthly payments (and even if they suddenly can't the deposit was big enough to remove any risk of the lender making a loss). Most people are on 2 or 5 year mortgage fixes so the impact of 10 interest rate rises hasn't really been felt yet by existing home owners. Two of my mortgages come off their current fix next month and the monthly payments will more than double on the new fix or treble if I drift onto the SVR. How many homeowners could cope if their mortgage payments increased by over £500 a month? Most who have bought using the HTB scheme would be unlikely to be able to sell for enough to clear the debt so will be trapped in their current home with their current lender (if they are one of the ones that do no questions asked product switches) if they can afford the increased payments. If not they'll be homeless with no savings, a debt to clear and a destroyed credit rating. All because they were naive enough to believe that homeownership was the best thing they could do and renting was "Dead money".

From: Jo Westlake 17 March 2023 08:52 AM

Removing VAT helps to a limited degree. If the government was serious about Net Zero they would make energy saving home improvements tax deductible for both owner occupiers and landlords. It would be far easier to administer than any of the green schemes they have previously attempted and no more open to fraudulent activity than anything else. It may mean the perception is that it helps higher rate tax payers more than benefit claimants but does that matter if the objective is to help towards achieving Net Zero? I'm not remotely into the whole Net Zero thing from a saving the planet point of view. The UK is a tiny part of the planet. However, I will engage with stuff that is financially beneficial to me. I've driven a Prius for over 16 years. I've had solar panels for 12 years. My husband drives an EV. We have smart heating controls in multiple houses. We're gradually replacing old tumble driers with heat pump ones. All of those things have made sense financially over a period of time. But it has been a risk. It's also been expensive up front. There are much cheaper cars, heating controls and tumble driers using conventional technology. Countless people told me the Prius battery would be an expensive nightmare and I was mad to buy one. I've actually had 2, both of which we used as taxis. One of my tenants bought the original one off me and it's now 19 years old with well over 300000 miles on the clock. Countless people told me solar panels wouldn't work in the UK. They've actually been one of the best investments I've ever made. The new ones I've had installed this year don't make sense financially on paper and one system is predicted to take over 25 years to pay back. However, the panels on the adjoining house have significantly out performed whatever they were supposed to do so I'm confident the new ones will as well. But that's me taking the risk. If they were tax deductible the government would be sharing that risk.

From: Jo Westlake 17 March 2023 08:25 AM

Tricia - solar payback is a really difficult concept to calculate. The system I finally had installed yesterday reckons an 11 year payback but those figures were quoted before the Octopus Flux tariff was invented. The one I had installed in January reckons a 25+ year payback but didn't take into account the type of electric meter. The ones I had installed 12 years ago all paid for themselves within about 6 or 7 years and now generate a nice tax free FIT payment every quarter. But FIT payments are no longer available on new installations. It is all totally dependent on so many variables. Size of array, orientation, battery or hot water diverter, users engagement with the system, import/export tariff all have an impact. For a landlord needing a quick easy points boost for their EPC a basic system is relatively cheap to install whether it's ever going to pay for itself or not. Let's face it spending £10K on external wall insulation isn't going to pay for itself. Spending £6K on solar panels probably will and they are also going to boost the value of the house more than insulation will.

From: Jo Westlake 16 March 2023 13:59 PM

Christopher Rent controls tend to mean restricted increases for existing tenants. That's actually better (for us) than the no increase policy a lot of us have had for existing tenants. Obviously not so good for the tenants. Right to Buy would be problematic. Most tenants aren't ready to buy or wouldn't want to buy the well located but ugly flat they're renting or be able to get a mortgage for the HMO they're living in. At the last election the Labour policy on CGT was far superior to the Conservative one. They were proposing to introduce indexation relief and then tax any additional gain at your marginal rate. For those of us who have owned long-term in the South that is far more palatable. For example 40% of a £50K gain after indexation is somewhat better than 28% of an unadjusted £400K gain.

From: Jo Westlake 16 March 2023 11:21 AM

It goes against the grain but for me the Golden Age of BTL was under a Labour government. I firmly believed things would only get better when the Conservatives won in 2015 and went straight out and bought 2 more HMOs. I even bought one jointly with one of my sons as he wants to take over the business one day. That then had the effect of losing him any FTB perks and meant he had to pay an extra 3% SDLT when he wanted to buy his own home. I just can't believe how badly treated landlords and tenants have been by this government. Most landlords are the epitome of what a true Tory should be - hardworking, self supporting, financially disciplined, achiever. Some of us have a social conscience and do our bit to put back into society. I just feel totally shafted by current policies and so sorry for tenants being caught up in this fiasco.

From: Jo Westlake 16 March 2023 10:33 AM

Depends what your objective is. If it's just to get EPC C you do the absolute minimum in the cheapest way possible. Normally that would be light bulbs, hot water cylinder jacket and loft insulation. If you need to do more to get to C it starts to get expensive and potentially destructive if floor or internal wall insulation is suggested. A new boiler, roof insulation or solar panels would be the least disruptive to install. If it's to lower your bills the most you may prioritise different things. Heating programmers and low energy kitchen appliances make a big difference.

From: Jo Westlake 16 March 2023 09:12 AM

Michael - I think you will find tenants must be able to increase or lower the temperature if they want to. These systems allow them to boost or lower the temperature for one or two hours and then it reverts to its program. They can boost it as many times a day as they want. Remember it takes hours for a house to cool down. They have been specifically designed for the HMO bills inclusive market and are fully legally compliant. The really nice thing is that I have an app on my phone that has a very good graph showing exactly what temperature the house is at for a 24 hour period (longer periods are possible but a bit too squished to see on a phone). It also shows when the boiler has been running and if the tenants have boosted the heating. So far mine have boosted it twice since September. Their feedback is very positive. The temperature in the house is always comfortable and I was able to spot a potential problem in the cold weather before the tenants had reported it.

From: Jo Westlake 16 March 2023 09:02 AM

I think things are changing. In the last few weeks I've had 4 HMO tenants give notice because they have decided to rent or buy jointly with their boyfriend/girlfriend. That's more than I get most years for that reason and it's still only March. The enquiries for the available rooms are a steady trickle not a flood. The people who are viewing are looking at several rooms, which means availability must be better than its been for a while. Is that because people aren't even attempting to move because of all the media horror stories about all night queuing or 90 people after one flat?

From: Jo Westlake 16 March 2023 08:47 AM

It was a very disappointing budget for both landlords and tenants. At least UC tenants have the option of applying for a Discretionary Housing Payment to help with any rent increase. Does the government really want to turn hardworking, low paid essential workers into beggars? As a landlord who until last October had almost never increased rents for existing tenants I currently have the attitude that as Social Rents are going up 7% my rents are going up by at least 7%. The LHA level ones that I haven't increased for 3 years are going up a bit more but will still be no more than the cheapest comparable property currently available on Rightmove. Increasing rents will almost certainly put my taxable turnover into the 60% tax band so the government will be taking 60% of any extra rent the tenants are paying. Mortgage payments are due to rise significantly this year so I'm still going to need to fund some of that from somewhere (probably the maintenance budget). Spending less on tax deductible maintenance will make even more turnover taxable at 60%. If I was being sensible I would sell a couple of houses but I really don't like the idea of making good tenants homeless. Hopefully I can hang on to all my properties until the next election and Labour will be a bit more tenant friendly and have policies that will enable landlords to continue being landlords.

From: Jo Westlake 16 March 2023 08:34 AM

My plan is to remain as a landlord so I have to engage with the whole energy efficiency thing. It depends on the property, it's condition at the point of purchase and if I intend to let it as a bills inclusive HMO or standard rental. Double glazing is expected. I wouldn't buy a property that couldn't have DG. Other than that it depends on what the EPC is and who is paying the bills. My bills exclusive properties will be improved as necessary repairs occur or improvement grants are available. Several have had loft insulation when grants have been available to partially fund it. Flat roofs have been insulated when roof felt has needed to be replaced. If any boilers die the replacement one will be an energy efficient one. If the EPC is borderline I might take a box of lightbulbs just in case but generally regard lightbulbs as being a consumable that the tenant deals with. For bills inclusive HMOs I'm far more inclined to do more. Heating programmers are top of my list. It used to be the type with 6 different time and temperature settings, then I dabbled with Hive smart heating controls and have now discovered the Inspire Home Automation ones specifically designed for bills inclusive HMOs. Then it would be low energy bulbs and heat pump tumble driers. Solar panels on any with vaguely suitable roofs. Solar panels are brilliant but right now the tax treatment is totally wrong. The Feed in Tariff no longer exists, they're regarded as a capital improvement and whereas imported electricity is a fully tax deductable expense in an HMO self generated electricity does nothing for your tax bill. I'm fairly convinced the new solar systems will pay for themselves for domestic homeowners but it's far more questionable for landlords. It may work out because of the new time of use import/export tariffs but there's no readily available published information to support that theory.

From: Jo Westlake 16 March 2023 08:08 AM

Michael - I'm not suggesting we should get all the perks someone with a limited company gets (highly tax efficient EV, trivial benefits and dividends), just the same treatment as any other unincorporated business (tax on profit, not turnover and for a our earnings to be classed as earned, not investment so we can contribute to a SIPP).

From: Jo Westlake 15 March 2023 20:42 PM

Robert - I fully agree far more use should be made of prepayment meters, especially now they won't be charged at a higher rate. They can be topped up remotely these days so it's no longer a question of trying to find a corner shop to top up the key. I've got a couple of tenants who have chosen to have prepayment meters because that's just how they prefer to budget. They're terrified of running up debts and prefer to make conscious decisions regarding heating instead of freezing and worrying about a future bill.

From: Jo Westlake 15 March 2023 17:48 PM

Edwin - please explain exactly how smart meters save energy. I have a smart meter because I have an EV and I wanted to have the Octopus Go tariff. I choose what time to use some energy so I pay less for those units but paying less per kWh isn't the same as using less. I am on the waiting list for the Octopus Flux tariff for another house that has solar panels and a battery. I will be able to import cheap nighttime electric and then sell back during the peak rate 3 hours. That is my choice and will hopefully be financially beneficial but it doesn't alter the amount of electricity used by the household. The existence of solar panels will cut the amount of electricity that is provided by the National Grid but that is the solar panels reducing demand, not the smart meter. I can fully see that insulation, LED bulbs, double glazing, solar panels, low energy appliances all reduce energy consumption, but I just can't see how something with the sole function of measuring energy consumption actually saves energy.

From: Jo Westlake 15 March 2023 14:40 PM

Trying to get older workers back to work is problematic for various reasons: Pension issues, overly high tax rates and lack of need to work for the highly skilled, highly qualified early retirees. Health issues, caring commitments and lack of employer engagement for the lesser skilled over 50s who are currently looking for suitable part time jobs to fit around whatever else their life consists of. For the younger "workshy" element it's more tricky for employers. How many long term unemployed are actually employable? How many have drug or alcohol issues that would be a nightmare for any employer. How many are unemployed because they live in areas where there simply are no jobs? It would take huge resources to make them work ready and even then the likelihood is that employers would be resistant. For all of the above employers need to be onboard with whatever the government is attempting. They need to offer a variety of contracts, not just full time and they need to understand people work for different reasons and for some work isn't their number one priority. The easiest way to get more productivity would be to raise the tax thresholds and remove the cliff edges. How many construction workers, lorry drivers, etc stop working just below £50K so they don't loose their Child Benefit? How many professionals stop just before £100K so they don't loose personal allowance and pay 60% tax? Surely incentivising those who are already skilled and productive to work to their full capacity would be far more realistic than tinkering around the edges. 40% tax should be more than enough to take from anyone's earnings.

From: Jo Westlake 15 March 2023 12:44 PM

I'm surprised better heating programmers and thermostats aren't on the list. Either the app controlled smart ones like Hive or Nest or the programmable ones with six different time and temperature settings a day. Either can make sizeable savings on energy bills while keeping the house within a 5 degree variance in temperature, which will help prevent condensation and mould. Why are smart meters on the list? They only measure the amount of energy a householder is using and do nothing to reduce consumption.

From: Jo Westlake 15 March 2023 12:25 PM

The simplest solution would be for the government to class BTL as a business 100% of the time (not just when it suits them) and tax us in the same way as EVERY other business. Telling us it's unearned income shows just how out of touch the government is. Why is it work if a painter and decorator paints a room but for a landlord it's a hobby? Why is it work when a letting agent conducts a viewing but for a landlord is a hobby? Why is it extremely tax friendly to invest in other businesses via SIPPS or ISAs but very harshly taxed if we invest in our own business? Housing is essential. Not everyone is ready to buy for numerous reasons. Lack of job security, lack of deposit, lack of desire for all the maintenance responsibility that goes with being a homeowner, etc. Social housing only suits some people. So that leaves millions of people with the PRS as the most attractive option. The government needs to understand there are 3 distinct housing tenures and all of them will suit a different section of the population at any given time. Stop demonizing and persecuting PRS landlords.

From: Jo Westlake 15 March 2023 08:51 AM

Apart from students all of mine roll onto SPTs so no need for any contact at the end of the initial fixed term. When it's eventually time for a rent increase I either go and talk to them or send an email along with a Section 13 notice explaining why an increase is necessary. The Section 13 fully explains what their options and rights are.

From: Jo Westlake 13 March 2023 18:56 PM

In the early days in the late 1990s/early 2000s I had commercial loans from Lloyds. They were doing a cheaper rate if I bought more than one so I went shopping. Just about all of my earlier purchases were seriously run down, so there were lots of opportunities to add value and release equity. Then we went through the self cert with a 25% deposit phase, which was pretty safe lending. Then the lenders got greedy and were just handing out mortgages with no deposit. I didn't buy any on that basis as it seemed too good to be true, but I did buy one that someone else had bulk bought on that basis (7 houses in a row) as a repossession in 2009. Right now Section 24 is the biggest concern. I've got 5 mortgages coming to an end this year. Fortunately 4 of them will have product switches available and the LTV and rental income is more than sufficient to clear lending criteria for the currently available products from other lenders but the payments are going to be painful. Rent increases only partially help as they will push me into the 60% tax band. The mortgage product fees are staggering. Product switches at around 3% fee but some remortgages have 7% product fees. So the aim is to consolidate the borrowing on as few houses as possible. Ones I'm never going to sell because the CGT is way too high. That will allow me to sell two or three of the unencumbered ones if things get any worse without having to worry about early redemption penalties. Such a shame for the people who may have to be evicted purely because of Section 24.

From: Jo Westlake 13 March 2023 16:14 PM

Unless you have cash and it's a very distressed sale now is not the time to buy. There are too many variables right now with the Rental Reforms White paper, the potential double Council Tax on second homes, uncertainty on demand for UK holiday accomodation. Buying with a mortgage is really questionable right now as house prices and mortgage payments are totally out of alignment.

From: Jo Westlake 11 March 2023 11:04 AM

How does most of this work for portfolio landlords? We can't pay rental income into a SIPP apart from about £2880. We can't sell nice CGT friendly slices of houses. We're catapulted into a higher tax band than we should be in due to being taxed on turnover not profit. Due to that any landlords with children lose their Child Benefit. Other landlords pay 60% tax on a genuine profit of little over £50000. How exactly are we supposed to do any of these tax efficient things when the government and mortgage lenders are taking such a huge chunk of our fictitious profit?

From: Jo Westlake 11 March 2023 10:53 AM

Andrew - interesting that you describe them as no hopers. A couple of years ago I let a flat to a young professional couple who had failed referencing for £795 a month rent due to the 'wrong' type of job contract. 10 months later they were approved for a mortgage for a £325000 brand new house.

From: Jo Westlake 10 March 2023 13:45 PM

It could be because some prospective tenants know they won't pass letting agents referencing criteria so they don't bother going to an agent. About 20% of my tenants have failed standard referencing so wouldn't have been able to get a property via a letting agent.

From: Jo Westlake 10 March 2023 10:03 AM

With the BoE still talking about interest rate rises it's unlikely many people will want or be able to get a mortgage for anywhere close to the amount they need. Basic lending criteria means either huge pay rises or huge price drops would be needed. Most homeowners can't move if they can't sell their current home for enough to clear the mortgage and pay the fees so we will have a few years of people being trapped in their current home. After Sunak artificially overheated the market with all his Stamp Duty holidays it was inevitable it would grind to a halt at some point. Maybe he was too inexperienced and divorced from reality to understand what would happen when interest rates rose? I guess it doesn't have much impact personally when your wife is a billionaire. So with the owner occupier market at a standstill the only way to rapidly improve people's housing options is to boost the rental availability. As building sites are on a slow down and planning permission takes years for Build to Rent, that means ending the war against the PRS. A good starting point would be to scrap Section 24 and refund all the extra tax we have paid since it was introduced. Give us a 50 year guarantee that we won't be taxed differently to other industries again. That tax refund (of money we should never have paid) would give us various options. Some would use it to buy more houses, others would use it to improve the EPC scores of what they were planning to sell. Others may go on a cruise or buy a sports car. Next would be to introduce zero CGT after so many years of ownership. In France it's 22 years for most of it and 30 years for the social charges element. In Germany I believe it's 10 years. Actually give us a reason to remain as landlords and a clear exit route to encourage new landlords into the industry. It wouldn't cause a mass stampede but would allow us to gradually ease into retirement if we want. It would certainly incentivise some to hang on in the industry for a few more years. It wouldn't even cost the government much because with CGT at 28% we simply aren't going to sell. 28% of nothing is zero. If we sold they would get the SDLT from the purchaser and VAT on the conveyancing. Class BTL as a business not unearned investment. One rental property may be accidental but when someone has 3 or more it is most definitely a business. Allow us to pay some of our earnings into a SIPP and enjoy the tax relief EVERYONE else can receive. LHA isn't fit for purpose and needs to reflect local rents. The BRMAs are too big so don't produce figures that reflect rents in areas of good employment availability. Here the choice is live somewhere close to work and pay £250 a month over LHA in rent or live nearly 30 miles from work, spend £100 a month more than LHA on rent and £100 on travel to work costs plus extra childcare. Or just be unemployed and hope to get endless Discretionary Housing Payments to pay the shortfall. The extra 3% SDLT could also be scrapped or at least refunded after maybe 5 years if the property is being used as a BTL. Then we need certainly in other areas such as EPCs, Section 21 and the whole Rental Reforms White paper. It's impossible to make rational business decisions while in limbo.

From: Jo Westlake 10 March 2023 09:44 AM

While zero rate VAT sounds good in theory the likelihood is suppliers and installers would just use it as an excuse to increase their prices, so there would be no saving for the consumer. Some of it is already zero rate anyway. Making energy improvement work fully tax deductable would be of far greater benefit, especially as landlords pay far more tax than anyone else due to Section 24. I would further suggest that any energy improvements we have paid for in the last 3 years should be allowed to be retrospectively allowed full tax relief. It would very cheaply provide a huge amount of data relating to how much impact targeted tax reliefs have. A true before and after picture.

From: Jo Westlake 10 March 2023 08:19 AM

I did it for years both as a host for language students or as standard lodgings. It was OK most of the time, really enjoyable some of the time and only once did I need to physically eject one for theft. When I bought my second home to live in the previous owner asked if I wanted to keep some of her lodgers. She described them as "lovely young men". They were actually young offenders placed there by the Probation Service. Predominantly they were lovely, except once when I served lasagne for dinner (foreign muck). That incident required the police to attend. So only 2 unpleasant incidents over a several year period. Back then I needed the income and lived in a more suitable location. I would still be doing the language student side of it now if the Council hadn't introduced Article 4 restrictions, which pushed me to move house before I got trapped.

From: Jo Westlake 09 March 2023 14:24 PM

Robert Very good point. Back in the 1950s my mother was a midwife and used to work a lot on one of the big Council estates. She often talked about families with 13 or 14 children. Those houses have only ever had 2 or 3 bedrooms. These days they are deemed to be overcrowded if more than 4 or 6 people live in them.

From: Jo Westlake 09 March 2023 10:50 AM

When I bought my first proper BTL in 1998 I was a single parent with a part time day job 3.5 days a week in the railway ticket office and full time night job as a self employed taxi driver 6 nights a week. I worked about 84 hours a week and had one day off a fortnight. Between 1993 and 1997 I'd been on Income Support. That was the really magical thing about this country. It was possible to go from claimant to self supporting business person in a very short space of time. Self cert and interest only mortgages helped speed things up. Maybe the system was less obsessed with helping FTBs and just let the market take care of itself? Back then hard work and taking risks could really pay off. Not sure the same is true today in this era of excessively high taxation and nanny state regulations.

From: Jo Westlake 09 March 2023 09:30 AM

Goody, a new game. Can we play who's got the best EPC on their own personal residence? Mine's A93

From: Jo Westlake 09 March 2023 08:36 AM

The article doesn't indicate how often these resident hosts made their spare rooms available or if they were referring to turnover or profit. If a room costs £55 a night the profit will be somewhere around £25 by the time you've factored in the extra laundry, heating, water, insurance, platform fees, the odd breakage or thing going missing, etc.

From: Jo Westlake 09 March 2023 08:21 AM

“The solution to this crisis is simple and it’s staring the government in the face: we must build a new generation of good quality social housing that people can actually afford to live in.” Alternatively: The solution to this crisis is simple and it’s staring the government in the face: we must stop over taxing PRS landlords and start treating them in the same way as every other business in the UK, so they can continue to provide the affordable, flexible housing options that people have enjoyed for the last 3 decades. Social housing is theoretically OK apart from the fact no one wants to live next door to it and the ludicrously low rents make maintenance problematic for cash strapped Social landlords. The Right to Buy was invented because Local Authorities were virtually bankrupt in the 1980s and couldn't afford to maintain a crumbling housing stock. I was a Council tenant in the 1980s and the housing wasn't great. Difficult to heat first floor flat, unfinished (no ground floor heating or garden fencing because they ran out of money) new build and dry rot riddled older house. I currently own 2 ex Council flats and trying to get the Council to deal with exterior maintenance is a constant battle. Simple, basic stuff can take years. I've been reporting water ingress for over 2 years, their surveyor has been out twice and agreed what needs to be done and yet it still hasn't been actioned. Is this really what IKEA wants for it's customers?

From: Jo Westlake 09 March 2023 08:06 AM

Robert The beauty of solar panels used to be the Feed in Tariff. The fact it benefitted tenants was just the icing on the cake. The main point was that the owner of the panels was paid for every kWh the panels produced regardless of if it was used by the tenant or exported. That scheme ended in 2019 for new installations and now there is only an export tariff for any surplus generation exported to the grid. Things may be looking up when the new Octopus Flux tariff comes on stream for anyone with batteries. The other time solar panels may be a no brainer is if you need a quick easy extra 10 points on your EPC. They cost a fraction of external insulation and installation only takes a day.

From: Jo Westlake 08 March 2023 18:10 PM

It's when we get to the improving EPC score stuff it's really frustrating. Things like internal or external insulation is incredibly expensive and classed as a capital improvement. Solid floor insulation is expensive, has minimal impact on heating bills and would require evicting tenants. So hugely expensive, impractical and no tax break. Solar panels or heat pumps are capital improvements. But they are also depreciating items. The thing that really bugs me is that if commercial buildings installed solar panels this year they were treated as a super deduction at 130% and they could sell the electricity to their tenants. As PRS landlords we get nothing. Of all the EPC improvements solar panels are the one tenants really like. They can be installed in a day and tangibly cuts the tenants electric bill. Saying we can offset these costs against CGT is nonsense. None of us know what future politicians will do to CGT allowances and some of us will die before we sell.

From: Jo Westlake 08 March 2023 14:48 PM

Just curious. How are your 6 month winter ASTs going to work if the Rental Reforms indefinite tenancies come in? Would you leave them empty during the winter, aim for a few short winter breaks, revert to traditional BTL or decide it's all ridiculous and sell up? Presumably your winter lets are mainly occupied by transient workers who have summer gigs elsewhere or people undertaking major renovations to their main home. As a matter of interest who else is a safe bet for a winter let? Do you ever have people 'misunderstanding' the concept of a fixed 6 month tenancy?

From: Jo Westlake 08 March 2023 14:33 PM

Hi Paul Absolutely agree it is totally due to government policy and general lack of joined up thinking. Trying to piece together various sound bites and coming up with a barking mad overall policy. No conception of unintended consequences when they embark on their assorted attacks on landlords (and tenants). Wouldn't it be marvelous if some real 'Levelling up' was put into action and traditional BTL landlords were taxed in the same way as holiday lets?

From: Jo Westlake 08 March 2023 11:19 AM

B&B in the hosts own full time home and holiday lets in an extra property are two entirely different things (even if they are both Airbnb). For a start in their own home they would get the Rent a Room tax allowance. Some extra properties are clearly holiday homes on holiday parks and often have rules about not being allowed to be occupied as a permanent home. It's the others that are contentious, especially if they are located in residential areas and historically have been occupied as full time homes. Haven't there been articles recently about how some of those pay much lower business rates instead of Council Tax? Aren't there constantly reports about how they charge more for a week than a standard BTL would be for a month? I seem to remember Section 24 doesn't apply to holiday lets.

From: Jo Westlake 08 March 2023 10:33 AM

Tax relief in the year of installation would be extremely helpful. If the government want net zero at some point they need to have a bit more joined up thinking. Straightforward tax relief would be far cheaper and easier to administer than most of the green grant schemes they've ever invented. From a net zero point of view does it matter who has this stuff? Rich, poor, tenant, homeowner?

From: Jo Westlake 08 March 2023 10:11 AM

Even a reduced level of debt is going to be far more expensive to service. The fixes I have ending this year range from 1.99% to 3.55%. Current offerings for those properties for a portfolio landlord in my tax band are mainly around 5% with a 3% product fee added to the loan. Even if I try to reduce the amount I owe that 3% product fee soon ramps it up again.

From: Jo Westlake 07 March 2023 09:50 AM

Michael - that is exactly the issue for those of us who bought 20+ years ago in the South. When we bought indexation or taper relief existed. We were advised by accountants that buying as a limited company was a bad idea. Higher fees and less finance options, not viable for small portfolios, etc. How many of us knew how many houses we would eventually own when we started out? Now if we sell a house the CGT bill is often over £100K per property. But that's mainly due to inflation not improvements. Restoring indexation relief and taxing us at our marginal rate on any genuine uplift in value would be more palatable. In other countries CGT is zero after a certain number of years. Without a fair CGT treatment it's hard to see why new landlords would buy with the intention of long term ownership. Short term ownership is disastrous for tenants. So as you say, we are being held to ransom. With hindsight maybe we should have ignored professional advice and set up limited companies decades ago but no one could foresee that the government would forget why BTL was born and try to destroy it.

From: Jo Westlake 07 March 2023 09:39 AM

Wow! Rude even by your standards. It's usually much later in the day before your self control slips to that degree. I take it you're jealous that a mere woman has been somewhat more successful in life than you.

From: Jo Westlake 06 March 2023 14:24 PM

Edwin I love basket case properties (repossessions, ex-squats, probate sales, short leases, renovation projects, etc, which means I sometimes have to pay cash or deal with niche lenders at least until the property has been brought up to mainstream criteria. The end of fix options aren't always made clear by lenders. Some are very transparent about it and have excellent information readily available online. TMW and Paragon for example. Others have follow on products but don't have easily accessible information available. Then there are others that don't have anything. Brokers have a tendancy to be more interested in commission today rather than the position they leave the client in in a few years time. Like several others on here I have close to 20 properties. However, I'm at least a decade younger than some and have only been a landlord consistently since 1998.

From: Jo Westlake 06 March 2023 11:02 AM

What did I say the other day about betting on how many times this would be copied and pasted in the next 6 months? My guess is 15

From: Jo Westlake 06 March 2023 08:51 AM

It's a situation any of us could have found ourselves in. Until you've had a mortgage with a lender who doesn't offer an end of fix product switch it's not a question you would necessarily think to ask. Brokers certainly don't fall over themselves to mention it when finding a mortgage. There are times, when for various reasons, a scenario doesn't fit lending criteria for the more mainstream lenders. Back in 2015 I bought one house with my husband, son and daughter-in-law and another one adjoining one I already owned. For years I had had most of my mortgages either on lifetime trackers or with TMW so there had never been an end of fix problem. Suddenly I was with Fleet mortgages, who had only been trading a few months, on a 3 year fix. When I asked about end of deal switches no one could give me an answer. Fleet were too new to have got to the end of any fixes at that stage and the general attitude was that they would have something in place when the time came. At the end of the fix they couldn't offer anything, so the choice was either pay it off or remortgage elsewhere. That was difficult enough back then with rising valuations. In today's market it is a major problem. It gets even worse when you're helpless to do anything until the end of the fix due to early redemption penalties.

From: Jo Westlake 06 March 2023 08:46 AM

My Local Authority knows who the good landlords are, they know which properties are likely to be compliant, they meet the good landlords at landlord meetings. Some of my properties have been licensed for 20 years, so I've now paid the license fee 4 times for the same houses. I did get a discount last time because I was accredited but it's still a very profitable exercise for the Council when dealing with long term compliant landlords. I have no idea how much it will cost next time as my accreditation has lapsed now the NRLA scheme has become so expensive.

From: Jo Westlake 04 March 2023 11:11 AM

I'm not going to be operating at a loss (yet) and I'm not a charity. Obviously the maintenance budget may take a hit if the government are taking so much in tax although there may be an argument to flex the credit card and replace a few kitchens sooner, as effectively the government will be paying 60%. I'm just totally bewildered why the government hate tenants so much. A great many landlords bought BTL as an alternative to a conventional pension. Self employed people often don't have an income pattern that lends itself to pension contributions. Why are we now being taxed out of existence when someone contributing to a SIPP is given huge tax incentives to do so? Why is investing in China or tobacco treated so much more favourably than providing people with stable long-term rental homes?

From: Jo Westlake 03 March 2023 11:02 AM

Leasehold properties are more difficult to maintain due to the existence of the freeholder and other leaseholders. There has to be proper process for exterior repairs. Multiple quotes need to be obtained, the freeholder has to agree the work is necessary, other leaseholders have to be notified and given the opportunity of obtaining more quotes. I've just been informed about water ingress in a chimney stack in a ground floor flat. A roofer reckons it's porous bricks and knackered pointing and as no one has an open fire removing the chimney would be the best solution. I'm just waiting for the written quote but from what he was saying it's going to be around £1500 to £2000. Then the freeholder will want us to pay a surveyor, get more quotes which will be much higher when the roofers realise they are dealing with a management company. Then there will be the management company override added on. So there won't be any change out of about £4000. At least one of the leaseholders can't afford to pay her share so the work will be delayed and all the while my tenant has a damp fireplace in his lounge.

From: Jo Westlake 03 March 2023 09:24 AM

I still like being a landlord. The idea of evicting anyone so I can sell horrifies me. I can handle EPC C (except on one property which was a G when I bought it and is now a D). I currently provide homes for 56 people. Some of them will buy eventually but right now renting is the best option for them. They're a mix of students, young professionals, young couples, low income families and nearly retired low income men. Some wouldn't dream of considering Social Housing, others have been turned down, one came to me via a Council scheme. Until last October I had almost never increased rents for existing tenants. Some had been paying the same for over 5 years. The utility price rise forced me to increase 12 people's rents by between £25 and £60 a month each. It didn't fully cover the increased costs but it helped. Current market rents for new tenants helped a bit more. This year 5 of my mortgages come off their current fix. In April a different 10 people have rent increases to go a small way towards the mortgage cost increases. This time mainly 7% increases, as even Social Rents are increasing by that much. Those rent increases are likely to push my taxable turnover into loss of personal allowance territory so the government will take 60% of it as tax. The mortgage company still want their increased payment and of course utility prices still haven't dropped. So in real terms because of Section 24 meaning we are taxed on turnover not profit, most of the extra rent tenants will be paying will go to the government as extra tax. My personal take home pay will drop. If I was being rational or sensible I should sell 2 or 3 properties, which would mean evicting 6 or 10 totally blameless tenants, but...... I still like being a landlord. The idea of evicting anyone so I can sell horrifies me. I just hope the government wake up and realise the harm Section 24 is doing to tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 03 March 2023 09:02 AM

Michael - assuming your tenants pay their own utility bills you won't get the savings back at all. They will be better off by £204 a year. Theoretically, if they understand how to operate their heating controls. You have paid for these improvements out of money you have already been taxed on. Floor and internal wall insulation have almost never attracted grant funding. If you sell before you die you may get a fractionally reduced CGT bill because Capital improvements can currently be taken into account. Do any of us trust the government where CGT is concerned? Of course the improvements may have added thousands to the value of your property simply by getting it to an EPC C. If you still own it when you die IHT will be due on the value of the property with no offset. Whichever way you look at it we're expected to pay for this stuff with no financial assistance or benefit to ourselves. HMRC are going to be the main beneficiary through a combination of VAT on purchase and installation costs, CGT on increased property values and IHT if the extortionate level of CGT puts you off selling.

From: Jo Westlake 02 March 2023 08:59 AM

I don't know the terms and conditions of the grant mentioned but when we had the one for our own home we had to prove ownership of an EV. In rental properties that would be a chicken and egg situation. Without a charger it would be unlikely your tenant would buy an EV. With a charger you would be more likely to attract tenants who already have or are actively planning to buy an EV. I've certainly had HMO tenants ask about it. In some cases their employers offer EVs as company vehicles. The difficulty in HMOs is apportioning the electric bill. It's possible with some of the best chargers but they cost somewhat more than the grant.

From: Jo Westlake 02 March 2023 08:37 AM

Should we be rejoicing that you have finally typed up something new or be offended at being described as irrational and ill informed? Maybe we should just bet on how many times you're going to copy and paste the same thing in the next 6 months?

From: Jo Westlake 02 March 2023 08:20 AM

Making any energy efficiency upgrades tax deductible in the year of installation would be a good start. Making them a super deduction may encourage us to really focus our attention. The current system of expecting us to pay for this stuff out of tax paid money and class it as a Capital improvement is crazy. Due to Section 24 some of us are paying 60% tax on money we don't have as we are actually paying that chunk of turnover as loan interest. If we sell before we die the amount spent on Capital improvements would slightly lower our CGT bill but if we die without selling it does nothing for the IHT bill. If a super deduction tax relief was back-dated and applied to all energy improvements we have made in the last 3 tax years it would be an excellent way to focus our minds and clearly indicate to the government how much or little we have already been doing.

From: Jo Westlake 02 March 2023 08:14 AM

Theoretically you're right as long as someone is in good health and has sufficient pension income to pay for repairs and maintenance. If they don't get scammed by a con artist and overcharged for mythical work that didn't need doing. If their health doesn't deteriorate to the point living in their long-term home is physically difficult. The process of packing up and selling at that point is simply too much for some people and as a consequence their quality of life is horrendous. I saw it many, many times when I was a taxi driver and it's incredibly sad to see people's much loved homes literally sucking the life out of them. While renting in the general PRS may have a small risk of eviction (especially when the government dream up yet more taxation or expensive regulation) is that risk present if renting dedicated retirement property?

From: Jo Westlake 01 March 2023 15:02 PM

If the Council are doing their job and inspecting the HMOs as part of what the license fee is supposed to pay for they already know exactly what state the HMOs are in. They know the good landlords and the ones who may need a bit more 'guidance'. The money may be better spent engaging with tenants and developing a guide on how to behave when living in a shared space. Things like cleaning, heating, ventilation, rubbish disposal, noise, reporting maintenance issues. HMOs vary hugely and it is largely down to the occupants as to whether they are good or bad. A couple of mine are lovely because that's how the tenants like to keep them. Another one is homely in a cluttered sort of way but is a very close-knit household with minimal movement so I'm not inclined to nag. Another one suffered badly when one occupant became depressed and just stopped doing anything. His housemates couldn't be bothered to help him, didn't see why they should do any cleaning or washing up if he wasn't going to and the general condition of the house spiralled. It's a fine line between effective management and overbearing rules. What works perfectly in one HMO won't work in another one purely because the tenants have different attitudes. Some are excellent at reporting maintenance issues, others aren't. How often do we turn up at a house and tenants say "While you're here, this broke a couple of weeks ago"? Why didn't they message us a couple of weeks ago and send a photo of what they're on about so we can turn up with appropriate tools or a replacement? We're not clairvoyant.

From: Jo Westlake 01 March 2023 11:05 AM

Andrew - I'm sure Poll Tax was perfectly fair for anyone living in a house on their own or with just one other adult. For those of us who were living in a small 4 bedroom terrace as a household of 6 adults (me, my boyfriend, my sister, her boyfriend, my au pair and her boyfriend) plus 3 children Poll Tax was extortionate.

From: Jo Westlake 01 March 2023 09:37 AM

Robert - just curious. Would you be cavorting with loose women after drinking 15 pints of beer?

From: Jo Westlake 01 March 2023 09:30 AM

The empty for refurbishment exemption can be very frustrating. I can't remember if it's 3 or 6 months or if it's supposed to be free or half price. Anyway there's usually some reason why you can't claim it. The last one I bought was newly converted but not quite finished enough to let. I couldn't get any discount on that one because the developer had fully claimed it. The one before that was during the pandemic so lockdowns caused delays and the discounted time period expired.

From: Jo Westlake 01 March 2023 09:25 AM

Why do these articles always seem to assume everyone has the same choices available, the same income, the same priorities, etc? Buying a home will be the best option for SOME people at some point in their lives. People with good incomes, secure jobs, who want to live in one place for a prolonged period. For everyone else renting is probably more suitable. Whether renting is a permanent thing largely depends on salary and job security. For the very significant percentage of the population who rely on UC top ups owning their own home would be a major financial problem as they wouldn't receive any help towards housing costs. Surely the standard route today is to rent while at university, rent while in first few years in career to allow mobility, meet partner and rent together, decide jobs and relationship are long term and buy a house big enough for weekend guests or a baby, upgrade to buy a bigger house, kids leave home, think about downsizing, realise all the fees wipe out too much of the money you were hoping to release, shuffle around big house as it deteriorates around you, rent a space in a care home.

From: Jo Westlake 01 March 2023 08:17 AM

Alternatively Council Tax could be charged on all residential properties. If a building can be lived in surely it should pay for services it is capable of receiving. The exemptions and discounts are often bizarre and financially hard to justify. Why are student houses exempt? Why does a multi millionaire get a discount just because they live alone? Why does a holiday let (which may charge more for a week than a traditional BTL would charge for a month) pay much lower business rates? Perhaps it would make more sense to charge full CT on everything and then have a CT Benefit that could be claimed in specific circumstances. For example a straight £500 a year Benefit that could be claimed by any household with an income below £25000, any UK student with a permanent residency right, any landlord or developer doing building work that requires the building to be vacant, etc.

From: Jo Westlake 01 March 2023 07:49 AM

Some of my tenants have signed it. Several have friends or colleagues who have been served with Section 21 notices and they're horrified when I've explained some of the reasons landlords are quitting.

From: Jo Westlake 27 February 2023 15:40 PM

Robert - what would be long term? I used to do Rent a Room in my own house for language students at the local language school. Some would stay for a week, others for 9 month. People's plans change. Something that starts as a week turns into a year. Equally on a standard 6 month AST tenants sometimes leave early for numerous reasons - a fantastic job offer in Amsterdam, making a very embarrassing unrequited drunken pass at a housemate, suddenly discovering you're 38 weeks pregnant have all been thrown at me in the first 6 months of standard BTL tenancies.

From: Jo Westlake 27 February 2023 10:57 AM

Robert - I get that and to a point agree with you. However, the real problem with making lodger income taxable is that people would have to do a tax return purely because they have a lodger. That would be too much worry and hassle for a great many people who have lodgers. I guess it comes down to a choice between getting every conceivable drop of tax out of people who are providing low cost accommodation by sharing their own private home with strangers or the tax payer funding even more emergency accomodation for all the extra homeless people who were no longer living as lodgers. I definitely agree short term holiday lets in properties that aren't your main residence should be fully taxed.

From: Jo Westlake 27 February 2023 10:43 AM

Without the exemption why would anyone have a lodger? The cost of having a lodger can be significant. Extra water, gas, electricity, loss of single occupier discount on Council Tax, cost of stuff they sometimes 'borrow', etc. There really isn't much profit in it.

From: Jo Westlake 27 February 2023 09:35 AM

There are so many anomalies in the HMRC use of words such as income or profit it's hardly surprising some landlords are confused. Different tax exemption levels for different types of letting is always going to result in grey areas. Letting a room in your own private residence is firmly Rent-a-room with £7500 tax free. It's always been very clear that figure is total rent received, not profit. Letting your second home for a few weeks in the summer is clearly holiday letting with the £1000 tax free exemption. I don't do that style of letting and have no idea if the £1000 is based on rent received or profit. Is it per owner or per property? Either way it's a bizarre figure to choose. Letting a property predominantly as a holiday let has a whole range of attractive tax benefits, such as being taxed on a traditional method of profit calculation and sometimes very low business rates instead of Council Tax. Letting a personally owned standard BTL is punitively taxed mainly on turnover with only minor expenses deducted and doesn't allow for finance costs. Then there's the crossover stuff. Is a self contained annexe with a locked door linking it your own home Rent a room or BTL or holiday let? What about a log cabin in your garden? What if you let a student BTL as a holiday let in August? What if you do a 6 month winter AST in a holiday let and the tenants refuse to leave? Wouldn't there be less room for error if it was just two options? Rent a Room for letting a room in the house you physically live in and tax on profit calculated in the traditional way (rent minus all expenses) for every other style of letting.

From: Jo Westlake 27 February 2023 09:29 AM

The article seems to be blaming empty homes and properties being snapped up by buy to let landlords. Are they confusing the two? Empty homes are either holiday rentals, which boost tourism for part of the year or second homes, which are often unused for the majority of the year. BTL aims to be occupied as someone's main residence at all times. Should people who choose to rent be seen as a problem? Should people who choose to buy BTLs (landlords) to enable people who choose to rent to have a home be seen as a problem? A functioning society needs a full range of housing options. The real problem is planning departments refusing to allow planning permission for sufficient housing and insisting on exterior design over interior functionality. Historically people have loved living in terraced houses. Why do planning departments insist on so many new builds being detached or semis? It's a staggeringly inefficient use of land and materials.

From: Jo Westlake 27 February 2023 08:38 AM

Councils do deal direct with landlords.

From: Jo Westlake 24 February 2023 21:26 PM

Edwin You clearly don't understand there are numerous different versions of Council schemes. I don't let the property to the Council, I let it to a tenant who came via a scheme set up by the Council. They match landlords with potentially suitable tenants. They do a full budget assessment of the tenant, make sure they're claiming any benefits they may be entitled to and either pay the deposit or provide a deposit bond if the tenant doesn't have the ability to fund it themselves. Then it's a standard landlord/tenant relationship with the added bonus that the Council will step in if there are any problems. My tenant occasionally needs budgeting advice but that's mainly because fortnightly pay is totally incompatible with UC.

From: Jo Westlake 24 February 2023 21:24 PM

I forgot to add that if we were taxed in the same way as EVERY other industry on those figures we would be basic rate tax payers and pay £5000 less tax. Younger landlords wouldn't lose their Child Benefit. If we were treated as a business we could pay into a SIPP and get the pension tax relief that EVERYONE ELSE can get. If we had chosen to invest our money in ISAs instead of deposits for housing our returns would be tax free. We are massively discriminated against in every aspect with the current tax situation.

From: Jo Westlake 24 February 2023 14:06 PM

It's terrifying numbers. I'm dreading my end of year figures this year. I'm actually somewhere between your illustration and mine but with about 45% borrowing. About half of my mortgages come off their current fix at some point in 2023, so mortgage payments will increase significantly. As far as I can work out it's physically impossible to increase rents enough to cover the extra mortgage payments because the government will take 60% of any rent increase before the extra mortgage costs are factored in.

From: Jo Westlake 24 February 2023 13:31 PM

Andrew - my experience has been that Councils are far more realistic these days. When I accepted the single dad 3 years ago I was concerned the rent was £40 a month more than his LHA entitlement. The Council attitude was it was the cheapest property available so it was the best they could do for him. One way or another it would be made to work. I don't know exactly how much of the shortfall they pay as I get my rent directly from the tenant. His circumstances have evolved during the 3 years. In more recent conversations with the Council they've asked if I've got anything else available. I've said nothing at anywhere close to LHA. At which point they said they had a stream of people approaching them who are fully self funding with no expectation of benefit level rent. They just want a long term home so their children can settle in school.

From: Jo Westlake 24 February 2023 11:52 AM

Also bigger developments often take 3 or 4 years to physically build. Logistics and health and safety dictate how many people and vehicles can be on site at any time.

From: Jo Westlake 24 February 2023 11:26 AM

Statistics can be spun any way that suits the narrative. While 70% of landlords may be basic rate tax payers what percentage of rental properties does that 70% own. How many higher or additional rate tax payers are only in those bands because of Section 24?

From: Jo Westlake 24 February 2023 10:47 AM

A landlord with a few properties may have a situation as follows: Total rent £100000 Letting fees, insurance, repairs, safety checks £25000 Taxable income £75000 Personal allowance at zero tax £12500 Next £37500 at 20% tax £7500 Other £25000 at 40% tax £10000 Mortgage payments of £35000 20% tax credit of £7000 Doesn't that mean they only have about £29500 take home? To have a portfolio of that size they will have put down sizeable amounts of their own tax paid money as deposits, which if invested elsewhere would attract a return.

From: Jo Westlake 24 February 2023 10:42 AM

The article doesn't mention the rent is restricted to LHA. There is certainly no expectation of PRS rents being that low in the areas I operate in.

From: Jo Westlake 24 February 2023 10:22 AM

I currently let one of my properties via a far less generous Council scheme and have found it to be a positive experience. I told the person running the scheme what I was hoping for (someone who wouldn't constantly whinge about lack of parking). They came up with a single dad who couldn't drive. He's been in nearly 3 years, the flat looks like a proper home, he reports any maintenance issues appropriately, gets on well with the neighbours, etc. I used another scheme longer ago and didn't have any problems with it. Councils are now dealing with a much wider range of homeless people. Often people with reasonable jobs who have been served with a Section 21 notice because their landlord has decided to sell. They tend to approach the Local Authority if they don't have enough in savings to cover a deposit or moving costs. Or their income is borderline on affordability referencing. They need a home quickly but don't quite fit a Lettings agent's criteria. Councils seem to understand rentals at the LHA rate simply don't exist in some areas, so have Discretionary Housing Payments or hardship funds to at least partially close the gap.

From: Jo Westlake 24 February 2023 09:12 AM

Who exactly is supposed to benefit from any of those proposals? The only one that would do any good for anyone is unfreezing the LHA. If JRF genuinely wanted to reduce homelessness they would be demanding lower taxes to increase supply. If we went back to the tax policies of the early 2000s (1% SDLT, standard definition of profit and taper relief on CGT) we would boost the overall supply of new builds. Whether those new builds are bought by owner occupiers or the PRS or as Social Housing is totally irrelevant as long as they will be occupied as full time homes. All 3 tenures are equally valid and necessary for a functioning society. If planning policy was changed and the CIL contribution reduced far more affordable housing could be built. Making an equivalent of LHA available to home owners would give lenders the confidence to lend to far more people. It would also lift huge numbers of children out of poverty. Right now a tenant with 2 children living in a 3 bedroom rental can earn over £50K and still have a small UC entitlement because they are entitled to LHA. A homeowner's UC entitlement would stop when their earnings reach about £32K because there is no help with housing costs.

From: Jo Westlake 24 February 2023 08:41 AM

Michael - that's the beauty of it. It doesn't matter where the landlord is located, the house is heated to a reasonable extent, never allowed to get too cold and the tenants still have some control. It's far better than systems where one tenant reprograms the controls to either far too cold or far too hot and everyone else in the house suffers. I've got mine set at 17.5 at night, 20 when they're likely to be getting out of bed, 18 or 19 during the day and 20 in the evening. Bare in mind it takes several hours for the temperature to drop to those minimum temperatures and very often sunshine or cooking will increase the temperature to above 20 even at this time of year. They've all got TRVs if they don't want their bedrooms to be heated. They can boost the temperature to 24 degrees as many times as they want. Both households that have that system are staying for another academic year and both groups have said the houses are always at a comfortable temperature. The tenants can ask me to adjust the timings or temperatures if they want and it just takes a few seconds to do. So far none of mine have asked for any changes but all are fully aware they can. I can be anywhere in the world and adjust their heating program in seconds. The added bonus is there's no mould as there's no condensation.

From: Jo Westlake 23 February 2023 11:17 AM

Michael - if the landlord is including heating in the rent why is it wrong for them to be able to control the heating from their phone? My favourite thermostat is the Inspire Home Automation one specifically designed for the bills inclusive HMO market. I set the programme from my phone or home computer. The tenants can boost it for an hour any time they want. So far since September they have boosted it twice. I can see on my phone exactly what temperature the house has been at for the last 24 hours and when the boiler has been running. It does show longer time periods but the graph gets a bit squished and difficult to read. I could identify there was a problem in the really cold weather last month and promptly went round to the house to check it out. I've got Hive in a few houses and while I like it in my own home have found tenants aren't always very good with it. I had issues with one person turning everything off from his phone while his partner was at home. He found it highly amusing, she really didn't.

From: Jo Westlake 23 February 2023 09:51 AM

The government needs to have a full scale public information session on the importance of ventilation, cleaning and appropriate use of heating. I was shocked to read somewhere that less than 2 million homes have smart heating thermostats such as Hive or Nest. No wonder tenants are too frightened to heat their homes in a way that minimises the risk of condensation if they don't have suitable heating controls.

From: Jo Westlake 23 February 2023 06:56 AM

If the tax system didn't actively penalise landlords offering long term homes fewer landlords would consider holiday lets. Scrap Section 24.

From: Jo Westlake 23 February 2023 06:43 AM

Heat pumps aren't going to be a good idea for landlords until the government have done some fairly major tweaks to several policies: 1 - Firstly the EPC problem needs to be addressed. Without a gas heating system millions of homes can't get to EPC C. Any that are currently EPC C are likely to drop to a D if their gas heating is replaced with any kind of electric system. 2 - The tax treatment needs to be amended. Right now replacing a gas boiler with a new gas boiler is a fully tax deductible replacement. Changing a gas boiler for a heat pump would almost certainly be counted as a Capital improvement, so not tax deductible. It may eventually be taken into account in the CGT calculation if we sell before we die. If the government don't change the CGT rules. That's all a bit too uncertain for my liking. If the government want us to install eco stuff at least make it tax deductible. Commercial landlords got a super deduction if they installed solar panels this year while residential landlords got nothing. 3 - There needs to be clear public information on how best to operate whatever heating system. Not hundreds of conflicting articles on whether it's best to switch it off when you're out, turn it on for brief periods morning and evening, run it constantly at 21, etc. Far too much advice seems to relate to old fashioned heating controls with very poor functionality. On, off and fiddle with a manual dial. In reality a decent heating programmer can make a huge difference to both comfort and utility bills. If the government really wanted people to cut gas consumption they would incentivize the installation of good thermostats and programmers. Something with a decent app showing exactly when the boiler has come on is incredibly helpful in understanding how often a boiler actually has to run to maintain a comfortable temperature. I can see on a very clear graph in the last 24 hours my Victorian terrace 4 bedroom student house with a low C has had the boiler cut in 7 times for a total of about 2 hours to maintain a comfortable temperature. My more modern 5 bedroom terrace cut in 6 times for a total of 1 hour 45 minutes. It's February and people are terrified of turning on their heating because they don't understand how to most effectively control it. One of my tenants keeps her heating thermostat programmer in her bedside drawer, has the heating turned on for 2 hours in the morning, 2 hours in the afternoon, says her gas bill is ridiculous and uses a convector heater in the evening to keep the gas bill under control. Where do you even begin when tenants think any of that is a good idea?

From: Jo Westlake 22 February 2023 09:27 AM

Either this article is complete nonsense or the Suffolk Building Society needs to update it's website. It clearly states: Landlords must have no more than three properties within the total portfolio, which includes any holiday let properties and not operate their properties as a company or business. It's also very, very restrictive on the types of properties: We won’t generally lend on new build flats, studio flats, basement flats, ex-local authority flats/maisonettes, flats above 5 storeys or flats above commercial property. We will not lend on houses in multiple occupancy (HMOs) which require licensing, or multi-lets, or student lets. So that's me excluded on nearly every aspect of their criteria!

From: Jo Westlake 21 February 2023 12:47 PM

Stricter licensing of Airbnbs sounds like a good idea. Tax incentives for landlords who provide long term homes sounds like a good idea. The state renting VACANT properties for a period of 5 years would suit some landlords.

From: Jo Westlake 20 February 2023 13:50 PM

Some of those figures are highly questionable. How many people have an uninsulated hot water tank these days? A £16 jacket to go on top of the factory installed insulation will do something but nowhere close to £300. LED bulbs are far cheaper than the figure quoted and pay for themselves very quickly. Solar panels are far better than the figures indicate. Without a battery we easily use 65% of our production and if they were new panels would get paid 15p per kWh for export. Our annual generation is about 3820kWh, so a saving of £844 on our electric bill plus £200 export payment. With a battery our consumption would be closer to 90%. Ground source heat pumps only suit certain types of buildings with excellent insulation. Smart thermostats are great if people engage with them and don't simply treat them as an on/off switch. The saving quoted is questionable as most people installing a smart thermostat would have already had a normal thermostat.

From: Jo Westlake 18 February 2023 14:35 PM

Back in 2011 it took 27 days from the estate agent listing the property to me completing on it. Probate sale, leasehold, with a mortgage, BTL. Same solicitor in 2019 (pre Covid excuses) 7 months from offer to completion. No chain, leasehold, cash purchase, BTL. Same solicitor 2022 8 months from offer to completion. FTB homeless and desperate to complete, next in chain desperate to complete, 3rd in chain organised and keen, 4th in chain complete dreamers who wasted everyone's time for 8 months as they had no money and no hope of getting any kind of mortgage. That's the kind of information that needs to be readily available and shared across the entire chain at the earliest opportunity. All parties financial ability to complete before everyone spends thousands on surveys and fees. In that case the 3rd in chain decided to go into rented and see what happens, then snap up something as a cash buyer. They waited until the FTBs mortgage offer had expired and fortunately the lender agreed to a 4 week extension. Those last events were luck and certainly not an entitlement.

From: Jo Westlake 18 February 2023 10:45 AM

It would be far easier to provide well maintained homes at more affordable prices if the government stopped taking quite so much in tax. Section 24 needs to go. No other industry is taxed on turnover. Any improvement work that either brings a rental property up to current building standards or improves the EPC needs to be immediately tax deductible (not a Capital improvement)

From: Jo Westlake 17 February 2023 08:51 AM

I got a D up to a C a couple of weeks ago by doing absolutely nothing other than using an experienced unbiased assessor. The previous assessment had been done by an insulation company who were clearly going round with their eyes shut and making numerous assumptions that obviously present stuff didn't exist purely to try and sell more insulation. Assessors can be audited but how often does that actually happen? Several of my properties have varied by more than 10 points in either direction depending on the assessors agenda.

From: Jo Westlake 16 February 2023 15:07 PM

Tricia - Surely the vast majority of rentals have had DG for at least the last 20 years. From an EPC point of view it doesn't matter if your tenants are capable of making best use of the solar panels. In reality lots of people work unconventional hours or part-time or get home when the children finish school mid afternoon or are capable of using delay timers on their appliances. What saving are they supposed to get from solid wall or floor insulation? One of my EPCs claims £122 a year saving if I spend between £4K and £14K on solid wall insulation or £363 a year saving if I install a 2.5kW array of solar PV at a cost of around £5K. The insulation would add 5 points to the EPC whereas the solar PV would add 10 points.

From: Jo Westlake 16 February 2023 09:56 AM

Michael - does it really matter? If the objective is to get EPC C in the most cost effective way solar panels often tick that box. Those properties have been perfectly acceptable homes for decades. EPC assessors have a tendancy to assume anything they can't see (like wall insulation) doesn't exist even if you have paperwork saying it does. If the choice is to rip the building apart or stick solar panels on the roof I know which one I'd choose.

From: Jo Westlake 16 February 2023 09:44 AM

I might buy something through my ltd company, then again I might sell something personally owned. Section 24 is a major issue for me. I looked at incorporation a few years ago and probably should have done it then but it was complicated so I didn't. I did set up 2 limited companies. One to buy properties and one to manage properties. So right now I still like being a landlord but probably should sell at least 2 of my personally owned properties because of Section 24. Because of CGT that would be properties I bought after 2015, not the ones I bought pre 2002. So the homes of a low income working man and his daughter and a just earning too much for UC family of 4. Or maybe 4 young professionals. That would be 6 local people made homeless through no fault of their own by a landlord who still likes being a landlord, purely because of a method of taxation that only applies to landlords. I don't have an issue with paying 40% tax on profit. I do have an issue with paying infinite tax on turnover.

From: Jo Westlake 16 February 2023 09:15 AM

Interesting that tenants would prefer solar panels (which can be installed in a day), while most EPCs start with internal or external insulation and solid floor insulation (which would require major upheaval or eviction for the tenant). Solar panels tangibly lower their electric bill. They won't know what improvement (if any) the insulation made if they have been evicted for the work to happen. These days solar panels tend to have apps which show exactly how much electricity is being produced, consumed or exported. Mine produced 76kWh in December and 547kWh last July. Overall in 2022 they produced 3820kWh of free electricity. Obviously not all of it could be used and it wasn't always when we needed to run appliances. Now it is standard to install batteries at the same time as solar panels and that really does make far more of the production usable. It's frustrating that none of these eco improvements are tax deductible. Classing something that supposedly helps the government towards Net Zero as a Capital improvement is bizarre. Surely it is simply making a building conform to modern building standards.

From: Jo Westlake 16 February 2023 08:41 AM

Andrew - in my experience a few years ago it was hard to find a self employed person who didn't have or actively be saving for a BTL. It was a very sensible alternative to a conventional pension as we could remortgage if we needed access to funds for our main business. Just about every tradesperson I encountered had at least one, several of my colleagues (taxi drivers) had several. Being self employed and being a landlord made huge sense. We could prioritise whichever activity demanded our most urgent attention without having an employer causing difficulties. On numerous occasions I'd pop round to a rental to perform a minor repair between taxi passengers. It always impressed tenants that they could contact me late at night about something fairly minor and I'd probably be there a few minutes later. It was also a great way of finding future tenants, especially student groups. I have started paying into a SIPP since the reforms a few years ago but can only pay in earned income not rental profits. So I go and do zero hours warehouse work, which has the advantage of being active (good alternative to a gym membership) and PAYE so I can pay it into a SIPP, which is outside my estate and will go someway towards the IHT bill.

From: Jo Westlake 15 February 2023 10:26 AM

What does being on track actually mean? Does it only include money in a SIPP or workplace pension fund? Does it ignore ISAs, gold, classic cars or other assets. Pensions are far too complicated with far too much threat of government interference. Until the pension reforms a few years ago there was no way many self employed people would risk tying money up in a pension.

From: Jo Westlake 15 February 2023 07:52 AM

The share code system is brilliant. Much easier to do the Right to Rent checks now that exists. It also firmly puts the decision back in the hands of officials who are trained in these matters. The acceptable permutation of documents as alternatives to a UK passport for a UK national is hard to find in the Right to Rent guide (especially if trying to find it on a smartphone mid viewing). I know it exists and I know there are some very strange alternatives listed but it's something I've only had to use a couple of times as almost everyone has a passport.

From: Jo Westlake 14 February 2023 07:50 AM

Edwin - my tenants certainly don't move every 2 years. I've had some for over 10 years in self contained flats or houses. Several in HMOs for over 5 years. Moving is a hassle for tenants and if they find a decent property with a decent landlord why on earth would they want to move? The Councils don't have sufficient housing and rely on the PRS to house a lot of people on their radar. They have funding to help with deposits, up front rent or moving costs but they don't have enough actual houses.

From: Jo Westlake 13 February 2023 12:04 PM

Tracy, it isn't fair for decent tenants to be put in that situation. Just as it isn't fair for landlords to be taxed on turnover instead of profit. Just as landlords are expected to spend £'000s on EPC improvements that may or may not offer the tenant any noticeable improvement in warmth or heating costs. Those works aren't even tax deductible. Some of us love providing long term, affordable, well maintained homes for good tenants but this government is making it impossible.

From: Jo Westlake 13 February 2023 10:53 AM

Perhaps the reasons for these Section 21 evictions should be examined. Is it because there was an eviction ban during the pandemic so this is just a natural bulge in the numbers caused by that? Is it because Section 8 isn't fit for purpose but if it were, significant numbers of these Section 21 evictions could and would be Section 8? Is it because sizeable numbers of landlords are well over retirement age and now just want a few years of peace? When they started out maybe over 25 years ago the tax situation was very different. Many will have hung in far longer than they ever intended due to punitive CGT. Many would have hoped adult children would become involved but punitive SDLT has made that much harder. Is it because constant landlord bashing by ill informed activists has just worn some of us down to the point of walking away? Is it fear of losing Section 21 even though it's something we have rarely or never needed to use? How many of the current evictions are because some landlords are absolutely terrified of going through potentially years of stress and financial harm if they can't get rid of a rogue tenant? How much is because they have always used a series of fixed term tenancies instead of rolling on to a SPT and they simply aren't comfortable with the idea of more fluidity? How much is because of uncertainty over EPCs? What will be required, when by, how will the exemptions work, what funding will be available, etc. We have been in limbo for over 2 years. It's tempting to just off load properties that may be difficult to get EPC C on. However, it must be remembered these are much loved, conveniently located homes for hundreds of thousands of tenants. For me the big one is Section 24. My mortgage payments will be going up by more than £20000 this year. The inclusive utility bills in my HMOs went up by around £20000 last year. While the utilities are a tax deductible expense, mortgage payments aren't. A combination of rent increases and tenants trying to cut consumption has more or less covered the increased utility costs. Now I need another round of rent increases to go some way towards the extra mortgage costs but that is going to push me over the loss of personal allowance tax threshold so it's impossible to cover the increased costs. This isn't a greedy landlord bitching. At this point any extra rent would simply go to the mortgage company or HMRC plus I'd still need to top it up from other sources. Alternatively I could sell 2 properties and bring my turnover down below the threshold. That, however, would mean another 6 totally blameless tenants would be facing eviction. I don't want to evict anyone. I like being a landlord. I can handle EPC requirements, I already use SPTs for anything other than student tenancies. Isn't it ridiculous that I may be forced to make people homeless because of a unique tax policy that only applies to people who provide rental properties?

From: Jo Westlake 13 February 2023 08:55 AM

True story. Back in 2015 I set up a new 5 person HMO aimed at young graduate professionals. The first tenants were all young men in their 20s. One of them said to me "Well Jo, I've got a £30K deposit saved up and I could buy a little house tomorrow but I'm not going to because when I meet the woman of my dreams she will hate whatever I've bought so I'll have to sell it and buy something else. So that's a complete waste of money and I'm better off renting. If I'm really lucky my future partner will be earning enough so we could go straight in and buy a forever home". A year later one of the other lads left to move in with his girlfriend and he was replaced with a young lady. Within a few weeks they were a couple. They stayed as housemates in the HMO for another two years during which time her father died and she inherited enough money for them to pay a sizeable deposit on a very nice 4 bedroom detached house. They were tenants from choice for the entire 3 years. They had the income and deposit available to buy a decent 2 or 3 bedroom house at any time but realised it was more economically advantageous to pay rent for a little bit longer and avoid the buying and selling costs of at least one move.

From: Jo Westlake 11 February 2023 11:09 AM

In a time of unprecedented demand for rental properties it's crazy that government tax policy is forcing long term landlords to sell at least some of their properties. I still like being a landlord. I would still like to buy more houses but in the current tax climate that would be certifiable insanity. If I was being entirely rational I should sell two properties ASAP. That would at least allow me to continue providing homes for my other 47 tenants. Somewhat unfortunate for the 6 people who would be homeless through no fault of their own though. I just hope the government wake up and realise how toxic Section 24 is, especially now interest rates have rocketed.

From: Jo Westlake 11 February 2023 10:32 AM

I also have bills inclusive HMOs and have a very different experience than yours. The houses with solar panels have noticeably lower energy bills. When low energy lightbulbs came in that was a very noticeable saving. Heat pump tumble dryers are well worth the small extra cost. I'm in the process of changing heating programmers to the Inspire Home Automation ones specifically designed for landlords. I put them in 2 student houses in September and have been really impressed. I set the program from my home computer or phone and the tenants can boost it for an hour whenever they want but can't actually reprogram it. So far since September one household has boosted it twice. The houses always feel warm without being tropical. The app for these programmers is brilliant and shows exactly what the temperature is in the houses, how long and how often the boiler is running, if the tenants have needed to boost it, etc. I even sent a screenshot of the heating pattern for one of those houses to the tenant who spends a fortune to be cold just to demonstrate how little time a boiler needs to run to maintain a comfortable temperature. In other houses I have replaced the old electric blankets a few of the loft rooms needed before the roofs were better insulated with electric throws in the communal areas and have suggested if just one or two tenants are working from home it might be better if they use the throw instead of boosting the central heating. So far I have had 100% positive feedback on that idea. I tried electric throws in my own home last winter and cut our gas usage by thousands of kWhs and was much warmer so hopefully it will have some impact on the HMO bills.

From: Jo Westlake 10 February 2023 12:44 PM

You can usually get a C without floor or wall insulation. Especially on mid terraced properties. It's sometimes hard to prove if a solid wall has internal insulation without ruining the integrity of the insulation or vapour barrier (if it does exist). My 2008 EPC said the walls were insulted (presumably the previous owner provided evidence at the time). The 2020 EPC assumed no insulation. I couldn't prove it either way but the assessor this week was satisfied the walls were at least dry lined, which apparently allows an inbetween score. Gas central heating and decent heating controls is usually the biggest jump in points. Quite how that's going to work if they ban gas boilers will be fascinating. It's all a nonsense anyway when tenants don't understand how to heat a house efficiently. When we arrived it was -2 outside, the bathroom and bedroom windows were wide open (she clearly understands the importance of ventilation). We couldn't find the heating programmer thermostat but due to the presence of a flashing light near the boiler it obviously existed. It turns out the tenant keeps it in her bedroom drawer??? She has the heating on for 2 hours in the morning, then leaves it off and has the windows wide open all day (even though she has trickle vents and extractor fans). Then has the central heating in for 2 hours when the children come home from school and then uses an electric convector heater because it costs too much to run the central heating. I don't think it's possible to have a more expensive, inefficient way of being cold.

From: Jo Westlake 10 February 2023 11:46 AM

Don't they understand all this talk of rent caps just encourages all landlords to increase rents while they still can?

From: Jo Westlake 10 February 2023 10:30 AM

The problem is the varying skill of the EPC assessors. Also the different agendas. Insulation company assessors will deliberately downgrade scores so the property qualifies for grant funding. Estate agent assessors will be overly optimistic. I usually use an assessor who has been in it from the start (2007) and will run various scenarios through the software so I can make informed choices. Three years ago I bought a renovation project which the estate agents EPC assessor had made F25. He reassessed it as G14 and then ran various improvement scenario's which showed the maximum I could achieve as a leaseholder was a D. A low D if I put in a Dimplex Quantum storage heater or a high D if I put in gas central heating. Either way it would only be a D. This week I got him in to advise on one that was D62 in 2008 and D64 in 2020. The second EPC was done by an insulation company and had clearly ignored stuff that had been upgraded since 2008. The 2020 EPC listed solid wall insulation and underfloor insulation as being the necessary improvements. Obviously that type of work would mean evicting the tenant. Anyway it was causing both me and the tenant stress so I got it reassessed by my regular unbiased assessor and it's actually EPC C69. So all that stress and worry purely because an insulation company had an agenda. It clearly shows EPCs aren't fit for purpose and we need to take great care with which assessors we use.

From: Jo Westlake 10 February 2023 10:27 AM

My wish list would be: Abolish Section 24. Tax landlords in the same way as EVERY other business in the UK. Contrary to popular belief most of us aren't greedy people and often choose to charge below market rent to good long term tenants. Section 24 and massively increased interest rates mean rent increases are going to have to be eyewatering over the next couple of years. Even with significant rent increases our actual profit will drop. Review CGT. Restore taper relief or introduce indexation relief. Many countries have zero CGT after so many years of ownership. Taxing a capital gain at 28% on an asset that has already generated vast amounts of tax revenue for the government over our years of ownership is obscene. We pay huge amounts of VAT on just about everything connected to our ownership of our BTLs plus much higher income tax (due to our unique Section 24 taxation). In order to make BTL attractive to future landlords there needs to be a clear exit route. Right now we have the situation of taking risks of ownership, pay eyewatering amounts of mortgage interest, VAT and income tax, lose 28% of any gain (even though most of it is purely down to inflation), die before the money has been spent or distributed and pay another 40% IHT. How is that in any way attractive to any potential new landlords? They can get better returns with far less work and stress investing in numerous other things. Introducing zero CGT after initially 30 years of ownership (dropping to 25 years within 10 years) would be a game changer. It would incentivize some us to stay and do our 30 years instead of selling at the earliest opportunity. It would encourage new landlords into the industry or existing ones to expand. It would allow some of us to take our gain and retire. That would generate loads of SDLT, VAT, etc. It would release a steady stream of properties onto the market so wouldn't destabilise anything. Make any eco improvements tax deductible in the year of installation instead of treating them as a capital improvement. Make Section 8 fit for purpose so all at fault evictions go that route. Only after that has happened can anyone assess how many genuinely blameless tenants are evicted. It may well be a very small number. Personally I would prefer to keep Section 21 as it works and gives landlords the confidence to let to less than gold plated tenants. However, I do think that genuinely blameless tenants who have conducted their tenancy impeccably should be compensated in the unlikely event the landlord needs to evict them. Let's face it no one evicts a good tenant unless they really have to. The overwhelming majority of tenancies are ended by the tenant. They get a new job, new partner, buy a house or die. The only reasons we would want to evict a good tenant would be to gain some personal benefit. Maybe to sell the house or to minimize our stress or workload if we had a health scare. If it costs us 2 months rent as compensation for the tenant to leave within the 2 months notice period on the Section 21 wouldn't that be better than having to wait for a court date and all the stress that goes with that? If we can have some revisions on our tax treatment surely a mutually beneficial solution could be found for Section 21. We need to get away from the media and activists Rich, grasping, uncaring landlord - Poor, downtrodden, exploited tenant narrative. In reality tenants often earn far more than their landlords. Many of them are better educated than some of us. So let's introduce some fairness into the system and stop regarding landlords as some bottomless pit for the government to pilfer at will. The only people replenishing that pit are tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 10 February 2023 09:51 AM

Great news for landlords who already operate HMOs in those areas. Within a year of Article 4 commencing those houses will be worth significantly more than neighbouring properties that don't have the right to be rented by 3 or more unrelated tenants. Really bad news for prospective future tenants and existing owner occupiers. Suddenly houses without full letting rights become much, much harder to sell.

From: Jo Westlake 09 February 2023 14:44 PM

How does anyone know over 1 million households are waiting for Social Housing? How often are the lists updated? How often are people's circumstances checked? How many people on the list have died, moved in with a partner, moved to a different part of the country, emigrated, etc?

From: Jo Westlake 09 February 2023 14:31 PM

Maybe. If it's sensible. The problem is we are going to be working on very small profit margins or even losses with a combination of increased mortgage interest rates and Section 24. Doing retrofit eco stuff isn't a tax deductible expense in most cases. Replacing a single glazed window with a double glazed one is fine but just about everything else is a capital improvement (so not tax deductible). If we sell the property before we die it would potentially lower our CGT bill but we clearly can't trust politicians where CGT is concerned. If we don't sell before we die our estate will pay 40% IHT on whatever that retrofit work has added to the value of the property. So whichever way you look at it everyone else definitely benefits (tenant and HMRC) but it's totally uncertain as to whether the person who is actually expected to pay for it receives any financial benefit from it whatsoever.

From: Jo Westlake 08 February 2023 14:33 PM

How do you know if a prospective tenant is going to be long term? Plans change. How long is temporary?

From: Jo Westlake 08 February 2023 14:18 PM

If any work that improved an EPC score was immediately tax deductible we would all be less reluctant to install some of these things.

From: Jo Westlake 08 February 2023 08:41 AM

I'm one of the 46% of landlords who does allow pets. But only in 2 of my properties. So around 12% of my tenants live with a pet. The other properties are either leasehold flats with leases that expressly prohibit pets or are student houses or HMOs. Several of my tenants have experienced living next door to properties that contain bored or distressed dogs. Listening to someone else's dog howling or barking for hour after hour while the irresponsible owner is at work is horrendous but far too common. The vast majority of rental properties are either flats or terraced houses with neighbours living in very close proximity. They should have the right to quiet enjoyment of their homes.

From: Jo Westlake 08 February 2023 07:58 AM

If the damp is caused by water ingress in a flat there is very little the landlord can do. Structural repairs are the freeholders responsibility. Trying to get a freeholder to action repairs can be torturous. I have ex Council properties where I have been reporting water ingress for 10 years. One specific problem has had assorted Council surveyors look at it, agree there's a problem and then go away and do nothing.

From: Jo Westlake 06 February 2023 12:30 PM

From my personal point of view taxation is my greatest worry. I have been a landlord since 1997 and bought several of my properties before 2003. Back then we paid standard Stamp Duty, were taxed on a profit figure derived in the standard way (rent minus expenses) and had taper relief on the CGT. I set up my business on that basis and while I have adapted my business model as much as possible to accommodate the numerous tax changes we've now reached a point where we have run out of road. I'm not highly geared but this is getting worrying now. I predominantly like being a landlord. I like buying neglected properties and renovating them. I like providing well equipped homes for people who aren't ready to buy yet (students and young professionals) or people whose lives haven't quite gone to plan and are too old or poorly paid to get a mortgage. I like the human side of it, seeing tenants graduate, get job promotions, pass professional exams, move in with a partner, buy a house, have children, etc. I especially like seeing some of my UC tenants relax and feel settled in their homes. For some of them it's the most secure they have felt for years. They know I am a long term serious landlord and don't just do it as a bit of extra pension money or accidentally the way some people do when they can't sell a property. The question is how long can I continue with the current level of taxation? Due to Section 24 if I increase rents sufficiently to cover even part of the mortgage increases I'll experience later this year I'm in danger of losing my personal allowance. I have no idea what my marginal tax rate will be. I read somewhere it could be infinite. Selling one or two properties would probably help my personal tax position but when we're facing an unprecedented rental crisis does it really make sense to force out landlords who A) like being landlords B) rent to people on the margins who often don't pass referencing

From: Jo Westlake 06 February 2023 12:20 PM

It is especially frustrating that energy efficiency measures are mainly regarded as Capital improvements, so aren't tax deductible until we sell. Some of us will die before we sell so in real terms virtually all of these measures need to be regarded as totally not tax deductible. We are expected to pay for them out of income we have already paid 40% tax on. It's a bit of a mess trying to work out what is classed as a tax deductible replacement and what is classed as a non tax deductible Capital improvement. As far as i am aware double glazing to replace single glazing is OK as that's just the modern equivalent. Replacing 50mm of loft insulation with 250mm may be OK but simply adding 200mm on top of the 50mm is probably a Capital improvement. Replacing an old boiler with a condensing boiler could be argued either way (and I have no idea who would win). The one I find especially frustrating is solar panels. When the Feed in Tariff existed they were an absolute no brainer. Minimal disruption for the tenant as installation only takes a day. They usually increase the EPC by about 10 points. The tenant gets much cheaper electric bills. The landlord got the FIT payments so it paid for itself eventually. Technology has moved on so the FIT payments were abolished for new installations in 2019. If commercial landlords put solar panels on commercial buildings they are a tax deductible expense and they can charge their tenant for the electricity produced by the panels. As residential landlords we can't. The panels are a Capital improvement and the only payment we will receive is a derisory export payment for any electricity our tenants don't use. I'm just having solar panels and batteries on 2 HMOs. When I ordered them I had no idea quite how bad the tax treatment was for them these days. My previous ones have been some of my best ever purchases. Any electric I buy from Octopus Energy is a fully tax deductible expense as it is included in the rent. Any electric from the solar panels is deemed to be valueless if it is used in the HMO. It appears I can't offset it in any way against the cost of the equipment to generate that electric. The only payment I can receive is the export payment of between about 5p and 15p per kWh for a very small amount of surplus generation. I'm still a huge fan of solar and may well have it on a couple more properties as it is far less disruptive than having to evict tenants to do solid floor insulation. Certainly on ones that are close to needing a new roof the in roof solar panels look like a very attractive option.

From: Jo Westlake 04 February 2023 12:31 PM

One MP with a bit of an understanding of the issues is a start. All we can hope is that some of his colleagues wake up and realise most of the anti landlord policies need to be reversed. People need to live somewhere and with much higher interest rates and the likelihood of house prices falling lenders have become more cautious. A great many people who could clear mortgage lending criteria last year won't clear this year. House builders are slowing down on new builds as people are finding it hard to get mortgage offers. That in turn slows down the delivery of the subsidized Social Housing or shared ownership building on each new estate. The only thing with any real scope for providing homes for people short to medium term is the PRS. We need tax policies that encourage us to stay and even expand. Section 24 needs to go. Our taxable profits need to be calculated in the same way as EVERY other business in the country. Removing the extra 3% SDLT, at least on homes that are going to be occupied as someone's primary residence, would help. It shouldn't matter if it's owner occupied or tenanted as long as it's lived in full time. Make a decision on EPC C. Is it happening or not? Who is funding required work? Will it be tax deductible or capital improvement? How will the exemptions work? Changes to or abolition of Section 21 need to wait until Section 8 works properly and all court backlogs have cleared. Large chunks of the Rental Reforms White paper need to be scrapped or significantly amended. CGT needs to be looked at. Why would anyone become a landlord these days with no clear exit route? Most of the gain in property value is solely down to inflation. We need indexation relief. Unlike shares we can't sell a house in tax efficient bundles. Unlike shares (where dividends are taxed at a much lower rate than earned income) we pay staggering amounts of income tax on our turnover (not profit). If we have owned our BTLs long term 28% CGT effectively means the government is stealing around 20% of each property we sell. If we sell a 5 bedroom house we may be left with enough money to buy a 3 bedroom one. How is that right?

From: Jo Westlake 01 February 2023 08:48 AM

While we all knew interest rates would rise at some point I don't think anyone envisaged they would go up almost every month for nearly a year. I assumed the BoE had learnt from their errors last time they had 3 increases in quick succession and trashed the economy. We didn't have Section 24 back then and that's the bit that is really problematic. Paying the increased mortgage payments will be painful enough for both us and tenants. Losing our personal allowance because we are taxed on money we pay to the mortgage company is a whole different ball game

From: Jo Westlake 31 January 2023 20:00 PM

Even though this is looking better than it was it's still going to be a huge increase on the fixes we have been on.

From: Jo Westlake 31 January 2023 09:33 AM

A very sensible report stating what most of us have always known to be the truth. I'm surprised so few PRS tenants want to become Social tenants. I guess being able to choose exactly where you live with the number of rooms you choose to pay for outweighs half price rent in a location you don't especially want to live in. The PRS gives far greater mobility than either Social Housing or home ownership. Clearly that gives young aspirational people an advantage in their career progression. Renting in old age makes huge sense. Staying in a much loved house after your children leave home is often fine for many years. When eventually health problems or the death of a partner makes that house impractical moving into the PRS is a far better idea than buying a retirement apartment. The released equity can pay for a very comfortable few years, be gifted as a pre- inheritance, etc. More importantly it makes the next potential move much easier logistically if there is no house to sell. Other people find they have to rent in later life because life didn't go the way they planned. The second divorce in their 50s tends to derail things. Obviously the government want everyone to be home owners as they don't provide an equivalent to Housing Benefit for homeowners. I'm not sure why the media are so obsessed with homeownership though.

From: Jo Westlake 31 January 2023 09:19 AM

Tenants get top up benefits to go towards their housing costs but sometimes choose to spend it on other things. Other than a very protracted eviction there are usually no real consequences. Homeowners don't receive those top ups but tend to understand getting into mortgage arrears can cause serious harm to their credit rating. So homeowners have different consequences to spending choices and clearly are better at prioritizing spending accordingly. Always remember a homeowner on £50K only takes home about £37K for working full time. A tenant with a couple of children earning minimum wage in a part time job will take home around £32K including benefit top ups and won't have the same travel to work or child care costs to pay for. Single childless people get woefully inadequate benefits but any tenant with children is significantly better off than a homeowner with children doing the same job, earning the same wage.

From: Jo Westlake 30 January 2023 11:38 AM

Many of us will be coming to the end of mortgage fixes in the next few months and our new payments are going to be much, much higher. We will either have to increase rents or sell some properties. Either way it leads to rent inflation. Due to how Section 24 works those rent increases needed to go towards our increased costs will push us over £100000 so we will lose our personal allowance and pay even more tax out of money we have never had. Returning us to a traditional method of calculating profit (exactly the same as EVERY other business in the country) would enable us to keep rent rises lower or not sell people's homes.

From: Jo Westlake 30 January 2023 08:58 AM

Far too much focus is put on the FTB and young family end of the market. It would make more sense to focus on the retirement market as we have an ageing population with very different requirements to previous elderly people. Firstly retirement housing can be higher density and make very good use of the brownfield sites. Secondly if decent, well located retirement housing was readily available to all tenure types vast amounts of family size homes would be released for young families. Those houses already have schools, shops, amenities, etc close by. Thirdly it may be highly attractive for older people as an IHT planning method if secure long term rental was a major part of it. It would enable pre inheritance distribution of wealth more easily, thus enabling younger generations to afford appropriate housing earlier and thereby resulting in more rooted communities. People are often theoretically keen to downsize but can't find a suitable property. It isn't the same property a FTB would want. Giving up a massive garden and a couple of bedrooms is fine. Giving up an en suite, utility room, study, rooms big enough for full size furniture and private parking is a step too far. The other group that is completely ignored are the young 16 to 20 year olds who are overcrowding their parents rental properties. It's insane that a family can be deemed to be overcrowding and entitled to a bigger house purely because one child has a birthday. Wouldn't it make more sense to build student style housing for non student teenagers instead of rehousing the entire family in a house that will be too big for them as soon as the teenager leaves home?

From: Jo Westlake 25 January 2023 12:23 PM

Virtually all property related taxes are just pure greed based on the politics of envy and misguided assumptions. Bearing in mind VAT is paid on just about every element of buying, selling and maintaining property why does SDLT need to exist at all? A fixed Land Registry fee is totally understandable but SDLT just stifles mobility. He may have a valid point when he says: “In some parts of the country, second homeownership is so rampant that it causes massive damage to local economies and communities. Stamp duty should be a flat rate whatever the value of the property if people are buying it for any reason other than to live in.” That only really applies to SECOND homes that are only used when someone is on holiday. Standard BTL properties are PRIMARY residences for their tenants. It is wrong to disadvantage half the population purely because they rent their home (often from choice because their job requires far greater mobility than the conveyancing process would allow). Wasn't one of the biggest problems in the areas he was referring to a lack of standard BTL? Nowhere for low paid local families or seasonal workers to live. Didn't thousands of small businesses fold because they couldn't get staff as there was nowhere for them to live?

From: Jo Westlake 25 January 2023 07:50 AM

Interesting that HMRC can count us as a business when it wants us to pay NI but considers our income to be unearned investment income for other purposes so we can't get the tax benefits of paying it into a SIPP.

From: Jo Westlake 24 January 2023 08:01 AM

I was accredited for many, many years with the NLA scheme. The modules in the landlord library were excellent and something that could easily be accessed not just for accreditation purposes. The different ways in which accreditation points could be obtained made accreditation something that with a bit of organisation could realistically be maintained year after year. The replacement RNLA scheme is just overly complicated and expensive.

From: Jo Westlake 23 January 2023 07:02 AM

Andy is perfectly correct. Educating people on energy usage would be far more cost effective. When I bought my place in France we had the electric supply upgraded to 9kw and the engineer was incredulous we wanted so much. The house is fully electric - heating, cooking, hot water. A 9kw supply has always been plenty even in winter.

From: Jo Westlake 20 January 2023 13:32 PM

Homeowners pay much lower interest rates than landlords so have a massive advantage in that respect.

From: Jo Westlake 19 January 2023 12:11 PM

Another thing to consider is the appetite for risk that various landlords have. People with one or two properties tend to be far more risk averse and only let to squeaky clean, gold plated tenants. Tenants who fully pass referencing and qualify for rent guarantee insurance. Those of us with more properties are often more flexible and will take a chance on people who fail referencing. We don't have the option of RGI on those tenants. There are numerous reasons why people fail. The wrong type of employment contract or lack of a credit history are the two main ones. These are usually not people who have made mistakes, they simply don't fit the referencing criteria closely enough. Then there are the low income, benefit assisted tenants who are never going to pass affordability referencing. If we are taxed out of the market where will those tenants go? They usually either aren't looking for Social Housing or have been told how long the waiting list is and that they aren't in a priority situation. The big corporate landlords wouldn't touch them because they fail referencing. At least 25% of my tenants failed referencing at the point they became my tenant. In almost all cases they have been excellent tenants. Maybe because they have been turned down elsewhere they don't want to risk losing a home once they finally get accepted? So if landlords like me are taxed so much we have to start reducing our portfolios where are our less than gold plated tenants supposed to live?

From: Jo Westlake 19 January 2023 11:05 AM

Excellent explanation.

From: Jo Westlake 19 January 2023 10:39 AM

What it actually does is artificially push people into higher tax bands which then cuts other allowances. 40% tax payers start paying tax on savings interest when they get only £500 of interest instead of £1000 if they were a basic rate tax payer. People start to lose Child Benefit once their income goes over £50000. Portfolio landlords will start losing personal allowance when their artificially calculated profit hits £100000. Bear in mind that mortgage interest at the new rates is going to cost tens of thousands of £s more than last year. Half of my mortgages come to the end of their current deal this year. At today's interest rates payments will increase by at least £20000 assuming the BoE doesn't increase rates further. If I spread that increase across all tenancies it would add around £40 per tenant per month for the interest, £8 for Section 24 and I'm not sure how much for the loss of personal allowance plus whatever increase is needed to cover general inflation on other costs. If I only looked at spreading the cost increases over the 5 affected properties the rent increases would be astronomical. If I was being sensible the obvious solution is to sell one or two of the unencumbered properties or the ones coming off a mortgage fix and use the money to pay down some mortgages. Who should I make homeless? The 4 young professionals in an HMO? The single low income chap and his daughter on UC? The working family with children in local schools? These are real people who would be majorly impacted if they had to move. I don't want to sell anything but Section 24 may force me to do so. Section 24 was a bad idea when interest rates were at rock bottom, now it's an absolute disaster for tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 19 January 2023 08:01 AM

It would be far better to have tax breaks than grants for all energy efficiency improvement measures. Right now it is pot luck if you qualify for a grant. Has the tenant got a low enough income? Can you find an installer who is part of whatever scheme? Does that installer charge the same as a mainstream installer? Will the government cancel the scheme before your turn comes? Treating eco improvements as tax deductible (instead of Capital improvements) would allow all landlords to just get on with whatever improvements they want to do in a timely fashion.

From: Jo Westlake 18 January 2023 08:00 AM

Some Councils have mainly very good, very helpful staff. I'm a licensed HMO landlord with one local authority and have always found their team to be very good. Very helpful on the only occasion a student house ever created a mould problem. The EHO came in, checked the building then told the tenants the only thing wrong with the house was the morons I'd let it to. I let another property via a scheme run by the neighbouring Council and their staff are great. The tenant occasionally runs into budgeting issues so I phone the relevant person, have a chat and they arrange budgeting help or a discretionary payment for the tenant.

From: Jo Westlake 17 January 2023 10:33 AM

Theoretically getting LHA rent with no voids and someone else paying all the maintenance costs is a reasonably attractive deal for some properties. Those harder to let or sell properties with issues. Things like noisy neighbours, no parking or ex Council flats. Obviously it's a rubbish deal for the more desirable end of the market but I don't imagine for a second Pembrokeshire council expect anyone to offer them anything that is easy to let for market rent. The main issues are that mortgage lenders don't usually allow contracts of more than 3 years so it pretty much rules out mortgaged properties. Also 20 years is a long time. Realistically how many of us are likely to still be alive in 20 years time? That may be a good thing for the landlord but how does it affect probate? For anyone who has pretty much given up on being a landlord, has some bottom end unencumbered properties, wants a passive income, doesn't want to pay CGT and is likely to die before the end of the contract it may be an attractive deal.

From: Jo Westlake 17 January 2023 10:10 AM

In leasehold properties any structural defects are usually the freeholders responsibility to repair. They will charge us for the repair as part of the service charge but in most cases they have to organise the repair. The wording of the lease usually prevents leaseholders from doing exterior repairs. Obviously most mould is caused by lack of ventilation and heating but occasionally it is water ingress from faulty guttering, missing roof slates or pointing. Sometimes because a neighbouring property has put a raised flowerbed against the wall and breached the damp course. None of these things are the fault of or can be remedied by the landlord. In the case of leasehold property there needs to be far greater provision to compel freeholders to address structural issues in a timely fashion.

From: Jo Westlake 16 January 2023 12:46 PM

Allowing so someone to rent out a spare bedroom while they are present is one thing. Allowing them to rent out an entire property while they are away is completely different. Airbnb is a very wide ranging concept, some of which carries far more risk of property damage or neighbourhood degradation than others. A lenders primary concern will be the value of the property.

From: Jo Westlake 16 January 2023 08:42 AM

Michael - access depends on the type of tenancy agreement. It's one of the really good things about HMOs and individual tenancy agreements. I can enter communal areas any time I want without having to give notice or request permission. It certainly makes management and maintenance far easier than in houses with joint tenancy agreements.

From: Jo Westlake 14 January 2023 17:31 PM

From: Jo Westlake 14 January 2023 14:23 PM

Right now the tax situation simply isn't conducive to making retro improvements. Most energy saving measures will be classed as a Capital improvement and therefore not tax deductible unless you ever sell the property. As none of us know when we are going to die there is absolutely no certainty we will ever sell so it is best to assume we are footing the bill. Some of these improvements cost £'000s just so the tenant might save a relatively small amount on their utility bills. Then again they might not. I'm just off to see a tenant who is having a panic attack about a gas bill she doesn't understand. She had a bill for £200 at the end of December and now has another bill for £300 just for gas (which she is assuming is for 2 weeks use). The house is modern, well insulated, mid terrace, has solar panels and an EPC B89.

From: Jo Westlake 14 January 2023 12:12 PM

If their argument was that things changed with Thatcher's deregulation wasn't that because ASTs didn't exist in their current format before then and there was very little private rental housing. Wasn't it pretty much a choice of social housing or slum landlords? I was a tenant in the early 1980s and the standard of the rental properties I saw was dire. The one I lived in for 3 years was condemned and had a prohibition order placed on it shortly after the Council rehoused me. The standard of PRS properties today is beyond the wildest dreams of the average 1980s tenant. It gives choices and mobility that simply didn't exist until the AST was introduced. The real problem is that Social Housing is too cheap. If a more realistic rent was charged Social Housing providers could afford to buy or build far more stock and better maintain what they already have.

From: Jo Westlake 12 January 2023 09:21 AM

In my experience BTL lenders have been very cautious for at least the last 12 months. Very picky on new purchases and lowish valuations on remortgaging. Typically between 10% and 25% below asking prices of identical or inferior neighbouring properties. As long as we're with lenders who do end of fix product switches everything will be fine as long as tenants can afford the rent increase necessary to cover the increase in the mortgage payment. Plus a bit to cover the extra Section 24 tax. Anyone wanting to release equity may find the valuation for a remortgage is much lower than expected and the product fee is astronomical. Of course it could go the other way if lenders are awash with money now the rest of the market has ground to a halt. We may find that they're so keen to lend they start actively competing for our business.

From: Jo Westlake 12 January 2023 08:58 AM

How can someone be described as homeless if they have lived somewhere for over a year? What is the difference in temporary housing and renting on a 6 month AST? Is someone on a SPT in temporary housing or a long term home? Would someone who has recently moved to an area and chosen to rent for a few months while assessing where to buy a house describe themselves as homeless or living in temporary accommodation? How many genuinely homeless sofa surfers are only doing so while the purchase of their next home is delayed by conveyancing delays?

From: Jo Westlake 11 January 2023 08:14 AM

Bring back taper relief or do the same as other countries and have zero CGT after X number of years. Even before Section 24 was invented we paid vast amounts of income tax, SDLT and VAT. Even before taper relief was abolished we still paid quite a lot of tax throughout our period of ownership. CGT at 28% is just pure greed. As Simon says with the reduction of the annual allowance there's no reason to not just sell everything in one go. Even if only a small percentage of landlords do that it's potentially a lot of homeless people. Wouldn't it be far better to do the same as other countries and have zero CGT after maybe 25 years of ownership? Give us a reason to stay the course. We have been taxed so much there is now a housing crisis. Why would new landlords enter the industry when the financial barriers are so great? Extra 3% SDLT, artificially put into higher rate tax band with Section 24 so loss of Child Benefit, taxed on turnover instead of profit, high mortgage costs, potential fines for accidental oversights, potential non paying tenants and then 28% CGT on the rise in property value that is purely down to inflation. So effectively a percentage of our asset is being stolen from us as punishment for paying vast amounts of tax for so many years.

From: Jo Westlake 10 January 2023 10:04 AM

John - both of mine were down to 67 years when I bought the flats. The first one offered a 90 year extension when asked and charged £11000. The legal fees were around £1400. That one was essentially a negotiated extension and I was incredibly lucky the freeholder is a genuinely decent person (as I was completely clueless about the whole process). The other one was a Statutory extension. The freeholder is a complete shark and had totally stitched up other leaseholders in the building. The actual extension cost £11600 but I also had to pay a lease extension advisor £1320 plus my valuer £720 plus their valuer about £850 and my legal fees of about £1500 plus their legal fees of more than that. So around £18000 in total but it has added a lot more than that to the value of the flat. Also the negotiated option that freeholder was willing to offer would have cost £14000 and saddled me with ground rent of £350 a year and only extended the lease by 32 years. If you still have more than 80 years left it is much, much cheaper to extend. It's questionable if it's worth doing anything for about the next 10 years as there are talks of leasehold reform. I've still got about 90 years on both of my ex Council ones and won't be doing anything about extension for at least another 7 or 8 years.

From: Jo Westlake 09 January 2023 22:10 PM

Flats are complicated but can be good. So much of it depends on the wording of the lease and attitude of the freeholder or management company. I've got 5 leasehold flats. Two ex Council which are fairly cheap on charges but can be incredibly slow to get any necessary building repairs carried out. One newly converted one with mid range charges but a novice head lease holder and very sketchy information about who is managing the building. The other two are older conversions and both had very short leases when I bought them. In both cases I extended the leases by an extra 90 years. The first one has an excellent freeholder and is exceptionally good on building maintenance. Very reasonable, fully justified charges. The other one has an awful freeholder and eye watering management charges. I very fortunately did a Statutory lease extension but 2 of the other flats went the negotiated route when previous leaseholders wanted to sell so the current leaseholders are totally stitched up with high ground rent and much shorter leases. Then there are management issues regarding ASB or Airbnb. Some freeholders are better than others. Cheap flats are usually cheap for a reason. At the bottom end they are often owned by people who can't really afford to own a home. They may be OK with the mortgage payment but really struggle with the service charge. That can make building maintenance problematic.

From: Jo Westlake 09 January 2023 10:47 AM

I think we all need to remember we each have different business models, different tenant preferences, different definitions of fairness and we operate in different areas of the country. Those of us who operate in low wage or favoured retirement areas are likely to be more experienced with older tenants. I only have older tenants in properties that are genuinely suitable for old age. Mainly ground floor flats, on a bus route and within walking distance of a doctor's surgery and supermarket. A letting business model that works and is appropriate in London is often not the way we do it elsewhere. I have a suspicion that SPTs are far more common outside London. In over 25 years as a landlord I have never issued a series of fixed term tenancies to anyone other than students. More to the point no tenant has ever asked for one. Everyone (except students) start on a 6 month AST which then rolls onto a SPT. We are both then free to start termination proceedings at any point. They just need to give a few weeks notice. I would need to go the Section 21 or Section 8 route if I wanted possession. It gives them the ability to accept a new job hundreds of miles away, move in with a new partner, move into a care home, etc at a time that suits them not just at the end of a fixed term tenancy. It's worked well for me for a very long time. We all want to retain the ability to regain possession but have different opinions about exactly what would be an acceptable compromise. Some want Section 21 in it's current format and nothing else can be considered. That leaves politicians facing yet another U turn. Personally I would like Section 8 to be improved so all at fault evictions go that route. When it has been established just how few genuinely blameless tenants are evicted then is the time to debate the future of Section 21.

From: Jo Westlake 08 January 2023 13:57 PM

Isn't that just a case of different words? At what point does temporary become short term, then long term, then permanent? Does permanent actually exist? Everyone will leave at some point one way or another. I seem to remember you saying some of your rents were very low because you had had some tenants a long time and not increased the rent. Very few of us routinely evict good tenants. It's nice to know we could if we needed to but in reality most of us either issue a series of fixed term tenancies or roll onto a SPT. So in reality most good tenants have a home for as long as they want it.

From: Jo Westlake 08 January 2023 01:58 AM

People often have a 20 or 30 year period of active later life. That period between their 2nd divorce and needing a carer. It's usually the 2nd divorce in their 50s that pushes them into the PRS.

From: Jo Westlake 08 January 2023 00:10 AM

Why would you want to evict them? If the property is affordable and conveniently located the likelihood is you will have an excellent low maintenance tenancy for many, many years.

From: Jo Westlake 08 January 2023 00:04 AM

I have 3 older tenants. All of them had tried to get Social Housing and were told it simply wasn't going to happen in their circumstances in any kind of reasonable timeframe. 2 of them they were people I knew and I bought flats specifically for them. Both were either homeless or on the verge of being homeless. Both flats will fit into the LHA for the foreseeable. That was the whole point of buying them, so they were affordable for as long as the tenant wanted to live there. Even though all 3 tenants are still working the day will come when they retire and it would be awful if they couldn't afford to remain in their homes. The third one came to me via one if the Local Authority schemes. Again the flat is at the very affordable end of the market. In all 3 cases they treat their homes like palaces. They are immaculate. We have the occasional late payment issue (usually when UC payments have been destabilised by changes in work patterns or ill health unexpectedly cuts income) but on the whole they are excellent, low maintenance tenants. One of my colleagues has 8 small flats and only rents to elderly ladies. His most recent tenant moved in 18 years ago and his longest term one is over 25 years.

From: Jo Westlake 07 January 2023 16:44 PM

I have a mixed approach to emergency and boiler insurance. Most new boilers come with 7 or 10 year warranties so they're OK until that point. Some insurance companies do very good add on emergency insurance cover alongside the main buildings policy. I especially like the Direct Line and Endsleigh ones. I have a Multi Premises plumbing and drainage British Gas policy on almost all properties which is incredibly useful for minor drips or blocked drains. It probably costs about the same across the portfolio as getting a local plumber in each time would be. Then some of the flats have stand alone emergency policies. They tend to have lots of exclusions but a combination of that and the BG policy covers most important things. I have got BG Homecare on 2 houses but find them incredibly frustrating for the gas safety check so use a local gas engineer for all the other properties. It often doesn't matter which policies you have or how much you pay if tenants don't mention there's a problem.

From: Jo Westlake 05 January 2023 15:32 PM

Most of these things will happen regardless of anything Sunak does. The inflation rate will automatically drop because prices went up so much last year. It doesn't mean prices will drop, just that they won't rise quite so rapidly. If the price of something doubled last year and only goes up by 50% this year inflation has halved but the item is still 3 times the price it was originally. Jobs will automatically be better paid because minimum wage is going up. It doesn't mean there will be better jobs with better career development opportunities. The debt figure can be manipulated in all sorts of devious ways. NHS waiting lists may well be shortened but it's more likely to be a combination of the excess death rate being so high because of all the missed cancer and heart care during the pandemic and people choosing to pay to go private. What makes him think he's going to be any more successful than anyone else with the dinghys? So this big sound bite amounts to nothing remotely useful. He needs to do something about the important stuff that he so totally stuffed up in his role as Chancellor. He needs to ensure people have access to a wide choice of housing of all tenures. Social, PRS and mortgaged. Landlords need to be treated fairly throughout their ownership of rental properties and there needs to be a clear and fair exit route for when we want to retire. We would pay staggering amounts of tax even if we were taxed in the same way as every other business. Section 24 and punitive CGT is just pure greed and a massive disincentive for new landlords to come into the industry. Each of my tenants probably pay about £500 a year more rent than they otherwise would purely so I can pay the extra Section 24 tax invented by this government. If there are going to be Help to Buy type schemes it needs to be on second hand houses, not new builds. Enabling a FTB to buy a new house results in one sale and very little in tax revenue. Enabling them to buy a second hand house sets a chain in motion and may result in SDLT on multiple transactions and vast amounts of VAT on all the conveyancing.

From: Jo Westlake 05 January 2023 07:19 AM

No wonder the government keep dreaming up these ridiculous schemes. It's a great way to cut the Benefit bill. Shared ownership occupiers can only claim LHA for the bit they still rent and no help towards paying the mortgage on the slice they are buying.

From: Jo Westlake 04 January 2023 10:10 AM

I increased rents for the first time ever for existing HMO tenants in October. I fully explained it was due to the rising utility costs. Next year 5 of my mortgages reach the end of their fixed term so rent increases will be spread across the portfolio to try to accommodate some of the increased costs. When tenants used to move house frequently it was easy enough to just increase rents between tenancies. Now tenants stay much longer and a combination of the government inventing extra taxes for landlords to pay, the BoE increasing interest rates and general inflation on property maintenance means regular rent increases for existing tenants are becoming more and more essential.

From: Jo Westlake 29 December 2022 09:09 AM

The vast majority of rental properties are unsuitable for dogs or cats. Rooms in shared houses, leasehold flats, terraced houses with only a back yard are all problematic for various reasons. Housemate allergies, leasehold restrictions and noise nuisance to neighbours. Also animal welfare issues. They may be OK for something quiet that lives in a cage or tank. How many tenants have the time, knowledge or money to look after a pet properly? If an electric bill can derail their finances just think what a vet's bill would do.

From: Jo Westlake 29 December 2022 08:56 AM

The student market is very different to the rest of the lettings market for the simple reason that students want to sign tenancies so far in advance of the move in date. A great many student households have already signed tenancies that will commence in September 2023. A great many more will sign up in January. Every other tenant type operates on a completely different timescale. Between one and two months notice that they're leaving. New tenants often ready to move in within days of viewing a property. Some landlords use a series of fixed term tenancies while others let the initial fixed term roll onto a SPT. Either model has advantages and disadvantages which seem to be largely misunderstood by just about everyone - journalists, activists, MPs, landlords and tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 29 December 2022 08:42 AM

Wasn't it announced recently that Social rents are going up by 7%?

From: Jo Westlake 21 December 2022 07:45 AM

£50 increase on rent that was originally £500 is a 10% increase (so pretty much the same as inflation). A £50 increase on rent that was originally £2000 is a 2.5% increase (so an absolute bargain). Rent can only be increased once a year. Tracker mortgages have increased 8 times this year. We only have one small mortgage on a tracker but the payment in January 2023 will be £400 more than the payment in January 2022. That's a 327% increase.

From: Jo Westlake 21 December 2022 07:33 AM

Made even worse by Section 24.

From: Jo Westlake 21 December 2022 07:19 AM

There are, but very few are aimed at landlords. Those that are will only allow a miniscule number of tenancies. Most struggle with joint ownership or other income streams.

From: Jo Westlake 20 December 2022 15:40 PM

Or watch hotels and holiday parks flourish. Also experience an improvement in service when all those businesses catering to tourists can actually recruit staff as there is suddenly somewhere for them to live.

From: Jo Westlake 19 December 2022 11:16 AM

Homeownership is only out of reach for a while. Not meeting mortgage affordability criteria right now is probably the biggest favour young people will ever experience. Buying into a falling market can leave people trapped with negative equity for years. Having longer to save or for new relationships to form or fail will put people in a much better position when everything stabilises. One certainty is that the government will do everything they possibly can to push as many people as possible into home ownership, purely because they then don't have to give them any support towards housing costs.

From: Jo Westlake 16 December 2022 14:29 PM

Peter - Freeagent says it's only for landlords with up to 5 properties and it's £12 per month. No mention of a free version for unincorporated landlords. The limited company one is only free if you have a business account with NatWest. So while it may well suit some smaller landlords it doesn't seem to be targeting medium size portfolios.

From: Jo Westlake 16 December 2022 12:24 PM

We're probably at least 2 or 3 years away from a good time to buy. If the 1988 and 2008 crashes are anything to go by now is a very good time to sit tight and do nothing. Mortgage rates need to stabilise, lenders need to fine-tune policies on arrears, extending mortgage terms, affordability criteria, repossessions, etc, estate agents need to correlate more closely with mortgage valuers. Everyone needs to reassess their housing budget. Renting offers significantly more flexibility in a falling market. It also gives access to LHA and Discretionary Housing Payments if you have a significant cut in income. Buying a house that rapidly became too small was a major problem in previous downturns. Living in a shoebox with negative equity when you were desperate to start a family was standard throughout the 1990s.

From: Jo Westlake 16 December 2022 11:19 AM

Ellie - I agree it is very frustrating how if we do stuff we can't claim anything for our labour but if we pay someone else to do it it's regarded as their earned income and a legitimate deductible expense for us. Depending on how many properties you have it may be worth setting up a limited property management company. It adds to your accountancy fees but converts some of your income into earned income as opposed to investment income. I set mine up because some of the joint owners of my properties were doing nothing and I got fed up with doing their share of the work with no payment. Now the ltd management company does all the lettings, tenancy agreements, inspections and minor repairs and receives 15% of the rent for doing so. It's still me physically doing the work but in my role as managing agent rather than landlord. My husband and I each receive a director's salary (which is classed as earned income so gives us an NI credit, can be paid into a SIPP, looks good for mortgage applications, etc). We also get dividends, fully funded mobile phones, trivial benefits, a company Christmas do and a very tax efficient EV. Any money left over can be paid into pensions by the company.

From: Jo Westlake 16 December 2022 10:47 AM

The availability and price of software is the main problem. Also the ones I've looked at seem to assume more accountancy knowledge than I have. It's quite a big leap from using spreadsheets to using MTD compliant software. Either software isn't landlord specific so doesn't really make sense as property rental has very specific expense catagories and is treated completely differently to all other industries by HMRC. Section 24 and all that. Or it is landlord specific but wants to do too much. I've been trying to use Landlord Vision software for about 6 months and have very mixed feelings about it. It's one of the very few systems that are both landlord specific and MTD ready. It can apparently cope with joint ownership in unequal shares which for my portfolio was important. The package is capable of doing a lot of different things but looks like it was developed as a management program for tenancies, safety certificates and repairs, etc that has had the MTD thing tacked on. I started using it in June and put in all figures from the beginning of April. It took many, many hours and a huge amount of swearing over about a 2 month period to get vaguely comfortable with the basics. I'm still finding duplications in the expenses. For some reason it's very easy to accidentally do things that cause the same transaction to be recorded 2 or 3 times. Sometimes it's my error, sometimes it's just how the LV system deals with repeating expenses on joint tenancies. LV did a webinar a few days ago about MTD and apparently we only need to submit 3 figures on the quarterly submission and there will be bridging software to convert spreadsheets. Why didn't I know that earlier?

From: Jo Westlake 16 December 2022 10:17 AM

A problem I've encountered is prospective tenants not understanding about overcrowding. Rental laws are very prescribed about how many children can share a bedroom and what permutation of age and gender is allowed. Homeowners don't have any of those requirements. People will apply for a 2 bedroom property because they can just about afford it but have sufficient children to require a 3 or 4 bedroom property, which they are going to fail affordability referencing on. If we let them overcrowd we risk a big fine and going on a rogue landlord register. If we don't let to them we're accused of discriminating against families with children.

From: Jo Westlake 13 December 2022 12:54 PM

Having done a few remortgages earlier this year I would say there has been a massive difference between asking prices and valuations for the whole of this year. I had various conversations with valuers and they were certainly squeamish about some asking prices. That was back in April/May, long before either mini-budget. As an example one of my Barratt houses was valued at £450000 for remortgage purposes. An identical house on the same estate with a smaller garden was put on the market 2 weeks after that valuation at £595000. It dropped to £580000 and has now been put with a different agent at a fixed price of £575000. It's still massively overpriced and even if they do find someone willing to offer anywhere close it's highly unlikely a mortgage valuer would support it.

From: Jo Westlake 13 December 2022 09:40 AM

Tenants are actually more protected from cost of living rises than homeowners. Rent can only be increased at the end of a fixed term tenancy agreement or annually and if the tenant thinks the increase is excessive they can apply to a Rent Tribunal for a determination. Mortgages can increase far more and far more frequently. Seven increases in 2022 and payments nearly 3 times as much as they were 10 months ago. At least a tenant can approach the Local Authority and get help with budgeting or apply for a Discretionary Housing Payment. Some will find they are actually entitled to a UC top up which they have never claimed. Regarding heating cost fears the government need to mandate all utility companies to produce accurate statements every time meter readings are submitted. Some already do but others such as EDF only produce a statement every six months if customers are on a fixed monthly DD. The customer has no way of knowing if the DD is too little or too much until the statement eventually turns up. How many people will spend the winter freezing due to fear of a big balancing payment bill only to receive a massive refund in a few months time? Do the government or any housing charities have any idea about how much impact Section 24 is going to have when landlords reach the end of their current fixed rate mortgages? Low interest rates have masked the issue up to now but there's soon going to be a situation where landlords are paying 40% tax while making a loss.

From: Jo Westlake 13 December 2022 08:39 AM

It isn't difficult to understand if explained logically. Basically in addition to the 40% tax we already pay and the mortgage interest we already pay we also have to pay an additional 20% of the mortgage interest on top of the already very high tax we have already paid. So if our mortgage interest is £10000 a year we have to pay that to the mortgage lender plus an extra £2000 to HMRC plus our normal 40% tax. If our mortgage interest is £50000 the extra tax will be £10000. When our current mortgage fixes end and we slide onto the new much higher mortgage rates the extra tax will also be much higher. Someone paying £10000 mortgage interest now is likely to be paying closer to £25000 if their fix ends in the next few months. So the extra Section 24 tax will go up from £2000 to £5000. Even if in reality they are making a loss, the way Section 24 works they are deemed to make a profit because the mortgage interest payments aren't deducted on their tax return.

From: Jo Westlake 12 December 2022 14:12 PM

Of course the government want more people to buy their own home. It means they aren't entitled to any help with housing costs. Doesn't a tenant with children still have a small UC entitlement on an income of over £50K while a homeowner loses any UC entitlement on around £32K? Why exactly is it OK for a homeowner's children to be brought up in poverty but not a tenants?

From: Jo Westlake 12 December 2022 12:25 PM

That is the problem. Some things are deductible others are improvements. A modern night storage heater to replace an old one is almost certainly deductible, underfloor heating and a heat pump would be a capital improvement. LED lightbulbs are deductible, an extra jacket on your hot water cylinder is an improvement. The one that really bugs me is solar panels. In a bills inclusive HMO electric from the grid is a fully tax deductable expense. Solar panels are an improvement and even though they will directly provide most of the electric for the house there doesn't seem to be a mechanism in the tax system to recognise the cost of generating the electric (purchase of solar PV) that would otherwise be a fully deductable expense. The fact that surplus electricity can be sold to a utility company makes it even more frustrating.

From: Jo Westlake 12 December 2022 12:17 PM

Can someone explain exactly what the article means when it says "vulnerable"? It mentions ASB but doesn't give any indication of anything else about vulnerable.

From: Jo Westlake 10 December 2022 13:02 PM

I fully agree with the proposal to reinstate mortgage interest tax relief. BTL is the only business in the entire country that is taxed in this way. If we didn't have to pay the extra 3% SDLT we may buy more properties, then again we may not. There are too many reasons for existing landlords to be cautious about expanding right now. The Rental Reforms White paper and changing EPC requirements being the main specific reasons but also the fact we have been severely battered for the last few years. The easiest way to encourage existing landlords to hang in there would be to bring in zero CGT after so many years of ownership. Maybe start at 30 years and gradually bring it down to 20 years of ownership. It's standard in other countries so why not here? With a clear exit route BTL would become far more attractive for the next generation of landlords.

From: Jo Westlake 09 December 2022 07:09 AM

I'm strongly opposed to a large section of Airbnb. In the wrong property it can be hell for the neighbours. The only types I can see any merit in are good old fashioned B&B where someone lets out their spare room in their own home and is present to serve breakfast. Also purpose built holiday homes on holiday complexes and quaint old cottages with very poor EPCs that would be horrible to live in long term. I also agree with Michael that if Section 21 was left alone and Section 24 was abolished there wouldn't be much point in doing Airbnb.

From: Jo Westlake 09 December 2022 06:47 AM

A lot will depend on LTV, lenders criteria regarding tenant profile and ability to raise rents to go far enough towards the increased costs plus the extra impact of Section 24. Remortgaging to a different lender is looking to be highly problematic on a great many properties with borrowing much over 50% LTV purely because the rent is too low. So we're stuck with our current lenders and just hope the product switch rates aren't too painful.

From: Jo Westlake 08 December 2022 15:29 PM

Getting the numbers to stack is tricky on standard residential property. Deposits need to be over 50% on the standard vanilla BTLs in my local area.

From: Jo Westlake 08 December 2022 09:29 AM

I'm not convinced buying would be a sensible move for most young people for the next few years. With the totally inept government we currently have and the prospect of a decade or more of a Labour government I can see a repeat of the falling property values and negative equity of the 1990s. Hundreds of thousands of people were trapped in homes that were far too small. Being unable to sell for enough to clear the mortgage was fairly standard. Being unable to accept a job promotion to another town or start a family was commonplace. At least with renting it's relatively quick and easy to move house.

From: Jo Westlake 07 December 2022 07:03 AM

I totally agree. It's been a problem in 2 blocks of flats where I own leasehold properties. Poorly sited Airbnbs are a nightmare for long term residential neighbours

From: Jo Westlake 07 December 2022 06:49 AM

A very small percentage of a very small sample of people who choose to fill in a survey. No indication of timelines so at least some of the alleged propositions would be very historic. Attitudes to sex were very different in the 1980s. Some would be misinterpretation. Some would be the girl feeling humiliated when the landlord turned down her offer. Taxi drivers used to routinely get offered a BJ for a ride home so presumably those same girls would offer a bit more for a roof over their heads? Of course it occasionally happens and it's wrong but what is a consultation supposed to do about it? Increasing LHA would obviously help make millions of tenants more secure in their homes. Ending the constant attacks on landlords would help even more. Scrap most of the Rental Reforms proposals. Remove Section 24 so we only get taxed on true profit not turn over. Incentivise us to stay in the industry providing long term homes and bring in zero CGT if we have owned a property for over 20 years, just like in other countries.

From: Jo Westlake 06 December 2022 08:25 AM

The biggest help to renters would be restoring LHA to the 30th percentile rent. Even Social tenants are getting 7% rent increases so it is completely unreasonable to expect the PRS to go lower than that. A great many PRS tenants haven't had regular rent increases for the entire period of their tenancy so even if some increases do seem a little hefty right now they are in reality far more modest if the starting point is to look at WHEN the last increase was (if ever).

From: Jo Westlake 05 December 2022 15:37 PM

I can't watch anything like that with my husband as he just rants all the way through it and I can't hear the TV.

From: Jo Westlake 05 December 2022 15:30 PM

The change in CGT simply means it isn't worth trying to sell one a year. Only having £3000 CGT allowance per year isn't worth waiting for. In a static or falling market it makes it better to sell the whole lot at the earliest opportunity if selling is your intention. I'm with Robert on this one and also staying put and maybe even buying if anything appealing comes my way. I gave up on the retirement idea when taper relief was removed. So my decision is linked to CGT but a long time ago.

From: Jo Westlake 05 December 2022 13:33 PM

Robert - it's stuff I wouldn't necessarily be forced to do but may choose to do because it's less disruptive and more cost effective. EPCs nearly always put solid floor insulation at the top of the list, closely followed by internal or external insulation. Solar PV is usually a long way down the list but is often one of the cheaper options gaining significantly more points with virtually no disruption or loss of space for the tenant. It isn't suitable for every house but is very impressive when suitably sited.

From: Jo Westlake 02 December 2022 17:54 PM

Robert - I meant when you got beyond the basics. Things that give the biggest EPC boost with minimal disruption to tenants like solar panels. There's lots of middle ground stuff that may just be the modern direct replacement such as double glazing or could be argued either way. Replacing the old 50mm of loft insulation with a more modern depth of 270mm is just using the current method. Topping up the 50mm to 270mm could be seen to be an improvement. The fact that taking out and disposing of the 50mm is environmentally unsound and costly is a whole different topic. Ripping out the existing uninsulated concrete floor slab and replacing it with a modern insulated one is presumably a tax deductible replacement (but an environmental disaster). Putting insulation over the top of the existing slab is less clear cut from a tax point of view. Replacing an old boiler with an energy efficient one is fine. Replacing a night storage heater with gas central heating would be a capital improvement. But if you had tenants on whichever qualifying benefits could be a freebie anyway. There are too many inconsistencies. If they want us to do it just make it all tax deductible immediately.

From: Jo Westlake 02 December 2022 12:54 PM

Making any EPC improvement related works fully tax deductable as revenue expenditure would help enormously. Treating it as capital expenditure means we have no way of knowing if we will ever recoup the cost in any way.

From: Jo Westlake 02 December 2022 11:32 AM

I can believe 1 in 6 don't know what a thermostat is. Especially if they've never previously had central heating or air conditioning. I've had tenants who can't tell the difference in a consumer unit and a fire alarm panel.

From: Jo Westlake 02 December 2022 11:26 AM

The overwhelming majority of tenants leave a property of their own free will. They have finished university, work contract has finished, got a new job elsewhere in the country, met a new partner and decided to cohabit, had a baby and need somewhere bigger, just fancied living somewhere else, saved a deposit to buy a place, etc. Of the very small percentage of tenancies that end in eviction the vast majority would still be allowed under the new proposals. So just how few tenants would be 'helped' by the abolition of the current Section 21? Are we talking a few dozen, a few hundred or a couple of thousand? How does that compare with the countless thousands who are currently losing their homes because of the threat of landlords losing Section 21?

From: Jo Westlake 02 December 2022 10:37 AM

As long as the importance of ventilation is emphasised alongside every piece of advice regarding drafts.

From: Jo Westlake 02 December 2022 10:21 AM

I am strongly opposed to the current uncontrolled expansion of holiday lets as it brings misery to long term residents when unsuitably located properties are used in this way. Two of my tenants have been subjected to Airbnb flats springing up in their buildings. Having groups of drunk stag party attendees crashing around at stupid o'clock is no fun when you need to go to work in the morning. Fortunately for my tenants the flats are leasehold and the lease prohibits holiday lets so in both cases it was ended fairly quickly by the freeholder and management company. I'm not sure Planning Permission is the right tool. Holiday homes aren't quite as clearcut as BTL. There are the ones that are second homes purely for personal use. Some are personal use plus family and friends. Mainly personal use with a bit of commercial holiday letting. A bit of personal use with a lot of commercial letting. Totally commercial letting. Purpose built as a holiday home or a standard residential property. In a holiday area or elsewhere. Some already have or are capable of getting EPC C, others aren't. Some of the more quirky ones are great for holidays but would be completely impractical as long term homes. At what point on the scale would it require PP and at what point is it simply the politics of envy? The statement “ … Landlords in Cornwall, the Lakes etc can make the same income they get from a tenant in a year in just two months from tourists." It doesn't compare like with like and has completely failed to acknowledge the cost of furnishing the holiday let and paying for cleaners and booking agent fees. Other than in absolutely top locations is the amount of profit (calculated in the traditional sense) much different? Is Section 24 really the crux of the matter? How many landlords would persist with holiday lets if Section 24 was abolished on standard BTL and we were returned to the same tax regime as EVERY other business in the UK?

From: Jo Westlake 02 December 2022 09:33 AM

I don't really see why it would have any impact on other rents. A great many landlords won't rent to claimants (either employed or unemployed) because their income isn't sufficient to meet affordability referencing. That would prevent the landlord from obtaining Rent Guarantee Insurance and is a risk a great many landlords aren't willing or can't afford to take. Those rents are often already at market level. If they increase beyond comparables the landlord will start to experience voids. At the cheaper end if anything becomes available at anywhere close to LHA the landlord will be inundated with applicants, some of which will be claiming UC and others will be fully self funding. We have a wide choice of applicants and just the more humane streak in us would push us towards someone who is better able to afford the rent. Deliberately allowing someone to sign a tenancy knowing that they are going to have to top up the rent from money that is supposed to be for food, heating or travel to work costs is just setting them up for misery. Bear in mind that when most people get a pay rise they get an increase in income. When a UC claimant gets a pay rise the government take most of it off their Benefit top up. Freezing the LHA prevents low income tenants from finding a new home and potentially from retaining their existing home. There are plenty of other factors that will make the retention of lower cost homes incredibly challenging such as EPC requirements and massively increased BTL mortgage rates. Ludicrously low LHA is the one thing the government can easily address. It was only ever supposed to cover the 30th percentile rent. The alternative of housing tens of thousands of people in hotels and temporary housing would be horrifically expensive. We do need increased supply but with the current tax regime and new build house sales plummeting (and with it the Social Housing percentage of new build estates) I can't see the supply side easing any time soon. Scrapping Section 24 would bring a few holiday lets back into the long term market, retain the viability of the highly leveraged landlords and allow the rest of us to keep rent increases a bit more modest but that's about the only quick fix. Retaining Section 21 would retain some properties and clarifying the EPC requirements would help. Anything that slows down the exodus of landlords is about the best the government could hope for in the current climate.

From: Jo Westlake 01 December 2022 09:50 AM

Is this some devious trick? Something from Shelter that sounds almost reasonable and two-sided.

From: Jo Westlake 01 December 2022 06:52 AM

Anyone on a tracker mortgage will have had 7 increases in 2022. Payments on my only tracker are now more than 3 times as much as they were in January. Tenants can only have one rent increase in a 12 month period and if they think it's too much can apply to a rent tribunal for a determination. I fully agree with Gen Rent on point 3. LHA needs to be linked to current LOCAL rents (not a 500 square mile area). Just like it used to be pre 2011. A great many UC claimants are low income essential workers. Currently their choice is either top up the LHA shortfall by around £300 a month (for a 3 bed) or spend over 2 hours a day commuting from the cheapest housing in the BMRA with significant travel costs.

From: Jo Westlake 01 December 2022 06:46 AM

One of mine is on a tracker and has increased 7 times this year. The payments are now 3 times as much as they were this time last year. I have no idea how many more times the BoE will increase the base rate. I've got 5 fixes ending in 2023. It's a few weeks too early to set anything in motion right now but at today's rates they're looking like the monthly payments will increase by between about £500 and £1500 a month on some of them depending on if I risk a tracker or discount rate or want the certainty of a fix. Some of the product fees are around 3%. With increases of that magnitude it's going to be a straight choice of significant rent increases or a Section 21 for hundreds of thousands of tenants. Section 24 makes the problem even worse. I'm probably in a better position than a lot of landlords, as I'm not over leveraged, have several HMOs and have a few unencumbered rentals, but it is going to be painful. For anyone up around 75% LTV with vanilla tenancies it's questionable if they will survive the new interest rates. Especially if they then have to make EPC improvements or pay for selective licensing.

From: Jo Westlake 30 November 2022 14:07 PM

Valid point, but I'm sure most people would have a "friend" who would rent it for a few weeks in the winter for a special winter rate of £50 a week. Even including their booking agent fees it would be massively cheaper than the extra Council Tax.

From: Jo Westlake 30 November 2022 10:27 AM

Until the mortgage market has stabilized it's too risky to buy any more. Fixed rates are incredibly high and trackers or discounts may look OK at current rates but who knows what the base rate will be over the next couple of years?

From: Jo Westlake 30 November 2022 10:20 AM

Didn't the tragic death occur in Social Housing? I have many years experience of the lack of action of a Local Authority freeholder regarding water ingress and damp. We first reported the current issue in December 2020. It was actually an expansion of an issue we had initially reported in 2012. After multiple missed appointments a surveyor finally turned up in October 2021, agreed a course of action with me and then went back to his office and wrote "no action required". My tenant still has water ingress and damp and I'm waiting for another surveyor to turn up. How is licensing in the PRS going to improve anything? Don't we already have numerous ways for Local Authorities to enforce decent standards? Wouldn't licensing be yet another reason that would make existing landlords sell up and be a barrier for new landlords entering the industry, especially the accidental ones? Wouldn't that lead to more overcrowding, poorer standards, higher rents and more homeless people for Local Authorities to house in hotels? I am a licensed landlord. It's just one of those things you have to do if you want to own HMOs. In reality it's just a bit more paperwork to do and something else to pay for. A few hundred quid every 5 years for a license spread across 5 or more tenants is pence per week on their rent. On a one bed flat it would add at least £2 a week to the rent, maybe even £5 or £6. That's money the tenant could otherwise spend on food or heating. For the license fee we might get an inspection every few years. It would usually consist of a 30 minute visit and a 10 minute follow up if they found anything they wanted us to do. That's about it for a £700 license fee. I guess the real problem is when they find somewhere horrendous. What do they do with all the extra tenants in overcrowding situations? What do they do with whole households when conditions are unsafe? Could it be that if they are spending their days inspecting mainly very good housing they haven't got time to discover too many bad ones? Rogue landlords aren't going to get licensed anyway so won't be found by expanding licensing schemes.

From: Jo Westlake 30 November 2022 10:09 AM

Just make energy improvement measures tax deductible instead of Capital improvements and let landlords get on with getting the job done.

From: Jo Westlake 29 November 2022 09:22 AM

Wouldn't a working couple on minimum wage be on around £38K if they worked full time?

From: Jo Westlake 29 November 2022 09:17 AM

I agree. I provide medium to long term homes for good tenants for as long as they want them. I don't routinely need the ability to evict good tenants. However, I'm not remotely comfortable with losing Section 21 until Section 8 has been improved and we have had at least a couple of years of seeing it working in a robust and timely fashion. Weeks not months. Also a clear understanding of when a mediocre tenant tips into Section 8 territory. What evidence is required for ASB?

From: Jo Westlake 29 November 2022 09:09 AM

At least one of them has acknowledged they need evidence and appropriate timelines. Next thing they'll be admitting is if they go too far they won't be able to house all the homeless people their policies will create.

From: Jo Westlake 29 November 2022 08:53 AM

Tricia - I'm not specifically planning to but there is a strong likelihood I might. My mother died at 72, aunt at 74 and grandmother at 72. It's a crazy tax policy that rewards the families of those whose parents die relatively young.

From: Jo Westlake 28 November 2022 15:36 PM

The only reason not to is that I don't want to upset the lives of my tenants. That really is the crux of it. You recognise your tenants lives would be seriously impacted by your decision to sell. Housing is fundamental to the mental and economic health of the nation. Tax policies need to recognise that and incentivise long term ownership of rental properties. Taper relief did that. In other countries there is no CGT after a certain number of years of ownership. In France it's 22 years and I believe 10 years in Germany. High rates of CGT just encourage landlords to sell after a short period of ownership or not become a landlord in the first place. Either of which is bad for tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 28 November 2022 13:58 PM

Tricia - I agree. When my mother died she only had the house she lived in but all sorts of other things made matters complicated. I do discuss things with my sons and they're all aware it's going to be messy. The problem is the government keep changing the rules. I've been a landlord since the 1990s so have had to adapt to numerous rule changes. My biggest problem occurred when the government changed the taper relief rules. I already owned several properties by then, some individually and some jointly with my husband. We had a long term plan of selling them at some point in our 60s at one a year to work the best within the CGT rules. That plan had to be shredded in whichever year taper relief was removed. Didn't the window of opportunity for selling coincide with the 2008 credit crunch when mortgages were incredibly hard to obtain? So the next plan was to see if any of my sons were keen on getting involved. One of them is now part owner of 4 of my BTLs. That of course well and truly stuffed up his SDLT position when he wanted to buy his own home but we're over that now. Then we looked at incorporating the portfolio but some of the ownership was a bit messy. My ex and my son's nearly ex both had small parts of 1 or 2 properties. There was no way either would want to be involved with a limited company. So then we looked at remortgaging a load of our existing properties to fund new purchases through a limited company. At least that does something for the IHT situation and allows me a salary to pay into a SIPP. So now the plan is to get as much earned income as possible to pay into SIPPs (which are outside our estates) plus some life insurance to pay the IHT and to die before we're 75. My crystal ball may have gone a bit haywire at that point. Basically it's all just beyond ridiculous. For something as important as housing the tax rules need to be consistent and long term. We shouldn't have to change strategy every few years because an MP has come up with yet another half-baked idea to rinse us even more.

From: Jo Westlake 28 November 2022 13:48 PM

You'd be insane to let anything at Somerset's derisory LHA rents. £800 a month for a 4 bedroom house!!!!! Demand for rentals is huge due to Hinckley Point.

From: Jo Westlake 28 November 2022 09:24 AM

Upgrades and improvements that improve a properties EPC should be tax deductible immediately not just regarded as a Capital improvement.

From: Jo Westlake 28 November 2022 09:17 AM

For those of us who have owned for longer it's all pretty irrelevant. The likelihood of us selling before we die is still just as unlikely today as it was last year. The loss of taper relief destroyed the concept of retirement for us years ago. The only policy Labour had at the last General Election that I strongly approved of was their CGT policy where they would restore indexation relief and then charge CGT at your marginal tax rate. For example I paid £66500 for one of my houses in 1991. It was valued at £450000 earlier this year, so a gain of £383500. Take off a bit for expenses, Capital improvements and personal allowance so a taxable gain of around £360000 @ 28%. GCT payable £100800. With Labour's indexation proposal the indexed value of the house is £351000 (according to Nationwide indexation calculator). So a gain of £99000 minus the same expenses, etc. A taxable gain of £75500 @ 40%. CGT payable £30200. Without indexation or taper relief a great many long term landlords simply will not sell. Especially if they think there is a strong possibility of dying within the next 7 years. If we want to release equity we can remortgage for up to 35 years until we are 70. How many of us plan on living until we're 105? If CGT was charged at a sensible rate far more of us would consider selling at some point and actually retiring (just like normal people expect to do). Then the government would rake in far more SDLT and VAT.

From: Jo Westlake 28 November 2022 09:07 AM

Unfreezing the LHA would help massively. Landlords can't freeze rent indefinitely but increasing rent just risks clamant tenants getting into arrears. It is far more humane and helpful to the tenant to issue a Section 21 before rent arrears occur then to wait until arrears are sufficient for a Section 8. Someone threatened with eviction with a Section 21 gets all possible forms of help from the Local Authority. In some cases that may take the form of Discretionary Housing payments to cover whatever rent increase is required to retain the viability of the tenancy. Section 8 is deemed to be a fault of the tenant and that they have made themselves intentionally homeless so far less help is available to them. Can Shelter stop with the nonsense that people have to be out within 8 weeks of a Section 21 being issued. They know full well that is Fantasyland. 8 weeks is the absolute minimum before a landlord can apply to the Court for an eviction hearing. That hearing will be at some distant point in the future followed by a Bailiff at some point after that. It certainly isn't quick.

From: Jo Westlake 25 November 2022 07:40 AM

I do a certain amount of letting at LHA level but after lengthy freezes in LHA it is completely unsustainable to continue at that level. I regard my portfolio as an entity and to a certain degree it cross subsidises itself. If I don't charge a viable rent to one person I need to charge more than is strictly fair to someone else. Why should students or hard working young professionals pay more just because the government have chosen to freeze LHA? As even Social tenants are facing 7% increases this year I think it is only fair to increase my LHA rents by at least 7%. It still wouldn't bring them up to market rent but would be better than nothing. Some of those tenants will get Discretionary Housing Payment top ups anyway so quite why the government doesn't just restore LHA to the 30th percentile is beyond me.

From: Jo Westlake 24 November 2022 16:52 PM

The percentage of rent isn't really the relevant factor unless the suggestion is that landlords should simply add that amount to whatever the next rent rise they planned. The relevant factor is the percentage of profit it equates to if anyone seriously thought it was yet another cost the landlord should absorb somehow.

From: Jo Westlake 23 November 2022 08:21 AM

Michael - I know what you are suggesting makes sense. Unfortunately I can't just go and do stuff to someone else's balcony. It belongs to the flat above mine. Technically it's only the freeholder who can do anything as it is part of the structure of the building. It doesn't cause a problem for the person in the upstairs flat so they don't see the need to do anything. The Council will say one thing to me and then go back to the office and decide to do nothing. This sort of shoulder sloping must be going on all over the country in thousands of leasehold properties. Thousands of leaseholder landlords must be at their wits end trying to get basic work done by freeholders. Work that our leases expressly forbid us from doing ourselves. It's especially frustrating as we know we will have to pay our share of whatever the costs are plus the freeholders override. We know any contractors working for the Council are going to dream up a figure and then double it just because they can.

From: Jo Westlake 22 November 2022 20:35 PM

Michael - I can't stop the leak because I can't stop it raining. The rain pools on the balcony and soaks into the building along the cantilever bars. Drainage outlets on the balcony were discussed but isn't something I have a legal right to do. The surveyor agreed it would probably help but then chose not to get it done. Bead type insulation would help and is supposed to be installed eventually. The current fibre insulation certainly does hold water and bridges across the cavity. It may not hold it 12 months of the year but it holds it long enough after periods of rain for the lounge to have wet patches for several months from autumn through to spring.

From: Jo Westlake 22 November 2022 17:14 PM

Michael - I agree it's better to do what you can without involving the freeholder in some situations. I own 5 leasehold flats, 2 ex Council, one with a fantastic very responsive freeholder, one with an incredibly expensive management company who won't allow leaseholders to do anything (including hoovering the communal hallway) and one which is currently a bit of an unknown concept. The ex Council one in question is one where I can't remedy the problem because it doesn't stem from a part of the building that is within my demise. It's from the balcony belonging to the flat above. It doesn't matter what I do to my flat if the water has already entered the cavity higher up the building. Obviously when the flats were built they didn't have cavity wall insulation, so water would have run down the cavity and soaked away at the bottom or just been contained in the outer skin of bricks. It's the fact the Council installed the wrong type of cavity wall insulation that has caused the current problem. Of course removing and replacing the insulation is a far bigger, more specialist job than just installing it in the first place. Other than pvc cladding the lounge wall (which is wrong on so many levels) I can't think of another solution while we wait however many years it takes for the insulation to be changed.

From: Jo Westlake 22 November 2022 11:37 AM

I wonder what would happen if my tenant reported a disrepair issue to my local Council. He lives in an ex Council maisonette where the Council is the freeholder and I am only the leaseholder. There have been various water ingress issues in the 10 years I have owned it which the Council have been told of on numerous occasions and have done very little to address. The day after I bought it there was heavy rain resulting in about 2 litres of water pouring out of the bathroom light fitting. I phoned the Council repair team and was told they would look at it when they got round to it. I then phoned environmental health and said in my risk assessment role I was concerned about the safety aspect of water pouring out of an electrical fitting and as a leaseholder what should I do about it. They said I should contact the freeholder. When I pointed out the freeholder wasn't willing to even look at it until they got round to it the EHO asked who the freeholder was. At that point I told him it was the Council. The surveyor came out the next day. There wasn't a reliable conventional repair solution due to the structure of the building - cantilevered balconies with no drainage and conduits for the wiring. Water pools on the balconies, soaks into the brickwork and tracks along the cantilever and conduit. On that occasion we resolved the issue by getting an electrician to reroute the wiring for the bathroom light and we fitted mini guttering from the hole where the old light fitting was to the outside wall, drilled through for a small outlet pipe and fitted a suspended pvc ceiling. Unconventional but it works. On the other side of the building it's more difficult. Water soaks in from the balcony and saturates the fibre cavity wall insulation, then periodically soaks through the lounge wall. A surveyor eventually came and looked in October 2021 after failing to turn up on multiple occasions. He agreed the problem was caused by a lack of drainage on the balcony above and then went back to the office and apparently said no action was required. No one bothered telling me he'd made that decision until last week when I reported the issue yet again. The property is due to have the soaking wet fibre cavity wall insulation removed and replaced with the bead type at some unspecified point in the fullness of time. Apparently the funding is available but not the workforce. Just how long is a tenant supposed to put up with a soggy wall and what can a leaseholder do to speed things up?

From: Jo Westlake 22 November 2022 08:45 AM

The problem is we're going to have to either do MTD or pay someone else to do it for us or get out of the industry. You're right that it's completely outside our skill set. We aren't accountants, just as most accountants couldn't build or renovate a house and certainly wouldn't have the mindset to be a landlord.

From: Jo Westlake 21 November 2022 11:09 AM

There needs to be far more information about exactly what is required for MTD and which packages are specifically set up for landlords. The income and expenses categories on general accounting programs can be totally confusing from a landlord perspective. Some of the landlord ones have far more features than MTD requires and it's hard to know which bits are MTD essential and which bits are optional and can be ignored. They seem to be more into portfolio management tools and have the ability to upload all the documents related to the houses such as gas safety certificates, tenants details, etc. All the stuff we already have other ways of doing such as Google calendar, Dropbox or even a filing cabinet and diary. So is there a MTD ready system out there that is purely for MTD that is aimed at landlords and is simple to understand and use?

From: Jo Westlake 21 November 2022 09:08 AM

When you have more than 10 mortgages most lenders won't touch you. It simply isn't something they do. Some have a ceiling of 4 mortgages, some 6 and a lot stop at 10. Paragon are one of the few that will lend to portfolio landlords. Once you have made the decision to exceed 10 mortgages and have waved goodbye to most High Street lenders Paragon is one of the best to deal with.

From: Jo Westlake 19 November 2022 18:06 PM

It isn't that straightforward due to affordability multiples. A tenant's annual salary needs to be roughly 30 times the monthly rent to pass affordability referencing. Someone paying £1000 a month rent needs to earn £30000 a year. Someone earning £30000 could maybe borrow 4.5 times that, so around £135000. Assuming a £15000 deposit plus all buying fees is available to them that gives a budget of £150000 to purchase a property. In this part of the country someone on £30000 would have the choice of buying an unmodernised ex Council flat or a purpose built one in a not very good area with a dodgy lease. Probably with one bedroom, maybe two if the condition is bad enough or the lease or area dodgy enough. Or they could rent a very nice two bed in a good area with parking and all modern conveniences. Buying may be the long term better idea if they have good DIY skills, can cope with living somewhere less than ideal for as long as it takes, the market doesn't crash and traps them in negative equity, there is no risk of becoming unemployed, etc. Renting is the safer option in an uncertain economic climate.

From: Jo Westlake 19 November 2022 12:09 PM

The things that would really help are the abolition of Section 24. Tax us the same as every other business. Classify BTL as business instead of investment income. Allow all energy efficiency improvements to be fully tax deductable and not a capital improvement. Make a decision on EPC requirements with a workable timeframe to get work done (at least 5 years) and workable exemptions. Sort out Section 8 and the whole court system before even thinking about abolishing Section 21. Mortgage lenders need to stop penalising professional portfolio landlords by charging us higher rates than inexperienced newbies. Treat us like the seasoned professionals we are instead of overcharging us just because you can.

From: Jo Westlake 19 November 2022 10:24 AM

But renting and buying isn't the same and the costs aren't really comparable. Obviously a mortgage will be cheaper because it is only funding a percentage of the purchase price, maybe 60% or 75%. Also the interest rate on residential mortgages is usually significantly lower than on BTL mortgages. The standard of maintenance is entirely up to the homeowner. Landlords have to comply to much higher standards. How many homeowners don't bother to get their boiler serviced every year, don't have smoke or CO detectors, have never had their wiring checked? Renting suits most people at some point in their life. It is flexible, convenient and has very low entry and exit costs. In the long term home ownership is usually cheaper as long as you don't need to move house frequently but the very considerable buying and selling costs need to be remembered when making a comparison. Last time we moved house 11 years ago a combination of estate agent fees, SDLT, legal fees for both selling and buying, mortgage fees, etc came to just over £25000. That really is dead money.

From: Jo Westlake 19 November 2022 10:14 AM

It's ridiculous to compare London rents with other parts of the country. A great many jobs in London have an additional London weighting premium on the pay, London has a viable public transport system so a car and parking payments are unnecessary, the LHA in London is far higher than in other parts of the country, etc. Rents in any part of the country are purely down to supply and demand. Any property that is priced too high either won't find a tenant or will have a tenant changeover every 6 months ,which will result in more voids and overall lower income from that property.

From: Jo Westlake 18 November 2022 08:00 AM

Is there any point in trying to work hard, do well, take risks? This budget has got to be the most depressing, negative, aspiration destroying political event in my entire lifetime. All because Sunak is both economically illiterate and incontinent. Hunt is just a disaster. Tax increases ASAP, theoretical spending cuts after they have lost the next election.

From: Jo Westlake 17 November 2022 18:02 PM

I imagine we all want tenants to appropriately report repairs or maintenance issues. Preferably with some relevant photos showing exactly what the problem is. An indication of urgency and if they want to be there while the repair is carried out or want us to deal with it while they're at work is also useful. It's frustrating when we pay for plumbing and drainage policies and tenants don't bother either using the policy or telling us stuff needs doing. It's far easier to pop round and lubricate stiff window hinges than to replace them when they've been bent, etc. Same goes for locks and other hinges. Tightening screws is sometimes necessary on kitchen cabinets. Some tenants have sufficient DIY capability to do these things themselves and just regard it as a basic life skill. Others have zero DIY skills and have the attitude that if it's anything to do with the house it's nothing to do with them. For so many things a timely repair is much more cost effective than a costly replacement. However, we're not clairvoyant - we actually need our tenants to communicate when something needs attention.

From: Jo Westlake 17 November 2022 08:33 AM

Right now I'm in the see what happens over the next few months camp. If remortgage rates stay at the current level or go up again it's going to have to be a case of significant rent increases or selling at least one, maybe two. Probably the ones I have at LHA level rent as the CGT is less painful on some of them and they're either unencumbered or coming up to remortgage, so no early mortgage settlement penalties to factor in. As the rent is unrealistically low on those it's highly unlikely they could be sold tenanted so it would involve Section 21 and presumably the Council advising the tenants to stay put until the bailiffs arrive. Selling any of the properties that I've owned longer would be fairly pointless as the CGT would take too much of the equity and the tenants pay proper rent anyway with enough tenant turnover to allow rent increases on new tenancies regularly. The hope I have is that the government realise how problematic Section 24 is in conjunction with rising interest rates and return the PRS to a traditional taxation system. That would go a long way to retaining viability and keeping rent increases more in line with pay increases. Also increase LHA so there would be some chance of selling those properties tenanted. Right now the rent is far to low to fit BTL mortgage lending criteria unless a buyer had a huge deposit.

From: Jo Westlake 16 November 2022 08:27 AM

Of course LHA needs to increase so minimum wage essential workers can afford their rents and also things like food, heating and travel to work costs. A great many landlords have kept rents artificially low for low paid tenants for several years. While our costs were fairly static we had a tendancy to leave things alone, especially as 40% of any rent increase would go straight to the government as extra income tax. I currently have 6 properties at or slightly below LHA rents. All are in good or extremely good condition. Collectively those rents are more than £1000 a month below market rent. If things get sticky elsewhere in my portfolio those 6 properties have the most scope for rent increases. Most of those tenants either have a current UC claim or have recent knowledge of the system and would be highly likely to get a Discretionary Housing Payment top up. In general the government needs to wake up and adjust the UC elements and earnings disregards. There needs to be a realistic allowance for travel to work costs, LHA needs to be restored to the 30th percentile rent and the adult/child elements need to be altered so a second adult in a household gets a higher allowance than a child. Or they could increase minimum wage and lower income tax so all workers are better placed to pay increasing costs.

From: Jo Westlake 15 November 2022 07:51 AM

Everyone's costs have gone up. Tenants are already far more protected from cost increases than anyone else as rents can only be increased at the end of a fixed term or annually if on a SPT. We have one tracker BTL mortgage which has increased 7 times in the last 12 months and payments are now more than 3 times as much as a year ago. That house is a bills inclusive one so gas costs are nearly 2.5 times as much as a year ago, electric is up 62%, Council Tax has increased, broadband has increased, tradespeople are charging more, etc.

From: Jo Westlake 15 November 2022 07:17 AM

Amazing how HMRC can use information from the deposit protection schemes when it suits them but not when it might actually be beneficial to tenants and landlords. Initially I assumed mydeposits asked how much the annual rent was to provide data for the government to base the 30th percentile rent on for LHA. When I asked them why we were still getting the Valuations Office rent surveys the person at mydeposits told me they didn't give that sort of information to the government.

From: Jo Westlake 14 November 2022 08:36 AM

I agree. I've never got as far as a court hearing. I've served the occasional Section 21 notice, sometimes because the other tenants in an HMO want the person to go (nice enough person but constantly forgot to lock front door) and sometimes to give them the ability to get a breathing space from other creditors. It's a useful tool that is far more beneficial to tenants than the proposed alternatives.

From: Jo Westlake 11 November 2022 15:57 PM

Sad landlord - it's not necessarily quite that simple. Employers often don't put any thought into the viability of the jobs they are offering or badly advertise them. Some want to offer very short shifts while located miles from anywhere with very infrequent public transport. I worked in a warehouse last Christmas where it took some people over 2 hours to make a 6 mile journey to work because the shift start time didn't coincide with the bus timetable. Job adverts are often misleading and quote pay rates that are either higher or lower than the job really pays. Often shift premiums are forgotten and not mentioned. Zero hours jobs often say you can pick when to work which implies you can have as many shifts as you want. What it really means is you are free to accept or decline any shifts that are offered (which may be none at all some weeks). I personally like ZHCs because I don't want the commitment of having to work specific shifts. My property business comes first but a nice bit of zero hours warehouse work is a good alternative to a gym membership. Employers need to embrace the fact that we don't all work for the same reason and don't all have the same requirement for length of shift or fixed hours. Employers often have very fixed ideas of who they want to employ and reject some very capable candidates because they don't match the idea they have. Or they're trying to fulfill some diversity box ticking exercise and reject better candidates. Especially at the lower paid end of the employment market there is too great a tendancy for employers to treat staff as disposable and not worth training properly. The miniscule difference in Universal Credit and minimum wage employment after travel to work costs have been factored in makes it very tempting for people to do the absolute bare minimum simply to qualify for the UC earnings disregard. If employers engaged with their staff and offered meaningful training, monetary recognition of skills and experience and a clear career progression path they might find recruitment somewhat easier.

From: Jo Westlake 11 November 2022 10:36 AM

Where do they get these average rental figures from? I don't tend to get involved in the nice family house market but £2750 is massively higher than anything currently advertised on Rightmove in my area.

From: Jo Westlake 11 November 2022 09:53 AM

Throughout my lifetime there have been times when buying is a good idea and times when not rushing into it is a good idea. Only the benefit of hindsight will eventually tell us if we made the right decision. My husband always says "The time to buy is when someone is willing to lend you the money".

From: Jo Westlake 11 November 2022 09:42 AM

I operate bills inclusive HMOs and found that LED light bulbs made a noticeable difference. Solar panels and solar diverters meant one house was around £65 a month cheaper throughout the summer for gas and electric than an identical one without solar. I've just installed HMO specific heating programmers in 2 student HMOs which are looking promising. It's too soon to have any meaningful data on comparable bills but the graphs on the app look very encouraging. Heat pump tumble dryers also make a noticeable difference to bills. Better roof insulation certainly helped stabilise the temperature in a couple of rooms in a loft conversion that was constructed in the 1960s. When I bought the house 20 years ago those rooms were either freezing or boiling. A good layer of Celotex has made a big difference.

From: Jo Westlake 11 November 2022 09:30 AM

25 years ago one of my colleagues said to me "You're sad you are. All you ever do is work and buy houses. You want to get a life". We were both taxi drivers working 6 nights a week. We both had school age children and were both single parents. She liked going to the casino, wore designer labels, drove a BMW for social use and smoked like a chimney. I've never been to a casino, always wear jeans, drove my taxi for social use and had given up smoking 5 years before I became a taxi driver. I also had a part time day job. Three years later she had let her ex have her Council house and her new bloke had got ill and his house was repossessed. At which point she said to me "It's alright for you. You've got your houses". It totally escaped her that we had done the same job, earned the same money and had the same opportunities. Life is about choices. How much stress and anxiety is because some people choose instant gratification instead of longer term financial security? How much hardship is because they don't look at bank statements and are paying for multiple subscriptions and memberships they don't need? One of my ex tenants had a personality clash at work, became depressed, got sacked, got into arrears, couldn't afford food, got ill and even more depressed. He eventually asked me to go through his bank statement to see if there was anything he could do. It turned out he had subscriptions for Netflix, Spotify and Amazon Prime. Also a gym membership and an expensive mobile phone contract for a phone he had lost months earlier. I gave him a Section 21 notice (having explained it didn't necessarily mean I was going to evict him). He used it to negotiate either cancellation or suspension of all the subscriptions and memberships. Also his daily overdraft charges were cancelled for a while. He got a Discretionary Housing Payment, started buying food, his health improved, he got a new job. It was a long journey but he eventually moved on of his own accord, having fully paid all rent arrears.

From: Jo Westlake 11 November 2022 09:09 AM

Edwin - you are looking at it as a saver not a borrower. Landlords are predominantly borrowers (although we are often savers as well in a more minor way). It is standard business practice for businesses to borrow money to finance their business activities.

From: Jo Westlake 10 November 2022 13:29 PM

Edwin - if a jar of coffee cost £3 and the price increases by 20% it will now cost £3.60. If my mortgage payments at 2.95% interest were £2950 and at 4.95% are now £4950 that's clearly a 68% increase. In reality now Hunt and Sunak are in charge a 5 year fix is now closer to 6.53%, so payments are £6530 a year which is about 122% increase since Easter. Fortunately, as all landlords know, finance costs are only one element of owning rental properties and inflation on most other costs is somewhat lower.

From: Jo Westlake 10 November 2022 13:08 PM

Edwin - it was a 68% increase. Don't forget BTL mortgages are interest only. £100000 at 2.95% is £2950 per year. At 4.95% the payments are £4950 per year. How is that less than inflation?

From: Jo Westlake 10 November 2022 10:03 AM

Let's stop blaming the mini budget. Rates had increased massively before that. I applied for a mortgage in April at 2.95% on a 5 year fix and the broker made a mistake on the application (which I spotted and told him about in May). He didn't rectify it and when the offer came through for the wrong product the lender said if I wanted the 5 year term it would be 4.95%. That's long before Truss and Kwasi were appointed and far more to do with the BoE.

From: Jo Westlake 10 November 2022 08:22 AM

It's all down to location. Well located student houses do very nicely, especially if they're in an Article 4 area near a Russell Group university.

From: Jo Westlake 10 November 2022 08:11 AM

Having someone stay in your house comes at a certain cost. Utilities are all metered and the extra usage will be significant. Extra showers, extra loads of washing, extra use of the oven all mounts up. Then there is the cost of stuff house guests "borrow" such as handcream, printer paper, kitchen foil, etc.

From: Jo Westlake 09 November 2022 08:21 AM

Your last sentence was certainly the first thing that occurred to me.

From: Jo Westlake 09 November 2022 08:15 AM

I've never known a tenant be especially interested in the EPC but some of them are enthusiastic about specific energy saving kit such as good heating programmers.

From: Jo Westlake 09 November 2022 08:09 AM

I can get to any of mine within 20 minutes and 5 of them are within a 3 minute walk from my house.

From: Jo Westlake 08 November 2022 09:22 AM

It will be interesting to see how many landlords sell. Saying you want to and actually doing it are two different things, especially in a falling market. Even harder when mortgage lenders are being more cautious than usual.

From: Jo Westlake 08 November 2022 07:35 AM

Poorly or inappropriately installed insulation causes mold and rot so can be harmful to both the occupier and the structural integrity of the building.

From: Jo Westlake 08 November 2022 07:27 AM

Each property and tenant scenario is different. Some tenants take great care of their homes, reliably report any repair requirements (complete with relevant photos) and are more than happy to be there when tradespeople are due or do minor repairs themselves if materials are reimbursed. I like to think it makes them feel more involved and secure in their homes if I treat them like responsible adults after it has been established that they actually are. Other tenants are oblivious to their surroundings and need far more input. I have emergency insurance and plumbing and drainage policies for most properties and make a great point of telling tenants that most things are covered so don't be scared to report anything. I expect to spend around £30K a year on boilers kitchens, bathrooms, windows and roof repairs. I just don't necessarily know which houses will need what until the last minute or which houses will be logistically possible to work in. Especially in HMOs work in communal areas can only be done if a specific room is vacated. The main bathroom can only be replaced if the en-suite room is vacant, etc. Availability of materials and labour have caused problems for the last 3 years. I've had a couple of jobs where tradespeople have decided they don't feel very well and pulled out of jobs less than 12 hours before they're due to turn up. Trying to find a replacement at short notice has made jobs very chaotic.

From: Jo Westlake 08 November 2022 07:21 AM

Michael - it's standard practice in student let's. They look now for houses for next September. They sign the tenancy now and pay the deposit. Some letting agents are only allowing online viewings and some students are abroad so can't do physical viewings. In some respects it's not ideal but in others it's very convenient.

From: Jo Westlake 07 November 2022 18:14 PM

If all types of letting were treated in the same way from a tax point of view standard BTL tenants wouldn't be looking at quite so high rent increases. Why are holiday lets taxed less onerously than long term homes? Why does up to £1000 not count for some type of letting but does for long term homes? Why is £7500 tax free on Rent a Room but not on long term homes? It isn't landlords being greedy, we don't actually make any more money, as the government take so much in extra tax.

From: Jo Westlake 07 November 2022 10:59 AM

Realistically treating us as a business and taxing us accordingly would be the biggest help. Abolish Section 24 and treat our finance costs exactly the same as every other business would be a good start.

From: Jo Westlake 07 November 2022 09:23 AM

"unless they can find another £250 pcm" is a very valid point. They may have to find that plus moving costs even if they do downsize. A great many long term tenants have had very modest or no rent increases for years. Their current rent is much lower than the current market rent for smaller houses. Even with a fairly hefty increase they would still be better off staying where they are. If the landlord can be persuaded to hang on and not sell.

From: Jo Westlake 07 November 2022 09:11 AM

I like student tenants. I've had student houses since 1999 and have never had a problem with them. In all that time I've only had one student house returned to me in need of major cleaning. Wear and tear has been no greater than in any other type of tenancy. Occasionally students do stupid things like set up a laundry business because they have a bills inclusive contract (they now have a fair usage limit) or have an orgy and improvise some of the props shown on the Ann Summers playing cards they'd used for inspiration. A hand basin is no substitute for a washing machine and pendant light fittings just aren't the same as a chandelier! The damage looked dramatic but only cost about £30 to repair. Some of the rents being advertised for next year do look very high compared to the standard HMO rents. They always used to be broadly similar but I guess student landlords were very heavily impacted and criticised during the lockdowns so are now taking steps to cope with any future lockdowns. Not having any stability in the utilities market is making it very hard to price in inclusive utilities.

From: Jo Westlake 07 November 2022 08:30 AM

My advice would be to remember your tenants are human beings not just £££££. They often have ideas that may be somewhat different to yours. That's not necessarily a bad thing but can make life unpredictable. They come in multiple types so work within your comfort zone. If you understand the benefit system and have some empathy with low income households fine. If you don't then probably stay away from that part of the market. If you generally like students and can overlook the occasional unfortunate event consider students. If they wind you up stay away. If your comfort zone is professional families it's a big part of the market. HMOs are a specialist thing that are hard work to get right. Good ones are fantastic, bad ones are hell. It will usually be the compatibility of the tenants, not the quality of the building, that is the main factor in that. If you don't want to self manage find an agent who understands your tenants are human beings not just £££££.

From: Jo Westlake 05 November 2022 10:54 AM

Houses built in the last 20 years are nearly all EPC C. I've got a couple that were built in the 1980s that have always been C. It's mainly 1950s properties I'm having issues with.

From: Jo Westlake 04 November 2022 13:19 PM

Shelly - I do tend to have a pre assessment done on newly purchased properties so I target improvements most effectively. It's the house I've owned since before EPCs were invented that may be more tricky. It's EPC has solid floor insulation as a recommendation. You said it doesn't have a minimum level, which seems bizarre but possibly a game changer. How thin can it actually be? Can it be the insulated foil type underlay for laminate flooring? Can it be a decent carpet underlay? Can it be 6mm insulated tile backer board? Obviously I'd always assumed it had to match whatever Building Regulations require for new builds and I've never found any guidance to state otherwise so a pointer to the actual requirements would be much appreciated.

From: Jo Westlake 04 November 2022 09:29 AM

I have one property that is EPC D and can't get any higher. It was G when I bought it so has had every possible improvement already. I have one that says it's EPC E because the assessor decided to downgrade it to get grant funding for cavity wall insulation and then didn't do a new assessment after the insulation was done. It used to be D so I fully expect it will get a C next time I get it assessed. Another one is a very high D and just needs the night storage heater replacing with a Dimplex Quantum. No point doing it until I have to. I'm hoping that 2 of the above properties will become C rated without doing anything when the EPC algorithm is updated. Anyone know when that's supposed to be happening?

From: Jo Westlake 04 November 2022 08:05 AM

I guess the government have finally realised the Renter's Reform Bill is nowhere even close to oven ready. In the meantime there are already numerous laws that could be enforced if Councils wanted to do so. The problem is the logistics. There needs to be a supply of vacant properties, either Social or PRS, for anything meaningful to work. With the government trying to get Local Authorities to house their share of Ukrainians, migrants and address the rough sleeping homeless issue every time they get access to an empty house they could fill it many times over. By now the penny must have dropped that if some of the proposals in the Rental Reforms White paper are adopted there will be a massively reduced PRS. Even if some of us could see a way of working with the proposals we can't charge enough rent for the finances to work with the new higher interest rates to be able to buy more houses. There won't even be many new build Social houses entering the system now interest rates have gone up and house purchases have fallen off a cliff. Developers certainly won't be rushing to build houses they can't sell for top money and so the delivery of so called "affordable housing" will also slow down. Why is it always the rare cases of bad practice that are cited? Even then not enough detail is provided. What type of insect infestation? Bed bugs, fleas, ants, spiders, something else? The cause and treatment are different. Cleaning is a variable concept. Some properties will be fully redecorated and deep cleaned to show house standards, some to a decent DIY standard, some just the bits that can be reached without moving any furniture and a few are completely gross. I had one tenant whinge because they found one human hair in a drawer! In what way were the windows broken? Presumably they meant that hinges needed oiling or had bent or the handles had snapped, not that panes of glass were missing. So while properties should be in a better state than the example used (and the overwhelming majority are) it may well have been a case of spending less than £50 on insecticides, window parts and cleaning products to vastly improve the property. Were the couple in question just doing what it took to be prioritised on the Housing list. Managing to get a Section 21 eviction with a 3 month old baby is a very effective way to jump a very long way up the list.

From: Jo Westlake 04 November 2022 07:52 AM

I don't know why there is so little understanding of the various rental models. A fixed term only really means a fixed term if the tenant decides to vacate by that date. A SPT rolls on until either the landlord or tenant chooses to end it. In either case if the tenant decides not to move out it gets messy. I can understand why Letting Agents always preferred fixed term tenancies as there were far more fee generating opportunities. Other than students or people on fixed work contracts SPTs are generally far more flexible and stable for tenants. I read on one of the landlord websites a few days ago that someone thought you couldn't ever increase rent on a SPT. There has often been scaremongering about SPTs being insecure and tenants living in fear of eviction every month. There's very little said about the vast numbers of tenants who have been in their current homes on SPTs for many, many years often with minimal rent increases since the day they moved in. No landlord wants to lose a good tenant so we don't need to force our tenants to commit to another fixed 12 month contract and we often overlook increasing the rent on a regular basis. As long as 12 months have elapsed since the last increase and we communicate the increase correctly there's no problem. If the tenant thinks we are being heavy handed they can apply to a rent tribunal for a determination. Currently that could be more than we had asked for. We can serve a Section 21 exactly the same as someone using a fixed term tenancy or at any time after it rolls onto a SPT. For a good tenant or even a mediocre one we are highly unlikely to do so unless we need to sell. Even on a fixed tenancy if the tenant decides not to go on the correct day the landlord would need to follow the same eviction procedure, which would take months. So how much of the activist noise is because of the inflexible nature of fixed term tenancies and the big deal tenancy renewal has become?

From: Jo Westlake 03 November 2022 11:27 AM

They would fill that hole a lot faster if they cut the CGT rate. At 28% I won't sell anything other than properties with less than about a £60K gain. Maybe some of my ex Council flats except those tenants are long term and pretty much hassle free. With indexation relief I would consider selling any of them depending exactly what the deal was.

From: Jo Westlake 03 November 2022 09:01 AM

Depends on the quality of the information on energy saving products as to whether it's useful or not. Some products come with really good monitoring apps that can genuinely help lower usage. Others are next best thing to useless. Until you try a product you have no idea if it will suit you. None of this stuff is cheap so it would be handy to have a decent guide available.

From: Jo Westlake 03 November 2022 08:21 AM

The BoE is adding to the problem not solving it. Ukraine, global energy prices and global materials shortages due to Covid lockdowns will not be altered by increasing UK interest rates. Crashing the housing market and with it numerous other associated industries is about all they will achieve.

From: Jo Westlake 03 November 2022 08:12 AM

Doesn't Section 24 basically mean that if we pay £5000 in mortgage interest we also have to pay an extra £1000 in tax on top of the amount of tax every other business in the country would have to pay? It's almost like they've added an alternative to VAT into the rental model. So we have to charge at least £1000 extra rent for every £5000 of mortgage interest. With mortgage interest rates increasing the Section 24 tax element will also increase so rents will have to increase. It isn't landlords who will benefit from this money. We are only acting as tax collectors on behalf of the government.

From: Jo Westlake 03 November 2022 08:06 AM

From: Jo Westlake 03 November 2022 07:53 AM

The current punitive level of CGT is a barrier to selling. A great many of us bought when taper relief existed so the current extortionate level of CGT completely wrecked our retirement strategy. At the last General Election even the Labour party wanted to restore indexation relief. Their policy was to tax any genuine gain at the marginal tax rate after any inflation element had been allowed for. 40% of any genuine gain is a whole lot more palatable than 28% of the unadjusted increase. The fact we have been artificially put in the higher rate tax band due to Section 24 means we are already paying vast amounts of extra income tax every year. Charging CGT at the current rate is just counter productive greed. If the government wanted to boost tax receipts they would significantly lower or abolish CGT on rental properties so there would be an increased number of sales. That would result in more SDLT and VAT as every element of the transaction charges VAT. It would create or maintain employment for mortgage brokers, lenders, estate agents, solicitors, removal companies, electricians, plumbers, kitchen fitters, carpet fitters, furniture shops, decorators, etc. All of which pay income tax. It would also add stock to the housing market, mainly at the FTB end. That would then cut the UC bill as homeowners aren't entitled to any help with mortgage costs. A tenant with children can earn nearly £20K a year more than a homeowner with children before their UC entitlement stops due to the earnings taper.

From: Jo Westlake 03 November 2022 07:50 AM

I think it's fair to say the system is at breaking point and that it (rather than landlords) discriminates against claimants. A great many landlords are very supportive of low income tenants. I have got some tenants who claim UC top ups and a couple more who will rely on top ups when they retire. They have proved over a period of time they are good tenants and so I artificially keep their rent at the ludicrously low LHA level. If those particular tenants moved out the properties would be relet at a far more realistic rent. The market rent for one or two of them may be close enough to LHA for the Local Authority to try and persuade me to take someone from one of their schemes or that they would provide a Discretionary Housing Payment top up. However, it has to be remembered that any of the lower priced rentals will be absolutely inundated with applicants. Both self financing and benefit aided. The landlord will have a huge choice of tenants and human nature is to help the strivers who are self financing by working long hours. Even better if they pass referencing which is far more likely if they can provide payslips and proof of employment. Government policies have forced us to put rents up. The government needs to ensure LHA is increased accordingly if they want benefit claimants to be able to afford PRS rent. Failing that they need to ensure best utilisation of existing Social Housing and that may mean building far more retirement Social Housing.

From: Jo Westlake 02 November 2022 14:59 PM

Solar panels make a big difference to the water heating bill if you have a solar diverter fitted. From Easter to September all of my hot water came from surplus solar that would otherwise have been exported to the grid. Even this time of year about half of it is from surplus solar.

From: Jo Westlake 02 November 2022 07:55 AM

How about if we ask for stuff nicely? I would very much appreciate, if it isn't too much trouble: Section 24 to be scrapped CGT indexation or taper relief to be restored and Section 8 to be made fit for purpose. Pretty please, with cherries and sprinkles on. I somehow don't imagine that would work any better than the student demands, although of course it may actually enable us to partially accommodate some of the rental aspects of their their wishlist. Section 24 is a complete disservice to every type of tenant and it's this form of government racketeering that has been one of the main reasons for rental inflation.

From: Jo Westlake 01 November 2022 09:49 AM

I was investigated a few years ago after having a drop in income due to being violently robbed while working as a taxi driver. It took over a year and the only thing they could find was that my accountant had mistakenly claimed about £80 in Trade Union subs. Presumably on the basis that as a self employed person the only point of paying a Trade Union was for the legal insurance that came with it. It was certainly the Union funded solicitor that got me a Criminal Injuries compensation payout and also compensation when I broke my ankle on a garage forecourt. It was fascinating how thorough the investigation was. All petrol receipts were analysed for date, time and amount. Questions were asked about if it was even possible to drive certain distances in a given time. I hate to think how many hours HMRC devoted to it. Realistically, these days with everything being billed and paid online it would be incredibly unlikely for the vast majority of experienced landlords to even attempt to conceal income. A few newbies may get confused about the various exemptions that apply to other types of letting such as Rent a Room or holiday lets and they may find the concept of Section 24 completely baffling.

From: Jo Westlake 01 November 2022 09:27 AM

On my wishlist would be: Abolish Section 24, Classify property rental as a business with earned income instead of unearned investment income, Increase LHA to the 30th percentile, Reinstate indexation or taper relief for CGT, Improve and speed up the Section 8 eviction process.

From: Jo Westlake 31 October 2022 07:27 AM

All landlord taxes need to be fair and proportionate. Ultimately if landlord taxes go up rent also goes up. Maybe not immediately but if landlords are going to exist there has to be a financial point to doing so. We are the only industry in the UK that can't deduct finance costs as a business expense before determining our profit and taxable income. That artificially pushes people into the 40% higher rate tax band and denies younger landlords their Child Benefit even though on a traditional profit calculation method their genuine real world profit may not exist at all. The biggest help would be to abolish Section 24 and reclassify property rental as a business activity not investment income. Some of us do a great deal of the work involved in running our properties. Why should it be treated as a hobby if I repaint a bedroom in a rental property while it is treated as work for a painter and decorator? CGT needs to be reformed. Many people own BTLs as a form of pension. In a traditional pension they would have received tax relief on pension contributions, stock market growth on the funds held within the pension and tax efficient ways of receiving the pension when the time comes. Also their pension funds are held outside their estate so not subject to IHT. A great many of us bought BTLs while taper relief existed with the intention of selling them when we wanted to retire. That was then snatched away from us and BTL properties are now subject to the super enhanced, higher than any other asset rate of 28% CGT. Even though it's one of the only assets that can't be sold off in nice annual CGT efficient bundles. Rental income is classed as unearned investment income so can't even be paid into a SIPP and get tax relief on the contributions other than on £2880 a year. How is that supposed to be sufficient to fund a retirement?

From: Jo Westlake 31 October 2022 07:04 AM

Surely it would be very unusual to charge extra for Council Tax, utility bills or cleaning. I used to have lodgers or homestay language students in my home and there was never any question of charging extra for random bills. It was either self catering or half board. My preference was always for half board so I didn't have someone else in the kitchen and I got to eat a more varied diet (easier to cook for several people and less leftovers). The old benefit disregard was wide open to abuse. It didn't matter if you provided 3 meals a day or gave them a loaf of bread once a week and pointed them at the toaster. It still counted as providing food. UC treats lodger income differently to the old Housing Benefit anyway. According to Citizens Advice: Will taking in a lodger affect your Universal Credit? Instead of Housing Benefit you may receive Universal Credit. For people on Universal Credit, the rent from a lodger is not treated as income. This means that whatever amount you charge a lodger, it will not affect how much Universal Credit you get.

From: Jo Westlake 29 October 2022 13:14 PM

Paragon are a dream to deal with compared to some of the others. The big plus with Paragon is they don't insist on using a broker and will allow direct application. The forms are lengthy but they have good instructions online and very helpful staff if you need clarification on any part of the application. For portfolio landlords who know all the information about their properties and can read mortgage criteria it just removes one layer of potential error and spreads up the communication process. Maybe I have been especially unlucky with brokers this year but their mistakes have cost me thousands and lost 2 mortgage offers. Paragon on the other hand were quick and easy to deal with and processed 2 remortgages with extra borrowing in a timely fashion with no complications. It's just a question of if you and your property fit their criteria.

From: Jo Westlake 29 October 2022 11:52 AM

He's right that we need to stop pitting one type of tenure against another. There needs to far greater recognition of the different types of both homeownership and letting. It isn't a straightforward two horse situation. You have homeowners without a mortgage, homeowners with a mortgage, homeowners with shared ownership, homeowners where the government have underwriten a share of their house (HTB). Then you have tenants living in self contained Social Housing, tenants in self contained PRS properties, HMOs on individual tenancy agreements, shared houses on joint tenancy agreements, fixed term tenancies, rolling SPTs, short term let's, Monday to Friday let's, lodging in a landlords home, etc. Every type of tenure suits someone. Most people will experience a whole range of different types throughout their life. At certain stages in life renting is by far the most cost effective, flexible option. In the long term homeownership will probably be best for the majority, but not necessarily if divorce or long term health problems occur.

From: Jo Westlake 29 October 2022 11:08 AM

It will be interesting to see what the sold prices over the last few months look like when Land Registry eventually publish them. I did a bit of remortgaging around Easter and valuers were very squeamish about asking prices of neighbouring properties. Remortgage valuations were between £25K and £50K below asking prices of similar properties. My son finally completed on a purchase last week that was listed for sale last December. He offered nearly £20K below asking price in February and it took nearly 8 months to complete.

From: Jo Westlake 28 October 2022 10:04 AM

Ellie - that's a very specific scenario. Your tenants have chosen to rent a house on a joint tenancy and by doing so have become one entity. That's a choice they have made. Whether they actually understood the implications may be questionable. It has certain advantages and certain disadvantages. What happens when part of the group decide to leave being the main disadvantage. As far as I am aware if one of them chooses to leave they have given notice for the whole group as they are one entity and not regarded as individuals. It's a model that works well for students but clearly can be problematic after university. You haven't chosen to end the tenancy and are willing to sign up a new one if they find new housemates you deem to be suitable or presumably split the rent between the remaining household members. You're not a magician and it's up to them to decide which route to go. If they didn't want this potential problem they should have found a property with individual tenancy agreements and accepted the fact they may sometimes have new housemates. Presumably at the moment if some of them choose to not move out at the end of the fixed term you have to wait months for a Section 21 to take effect? Or if they can't afford to pay the whole rent a Section 8.

From: Jo Westlake 27 October 2022 14:02 PM

Ellie - how often do you choose to not renew a tenancy in the general lettings sector? Apart from students I always go SPT so I don't have that annual decision point for most of my tenancies. They just trundle along for as long as they last.

From: Jo Westlake 27 October 2022 10:08 AM

Michael - most tenants leave because they want to move not because we want them to. How many times have you evicted a GOOD tenant because you want to sell the property or just because you feel like it? For me so far it's never. I've been a landlord for over 24 years without a break and off and on for 10 years before that. Maybe eventually I might want to sell something and it might be better to sell something that doesn't happen to be naturally vacant at the opportune moment. It's a once in a blue moon scenario not a frequent occurrence. A tenant who is 2 months in arrears hasn't adhered to his tenancy agreement and would be dealt with under Section 8, so no compensation due. My point is activists are trying to portray all tenants as perfect angels and all landlords as heartless monsters. The reality is were are bitterly betrayed by a broken system and currently forced to wrongly use the eviction routes in place thereby reinforcing the activists stereotyping. If fault based evictions were all dealt with with an upgraded, rapid, functioning Section 8 we would hardly ever need Section 21 as we very rarely evict good tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 27 October 2022 10:01 AM

Nick - that's the sort of thing the NRLA need to be focusing on. How to make the system fit for purpose. What level of proof is appropriate and fair to both sides. Surely virtually all rent is paid by Standing Order or bank transfer. It arrives in the landlords or letting agents bank account clearly labelled with the tenants name. If it doesn't arrive it hasn't been paid. It's not like the old days where landlords went round collecting cash and signing rent books. ASB is the difficult one due to potential reprisals. Fraudulently obtaining a tenancy is something you have mentioned several times and it strikes me it should be included under Section 8. I clearly said only impeccable tenants should be compensated, certainly not the type you have been having trouble with.

From: Jo Westlake 27 October 2022 09:42 AM

Exactly. Much cheaper than the current broken system for landlords and much fairer for genuinely good tenants. Pushing bad tenants through the Section 8 route would help to stop them being rewarded with Social Housing as they would have made themselves intentionally homeless.

From: Jo Westlake 27 October 2022 09:25 AM

I'm going to say something some of you won't like. I want Section 8 to work quickly and with certainty. If at fault tenants could be removed within 4 weeks for ASB or fraudulently obtaining a tenancy and 10 weeks for non payment of rent or persistent arrears (coupled with a CCJ and repayment order) we could be more innovative over Section 21. That's physically removed from the property within those time frames. In exchange I would be perfectly happy to compensate tenants who have fully adhered to their tenancy agreement with the equivalent of 2 months rent to help with a move they didn't choose to make. If it is my choice to seek vacant possession because I want to sell why should good tenants be out of pocket? In the event of having to evict good tenants to carry out EPC improvements the government should pay the 2 months rent. In reality compensation would hardly ever be necessary. How many of us have ever evicted a good tenant? Some of us might want to sell up and retire, some of us have no intention to do so. Some sell when a property becomes vacant. Overall the number of completely blameless tenants who get evicted each year is miniscule so would it really hurt us to have a system that ensured impeccable tenants weren't out of pocket too badly? Wouldn't it act as an incentive for more tenants to behave impeccably which would make everyone's life more pleasant?

From: Jo Westlake 27 October 2022 08:49 AM

I can understand why politicians are so keen on homeownership as it would cut the benefit bill hugely. Homeowners aren't entitled to any help with housing costs unless all adults in the household are fully unemployed. Tenants have UC entitlement on far higher salaries than homeowners because of the LHA element. I can't understand why the public fall for the homeownership thing quite so readily. It makes sense eventually when someone is settled in a long term job and has put down roots in a community but until that point the benefits are often questionable. Having to pay a mortgage usually denies home owning parents the opportunity to spend time at home with pre-school children. Haven't numerous studies shown that spending early years with a parent rather than in paid for childcare is usually far better for a child's development? Having to factor in selling a house and buying another one makes accepting better job opportunities far more difficult. Doesn't that make our workforce far less dynamic than it could be and therefore stunt the economic growth of the nation? Buying a home too early usually means buying something that will be too small once children come along. The cost of selling and buying a bigger house is huge (equivalent to more than a years rent). In a rapidly rising market it may make sense but in a flat or falling market it can make moving completely impossible. Was the figure of £4500 a year rent increase since 2010 a typo or only applicable to London? Back in 2010 my HMO tenants were paying £95 a week including bills, the same rooms today are £115 a week. A 2 bed flat was £600 a month, now it's £675. A 3 bed maisonette was £715 a month, now it's £795. That strikes me as between £900 and £1040 a year increase. How much have wages gone up in the last 12 years? How much have my HMO utility costs gone up in the same period?

From: Jo Westlake 27 October 2022 08:05 AM

Council waiting lists are certainly questionable. How many people on them are still alive or still live in the area? How many have found perfectly suitable private sector housing but just fancy a subsidized Social house, especially if they are self funding? How often do people have to update their details? The single parent household is largely down to the pitiful amount of UC a second adult in a household is entitled to. How many full size adults can survive on £7 a day for food, clothing, entertainment, transport, etc? Thousands of families live apart, even though they still get on, because it's the only thing that is financially viable. One of them rents a house, has the Child Benefit entitlement, works a few hours to get the maximum UC earnings disregard. The other one rents the cheapest room they can find, earns as much as possible, isn't affected by the loss of Child Benefit at £50K (as the children reside with the other parent). They can spend random chunks of time in the family home without any issues as long as it's not a regular pattern. The solution wouldn't involve cutting UC as such but could be done by changing how much each adult and each child gets. Currently a child gets nearly twice as much as an adult, which is bizarre as children don't make the spending choices.

From: Jo Westlake 26 October 2022 10:02 AM

FTBs would have no chance in a falling market. Banks would insist on far bigger deposits. Back in 2008 anything less than a 40% deposit was extremely difficult. Negative equity doesn't matter if you're not planning to move but is a real problem if you do need to move as you would need to have enough money to clear the mortgage shortfall, pay the estate agent, solicitor and SDLT and have a sizeable deposit for a new house.

From: Jo Westlake 25 October 2022 18:44 PM

Dominic - point taken. It can't be emphasized enough that traditional BTL is the only business in the entire country that is taxed on turnover instead of profit. Rents can only be increased at very specific times, either at the end of a fixed term tenancy if it is renewed or at least 12 months after the last increase on a SPT. If interest rates increase on our mortgages we can't immediately increase our rents but the extra Section 24 tax is charged immediately. It is a very one sided arrangement with everything stacked against traditional landlords. From a tax point of view holiday lets make huge sense purely because traditional BTL is taxed in such an unconventional way. I just find it bizarre that something that is essential (someone's home) is caught up in such an unusual tax situation when a luxury (holiday let) is taxed less onerously.

From: Jo Westlake 25 October 2022 14:51 PM

I must have been living in a parallel universe for the last 3 years. Didn't Sunak almost single handedly cause the severe economic crisis currently facing the UK? Didn't he resign as chancellor when he had run up such astronomical debt he couldn't work out how to deal with it? Didn't Boris say those who could work from home should do so while those who couldn't should continue to go to work (other than hospitality and a few other specific industries)? Didn't Sunak allow the media to misinterpret the above and control events immediately after the first lockdown announcement? His furlough scheme was expanded to cover millions of people it was surely never intended for and as a consequence has created huge supply side issues and government debt. Sunak proved repeatedly that he had absolutely no idea how various industries worked. Furloughing driving instructors and examiners while the demand for home deliveries was exploding, running Eat Out on nights that restaurants are usually shut or only have a skeleton staff, furloughing mechanics and construction workers when things needed to be maintained and repaired, furloughing factory production staff causing huge materials shortages. His refusal to ensure agency, temporary, casual and zero hours workers could afford to be off sick was verging on criminal. £96 a week is not sufficient and thousands of people simply didn't test as they couldn't afford to be off work. How many extra deaths did that policy alone cause? As a landlord and a zero hours workers in an essential industry I was entitled to absolutely nothing while Sunak was throwing money around with abandon, but I'm certainly going to be paying staggeringly high tax for the foreseeable to pay for his recklessness.

From: Jo Westlake 25 October 2022 10:58 AM

There are numerous reasons why so many landlords have chosen the Airbnb route. The far more generous taxation of holiday lets and the worry over eviction problems and timescales in traditional BTL being 2 of the main reasons. However, wrongly located Airbnbs can and do cause misery for long term residents, so regulation or planning permission is long overdue. It mystifies me why Councils are so keen on putting obstacles in the way of HMOs, which provide much needed affordable housing, while at the same time they do virtually nothing to control the far worse ASB surrounding unregulated Airbnbs. Quite how successful or lucrative some Airbnbs are is questionable. There's been plenty of articles about the successful ones in prime locations, not so much about the ones who have had to cease operating due to breaching the conditions on the leasehold flats people mistakenly thought they could use for holiday lets. It must cost thousands to kit out a holiday let to a decent standard so having the proper permissions in place before making that investment would surely be a good thing?

From: Jo Westlake 25 October 2022 08:57 AM

Of course he wants people to be home owners. It means they don't qualify for LHA. They're hardly going to be getting their hands on capital in the form of home ownership when property prices drop due to the Bank of England increasing interest rates. Negative equity is far more likely. His idea of wanting developers to finish a project before they are granted new planning permission for other plots in the same local area shows just how clueless he is about housing. It can take years to acquire suitable land and get planning permission granted. Local Authorities work on 10 or 20 year town planning concepts. It could turn into 40 or 50 year concepts if developers had to finish one development before starting the next. If mortgage lenders aren't willing to lend or people aren't willing to risk taking out a big mortgage how are developers supposed to sell houses? His 'infrastructure first guarantee', which aims to ensure all new homes are supported by enough local doctors, schools and roads is a soundbite with very little likelihood of being financially viable. How are doctors and schools going to justify their existence with no patients or pupils? Busing them in from outside the area is the usual method but then there is no capacity for anyone who buys or rents the new houses when they are actually built. Does he not realise it takes years to build a housing estate not just a few minutes?

From: Jo Westlake 24 October 2022 16:23 PM

Presumably Councils realise they can't renovate properties for an economically viable cost. A while ago we bought an ex Council flat that needed a new kitchen, rewiring, replastering, sound proof ceiling, fully redecorating, etc. It took us about 4 weeks and £12000. The Council flat upstairs was having a new kitchen fitted at the same time. Tiny little kitchen took 2 months and according to the contractors £16000. Just for the kitchen!

From: Jo Westlake 24 October 2022 08:34 AM

Green mortgages are OK to a point. Nice to get a better rate if your property happens to qualify but frustrating if it doesn't. The difference is often very, very small. Certainly not enough to fund much energy improvement work. If lenders were serious about encouraging energy efficiency measures the difference would be greater and there would be the facility to drop down onto the cheaper rate mid term as soon as an improved EPC was produced. If the government wanted to encourage landlords to make green improvements all such work would be tax deductible immediately and not classed as a capital improvement.

From: Jo Westlake 24 October 2022 06:48 AM

I bought my first 2 houses in 1987 just before prices shot up like a rocket, sold one of them a year later just before the crash. Bought another one in 1991 at a very discounted price, a new build that had missed the market and been stood empty for 3 years. Lived in it for 8 years while it's value continued to drop and still own it as a student HMO. I have very clear memories of the property market in the late 1980s and right through the 1990s. So much of it was luck rather than judgement. Either good luck that you happened to buy or sell at what turned out to be a good time or bad luck that you didn't.

From: Jo Westlake 21 October 2022 16:00 PM

Some of us will have increased rents for some tenants, not all. Until a couple of months ago I was in the catagory of landlords who very rarely increased rent for existing tenants. When the utility price increases were announced in August taking the included annual utility bill for 8 HMOs from £8000 (at August 2021 prices) to £35000 I had to do something. For some of my HMO tenants it was the first increase in the entire 5 years they had been in the house. My LHA tenants are still paying LHA level rent, which across those 6 properties is at least £1200 a month below market rent. There is only so long I can subsidize those people from elsewhere in the portfolio. Five of my mortgage deals come to the end in 2023. They're all low LTVs but it's going to be a big increase in payments made even worse with Section 24. So this year I have increased the rent of 14 (out of 41) tenants by between £10 and £70 a month. Next year it's going to have to be more but without knowing what mortgage rates or utility costs will look like by then there's no way of predicting how much. The alternative is to sell one or two properties and clear 2 or 3 mortgages but I hate the thought of evicting good tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 21 October 2022 08:33 AM

Cornwall desperately needs more long term rental properties. Even if residents are working long hours the jobs are often low paid or seasonal and not sufficient to satisfy mortgage lending criteria. I can fully understand the MP being anti holiday rentals but to campaign to hamper traditional BTL seems to be a complete disservice to his constituents.

From: Jo Westlake 21 October 2022 07:27 AM

The human side of it is a big factor for hands on landlords. The faceless corporation would see your tenant as under paying for a house that is far too big for their needs. If they can afford market rent all well and good, if they can't afford it find somewhere smaller. No regard to what that may do to the tenants health. Even Social Housing has annual rent increases and no one seems to bat an eyelid at that. A humane landlord would want them to have the comfort of their long term home for what may be their final few months together. It's something we do. We try and second guess a situation and often err on the side of generosity. In the situation you have I'd be thinking: What's their housing entitlement, what's the LHA, how much is comparable Social Housing, have they got private pensions, are they fully self financing or do they get top ups (would additional Discretionary Housing payments be a possibility), how much are State pensions going up, what other financial help are they receiving, are they good tenants, do they do minor repairs themselves or call you for the slightest issue, is there likely to be a time in the foreseeable future where a rent increase may feel better, what's the likelihood of the government imposing a rent freeze. Would doing a modest increase now and explaining that legally you can't increase it again for at least 12 months give them peace of mind? I was surprised at the very positive response I had from some of my tenants when I did modest increases a few weeks ago. Some of them had been extremely worried by the scaremongering in the media.

From: Jo Westlake 19 October 2022 10:57 AM

I think some companies will do Economy 7 if you have a working smart meter. The rates vary quite a bit from company to company and it's not easy getting the tariff information.

From: Jo Westlake 19 October 2022 10:04 AM

They can still be rented if they've got an exemption due to the cost of getting them up to E. If the exemption didn't exist Local Authorities would have a duty to house the tenants who would be made homeless through no fault of their own. LAs currently have a bit of a housing shortage so the last thing they need is even more people being made homeless when the home they currently have is significantly better than a tent, cardboard box or mates sofa.

From: Jo Westlake 19 October 2022 07:50 AM

Aren't houses in those areas incredibly cheap to buy? Don't they start at about the price of a car? If homeownership is what everyone is supposed to want why do people rent houses in the areas where property is so affordable? Could it be because those houses would be more of a millstone than an asset and improvements would cost far more than the amount they would add to the value of a property? If the government are serious about improving energy efficiency they need to introduce some grants and tax breaks for EPC improving works. For all rental properties, not just those that house benefit claiming tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 19 October 2022 07:20 AM

A 62% rent increase sounds like a lot but in reality depends on what the original rent was and when the last increase was. The tenant always has the option of applying to a rent Tribunal for a determination. A great many tenants don't have regular rent increases so when eventually one does happen it is likely to be more than the current annual inflation rate.

From: Jo Westlake 19 October 2022 06:59 AM

Fantastic advice if you want your property to be turned into a mold infested swamp. Avoid the installation of a tumble drier and only heat specific spaces. Perfect recipe for cold spots, condensation and mold.

From: Jo Westlake 19 October 2022 06:47 AM

Algarve Investor - nothing has been costed or funded rationally since March 2020. Sunak threw billions around indiscriminately and completely destabilised just about everything. The furlough scheme was insanity (paying people 80% to not do one job while encouraging them to go and work in a key industry on full pay at the same time). Rent payment holidays, which have contributed to the number of landlords selling and so increasing rents and the bill for temporary emergency housing. Introducing low to medium earners to the UC system which has made them realise it often isn't financially beneficial to work full-time. Kwasi's mini budget wasn't perfect but it did give hope to people who actually pay tax. Employers desperately need an available and motivated workforce. Allowing workers to keep more of their earnings and not rely on benefit top ups is hugely motivational. The 45% is only paid by a tiny number of people so although cutting it was tone deaf it was cheap and would probably have paid for itself many times over if it attracted the brightest and best to set up in the UK. Also the top tax rate was 40% throughout virtually all of the Labour government reign.

From: Jo Westlake 17 October 2022 13:56 PM

How depressing. Stabilizing the energy costs allowed landlords to work out rational rents or rent increases for bills inclusive tenants. Now we're back to either not including it or randomly guessing a number that may or may not be anywhere close to how much it will actually cost. If landlords can only increase rent once a year, regardless of how much their costs change, surely the same rules should be applied to energy companies. Personally I thought Kwasi's mini budget was pretty good for anyone with any kind of work ethic and would have resulted in growth. It could have done more at the cliff edges but it was a beacon of light somewhere on the horizon. This morning is just incredibly negative and depressing for anyone who actually bothers going to work or makes any kind of effort.

From: Jo Westlake 17 October 2022 12:35 PM

Several of my self contained properties haven't had an increase since LHA rates were increased in 2020. Others have increased on tenant changeover. One went up just over 5%. Another has an increase of £10 a month every June which is just under a 2% increase. HMO rents have had to increase more because of the utility cost increases. Even then the increases haven't been huge, around 5% for anyone who has been in for between one and two years up to around 11% for those who hadn't had a rent increase for 5 years. Increases on tenant changeover have been whatever market forces suggest. With between 30 and 75 enquiries per vacancy clearly I'm well and truly instep with tenant affordability and expectation. With mortgage rate increases there are going to have to be some bigger rent increases over the next year or two. The only way of minimising it would be if the government removed Section 24.

From: Jo Westlake 15 October 2022 11:01 AM

In terms of living costs, convenience and environmental impact which is better: A) Victorian terrace within walking distance of work, schools and shops with EPC E B) Modern terrace on the edge of town requiring a bus or car journey to work, schools and shops with EPC C?

From: Jo Westlake 14 October 2022 11:02 AM

I'm not remotely into all the climate change and saving the planet stuff but I am into saving money. If green measures make sense financially and aren't inconvenient I'm all for them. I've driven a Prius for about 15 years because it made economic sense to do so and it's an incredibly practical car. I had solar panels installed on 3 houses about 10 years ago because it made economic sense to do so. The Feed in Tariff was a no brainer. Only works on suitable roofs though. We bought an EV through our company for my husband to drive because the tax breaks were sufficient to make it very attractive. A combination of solar electric, cheap night time electric and the finance payments for the car cost less every month than petrol did in his old Mercedes estate. The Zappi charging point we had installed introduced me to the power of graphs in terms of a behaviour modification tool. It turns out I'm fascinated with graphs and data (preferably if pretty colours are involved). Having Zappi introduced me to Eddi which is a solar diverter to send surplus solar electric to the hot water immersion. Since Easter we have only used the gas boiler for about 2 hours for hot water and now we have the Octopus Go cheap nighttime electric tariff won't be using gas at all for hot water. The other 2 houses with solar panels have had cheaper fit and forget solar diverters installed which have noticeably reduced the gas bills over the summer. I love my Hive heating programmer because I can turn up the central heating from under my duvet before I get out of bed or without leaving my office. I'm fascinated with the data provided by the Inspire Home Automation heating programmers I've had installed in 2 of my HMOs. I can see exactly what temperature the house has been at for the last 24 hours, at what times and for how long the boiler has been running, if the tenants have needed to boost the heating, etc. Also I can adjust the program without leaving my house. I love sitting on the sofa wrapped in my electric throw which cocoons me in a lovely cloud of fluffy warmth far more effectively than my central heating. The fact that I didn't feel the need to light the gas fire or boost the central heating temperature much last winter because of the electric throw meant our gas consumption was about 5000kWhs lower than the previous winter. A little bit of that saving would have been due to Eddi but most of it was the electric throw. Every time there's been a grant scheme for loft or cavity wall insulation for rental properties I've made sure I've accepted anything appropriate. All of my light bulbs have been low energy for years. If there's a tangible financial or physical benefit for me for doing green things I'm all for it. If all of that makes me a fruitcake that's cool.

From: Jo Westlake 14 October 2022 10:49 AM

Michael - it's been made very clear we want to keep it. However, politicians have been backed into a corner and have said Section 21 is going. All I'm saying is something acceptably similar with a different name could be introduced so we would be happy to remain as landlords and the government saves face. As Ellie has said they've got a system in Wales with different notice periods. If fault based evictions were swift and certain surely we could be a bit flexible on timeframes for no fault evictions. The current Section 21 can take best part of a year so something with certainty at 6 months for example would be an improvement. Maybe I'm coming at it from the perspective of someone who mainly uses Statutory Periodic Tenancies and perhaps it's different if you use a series of fixed term tenancies?

From: Jo Westlake 13 October 2022 09:46 AM

Why do we allow Section 21 to be described as 'no fault'? Very often the tenants actions have caused eviction to be necessary. It is unfortunate that Section 8 is an uncertain eviction route as it would do all of us a favour if problematic tenants were dealt with in a totally separate way to genuinely blameless tenants. Maybe we need a complete overall of the eviction system with new Section numbers for both fault based and other reasons. The government have only said they will abolish Section 21. They haven't said they won't introduce a new Section to replace it. Maybe landlord groups should now be vigorously campaigning for an acceptable replacement of Section 21 to be introduced before Section 21 is abolished.

From: Jo Westlake 13 October 2022 08:20 AM

However disappointing this is it's a bit unfair to accuse Liz Truss of making a U-turn. As far as I'm aware this was a rumour started by a Times journalist yesterday. It wasn't a proper government announcement. We clearly don't like her announcement today but do we really want journalists to dictate government policy just because they're a bit light of news and need a few column inches? If anything Liz Truss is sticking with a previous policy suggestion that still hasn't been properly debated and formalised. There's supposed to still be room for fine-tuning.

From: Jo Westlake 12 October 2022 14:38 PM

Either way someone will be angry. Who is more important landlords and their tenants or activists who don't have a clue about providing homes for people?

From: Jo Westlake 12 October 2022 13:31 PM

Andrew - the battery thing is probably just scaremongering. People used to say the same about the Toyota Prius when they first came out. I currently drive one that is 12 years old and one of my tenants still has my previous Prius which is 18 years old. No battery problems in either and they're both high mileage. We have a new EV with a 7 year warranty. They clearly don't expect battery problems anywhere close to 7 years. The solar panels we have had for 10 years have been very impressive. The pay back was less than 7 years and now the hot water diverters have been invented the saving on both gas and electric is very good. Obviously the equation has changed now there isn't a Feed in Tariff payment for new installations, a kWh of electric costs 3 times what it did and batteries are main stream. As a retro fit batteries are still a bit too expensive to add to my original solar houses but hopefully prices will come down or more time of use tariffs will make them attractive.

From: Jo Westlake 12 October 2022 09:39 AM

There definitely needs to be changes to the tax system to incentivise green improvements. Too many of them are regarded as capital improvements so with CGT as it currently stands is something we would never benefit from as our plan is to never sell our houses. I'm a huge fan of solar panels and I'm in the process of having them installed on 2 more HMOs but it doesn't really make as much financial sense as it should. Gas and electric are allowable expenses whereas solar panels that will provide electric aren't. It just isn't logical.

From: Jo Westlake 12 October 2022 07:19 AM

Mortgage lenders won't usually allow more than 3 years and I can't imagine many landlords being keen.

From: Jo Westlake 12 October 2022 07:05 AM

Section 21 isn't really a 'no fault' eviction, it's a 'no specified reason' eviction. It would be interesting to know how many Section 21 evictions should really have been Section 8 evictions. Wouldn't the solution be to make Section 8 fit for purpose?

From: Jo Westlake 12 October 2022 07:02 AM

I'm a huge fan of some green measures such as smart heating programmers, solar panels, hot water diverters, etc but there really needs to be better support for these measures in the tax system. While I could see the logic of solar panels not being a tax deductible expense when FIT payments were classified as non taxable income now FIT payments no longer exist for new installations surely there should be tax incentives for fitting them to rental properties. In an HMO with inclusive bills gas and electric are allowable expenses so surely solar panels and battery storage should also be allowable at least as an annual write down not a capital improvement?

From: Jo Westlake 12 October 2022 06:55 AM

Living next door to someone's bored, lonely, distressed dog that whines, barks or howls all day can be extremely stressful for neighbours. A great many rental properties are flats or terraced houses that are totally unsuitable for pet ownership (other than maybe a goldfish). I do actually have 2 properties with pets, so I'm not 100% opposed but have certainly had numerous complaints from my tenants about the noise from neighbouring dogs in other properties.

From: Jo Westlake 12 October 2022 06:40 AM

I find it hard to believe more than a handful of people would have pre booked short-stay accommodation in Liverpool more than 7 months in advance.

From: Jo Westlake 11 October 2022 11:34 AM

No one evicts a good tenant for no reason. Landlords often use Section 21 when Section 8 would be more appropriate but that's only because Section 8 needs to be more certain. A better separation of fault and no fault evictions would help just about everyone: landlords, future landlords, Local Authorities and good tenants. It would also discourage people from becoming bad tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 11 October 2022 08:39 AM

Andrew - paying in that way gives the certainty of only paying for what you use but most companies now charge quite a bit more if you don't have a DD set up. EDF are being a bit secretive about the current tariffs but on the original October pricing it was £23 a year cheaper for the Standing Charge and on an annual usage of 3000kWhs £82 cheaper for the electric if you paid by DD. Octopus didn't charge any different until the beginning of October but now charge more if you don't have a DD set up.

From: Jo Westlake 10 October 2022 15:23 PM

Utility companies need to sort out their billing and make it fit for purpose. For example EDF have 2 different Direct Debit options: Fixed monthly DD and only get a statement twice a year (usually with a hefty balancing payment or refund). Variable DD to clear the balance every month. How can anyone budget properly with either of those options? Having regular, accurate, well presented statements is vital for budgeting. The amount of information on statements is often confusing and badly presented.

From: Jo Westlake 10 October 2022 09:48 AM

Good tenants very rarely get evicted for no reason. The reason may be nothing to do with the tenant such as the landlord wanting to sell for health reasons, retirement or because they are totally fed up with yet more changes to legislation. With a combination of mortgage rate increases and Section 24 some landlords will have to sell because it won't be financially viable to carry on. The Rental Reforms proposals still allow eviction for virtually all of the reasons landlords would ever evict anyone for anyway so I don't quite understand the fuss from Shelter or other activists. Landlords have never randomly evicted good tenants. Letting agents may have when they could charge both the landlord and tenant fees for everything but that's ancient history and stopped when tenant fees were banned. Surely in the current economic climate Shelter should be more concerned about retaining as many rental properties as possible instead of focusing on abolishing Section 21. If between now and whenever the Rental Reforms proposals happen thousands of landlords decide to sell up because they refuse to operate in a system that doesn't have Section 21 that's potentially ten of thousands of tenants that will be evicted. In reality Section 21 is often used when Section 8 would be more appropriate. If Section 8 had the same degree of certainty as Section 21 there would be no reason to abolish Section 21 as it's use would be minimal. It would improve the system enormously if fault and no fault evictions were well and truly separated. If tenants knew fault based evictions would be rapid and certain how many of them would suddenly become far better tenants? If properties were freed up quicker fewer good tenants would need to spend months sofa surfing and could find long term accomodation more easily. Assuming landlords haven't sold up because of the loss of Section 21.

From: Jo Westlake 10 October 2022 08:48 AM

Michael - your rents are incredibly reasonable. With all the extra costs we have faced over the last few years with licensing and extra safety checks we have to pay for maybe they are too reasonable? Especially as the cost of the licensing and safety checks obviously upset you. It doesn't matter how you feel about LHA. It exists and chances are some of your tenants receive it as part of a Universal Credit top up. You wouldn't necessarily know as landlords no longer have to fill in claim forms and the benefit is usually paid direct to the tenant. Some UC is paid to families earning over £50000. It's not like the old benefit system. The unemployed and low income workers are all lumped in together and all receive UC. The LHA figure is useful to know so you have some kind of base line. I understand the concerns about Section 21 but as long as Section 8 is beefed up and effective I can't see that it's going to be a huge issue for the majority of landlords. How many of us currently evict for any reason other than rent arrears, ASB, wanting to sell or for us or a family member to move into the property? The level of proof of ASB is the most concerning bit. Obviously it's nice to know we could regain our property just because we feel like it but in reality how many of us have ever evicted someone for no real reason? I left school at 16 and there is nothing special about my admin or academic skills. I read a lot of housing related or benefit stuff and ask difficult questions but that's pretty much it.

From: Jo Westlake 09 October 2022 20:06 PM

Michael - so many points there. 1 - you've just allowed all of us to check out several of your houses on Google maps. 2 - the word is assets not acids. 3 - if you increased your rents by £75000 you would pay £30000 of it in extra tax (unless you used some of it for tarting up your properties). 4 - rent is a private arrangement between landlord and tenant that both parties should be reasonably comfortable with. There's market rent, LHA rent or some other figure. There's rent for long term proven good tenants and rent for unknown new tenants. As far as I'm concerned for anything that is legally compliant and in a convenient location LHA is the absolute minimum unless the tenant can provide added value. (One of mine is a builder with mental health issues and I do have a slightly different basis with him that suits both of us. He does anything he wants to his little palace and invoices me when he feels like it. I charge below LHA rent with a £10 a month increase every June). 5 - For any tenant on a low income with a UC entitlement, charging below LHA doesn't do them any favours. Increasing the rent to LHA level wouldn't cost them a penny. Increasing it to bottom end of market rent also wouldn't cost them much as Discretionary Housing payments would make up most of the shortfall. 6 - if your tenants are self funding they will have had pay rises in the time they have been with you. 7 - if you're happy with continuing with the way you have always done then that's fine. If the constant changes to the whole landlord scene is making you unhappy with your business model adapt it to the new parameters. 8 - would your tenants prefer to stay in their current homes with their current landlord or would they prefer you to get so disillusioned you decide to sell up and evict them?

From: Jo Westlake 09 October 2022 17:12 PM

Any homeowners coming off their current mortgage fix are going to experience increases far greater than the vast majority of tenants will. If property values drop they may not have many options if their LTV doesn't stack. Remember negative equity and mortgage prisoners? Tenants have far more options and financial assistance available to them than homeowners, so perhaps they should do everything they can to encourage their landlord not to sell. Their next landlord is likely to expect far higher rent than their current one needs to stick with a good tenant.

From: Jo Westlake 08 October 2022 11:43 AM

Good point. When I bought my derelict ruin in France the exchange rate was about 1.50 Euro to the £1. Most of the renovation was done when the exchange rate was good. If I sold it now I'd do OK because of the exchange rate even though the value of the property hasn't increased much.

From: Jo Westlake 06 October 2022 12:36 PM

Or got a Council house, which were readily available back then.

From: Jo Westlake 04 October 2022 11:18 AM

A lot of parents live miles from where their children work. The biggest reason for people moving into my graduate HMOs is that commuting from their parents house is taking around 2 hours every day and the travel costs are pretty much the same as rent. By the time they've had to turn down overtime or social networking opportunities the case for living close to work is even stronger. So it boils down to location and independence versus cooked meals and laundry.

From: Jo Westlake 04 October 2022 08:54 AM

Andrew - it's not just the less well off single people who live in HMOs. You're right about the LHA for single people under 35 only being the room in a shared house rate. However, a great many HMOs wouldn't cater for that market as the LHA rate is lower than HMO rents and single people have far too low a UC entitlement to make up the shortfall. In reality a lot of graduate professionals with decent incomes live in HMOs so they can afford both lifestyle and to save a deposit to buy a house. Three or four years in a shared house with similar housemates seems to work well for them.

From: Jo Westlake 03 October 2022 09:33 AM

Is this data based on asking prices or completions? Conveyancing is taking far longer than it ever has before. Nine or ten months from listing to completion seems to be fairly normal at the moment. I did a bit of remortgaging earlier this year and valuers were being fairly cautious. Certainly compared to asking prices of neighbouring properties. Their attitude was that estate agents had overdone some of the asking prices and it would all have to be renegotiated further down the line. Unfortunately by that stage people have paid out for brokers fees, valuations, etc.

From: Jo Westlake 03 October 2022 09:19 AM

House Martin - try talking to them. Unless they can't read and don't own a TV they must be aware that interest rates have gone up and at some point that will affect anyone who owns a house, including the person who owns the house they live in. So how about saying "I'm really happy for you to stay but I just can't afford to keep the rent at its current level". You don't have to increase it to full market rent. If you don't have to factor in a void, advertising and referencing it can be a bit lower. Point out that if you can't afford to keep the house they will have to find somewhere else to live, which will cost even more and they would have moving costs to pay.

From: Jo Westlake 03 October 2022 08:57 AM

Paul - you're right that greed is involved but you're blaming the wrong people. Try looking at the government with all the anti landlord policies. All the fees, inspection requirements that don't apply to homeowners, extra taxes that don't apply to any other business or asset class, etc. Just because someone doesn't have a mortgage on a property doesn't mean that asset shouldn't produce an income for it's owner. It's certainly costing them money to insure and maintain. If they sold it the money could be invested in another asset and would produce an income.

From: Jo Westlake 03 October 2022 08:18 AM

John - there's going to be a lot of us in a similar situation. I had long conversations with several of mine a few weeks ago and all of them were expecting rent increases (even though I've never increased their rents before). Some of them admitted to being very relieved we'd had the chat and that my ideas weren't as painful as the media had led them to believe. So think about it, talk to your tenants, listen to them and do what you need to do. Some of them are genuinely frightened of losing their homes at the moment. They know it would be incredibly hard to find anywhere else even at much higher rent.

From: Jo Westlake 01 October 2022 15:02 PM

Gemma - just about all property occupiers are affected by Bank of England actions regardless of tenure. How can tenants be immune from something major that affects their landlord? Homeowners don't even have the luxury of UC or Discretionary Housing payments when the going gets tough.

From: Jo Westlake 30 September 2022 13:24 PM

Plenty here were going Sale Agreed and then falling through. I remortgaged one of mine at a valuation of £300K back in April. House next door was sale agreed at £325K. The valuer said he was squeamish about anything over £300K for that street. House next door fell through and went back on the market at £375K. Reduced to £350K, sale agreed, fell though again, still on market at £350K. Is it greed, poor advice from estate agents or not being able to afford to sell for less by the time fees and SDLT on a new house have been factored in? The only thing that really matters is what a professional valuer values the house at.

From: Jo Westlake 30 September 2022 10:19 AM

1 - UC is a mess. The 5 week wait, the woefully low and frozen LHA, the bizarre per person amounts, the earnings disregard taper are all problematic. It actively disincentives people from working full-time or living as a 2 parent household. It would be a huge task to make it fit for purpose. 2 - Extending DHPs to people not in receipt of benefit is an interesting point. How many people don't receive Benefit but would qualify if they applied? I certainly have a tenant who qualifies for a UC top up but refuses to claim it. It may be misguided but he feels better about himself if he supports his family without benefit handouts. He is the epitome of why tax cuts are more motivational than increasing Benefits. 3 - Spreading the £400 over 6 months targets it far more effectively than a lump sum and is considerably cheaper in interest for the government. If it was all handed over now it would be a distant memory when the weather gets really cold in January and February. At least this way people will be able to run an electric blanket and heat up food right through the winter. 4 - Improving, or at least retaining, the supply side could be done in so many ways. Scrapping Section 24 would be the biggest, most tangible help and would certainly retain more existing rental properties. No other business is taxed in this way so it would only be a case of bringing our taxation in line with every other business in the country. Removing the 3% SDLT surcharge would help if any properties are still viable at the new interest rates. Making a decision on EPC requirements so we can plan accordingly. Whether we can fund the work is possibly questionable with increased finance costs. Scrapping the Rental Reforms White paper and starting again would help retain some rental properties. They must have worked out the bits we were OK with and the bits we weren't.

From: Jo Westlake 30 September 2022 08:38 AM

Well said. Incentivising high earning people to live and pay tax in the UK has got to be an overall good thing from a tax revenue point of view. Incentivising companies to operate and employ people in the UK also has to be good as long as the wages are somewhat more than minimum wage. Now he needs to tweak tax thresholds to incentivise those lower down the earnings chain to work more hours and get rid of the cliff edges at £50000 (loss of Child Benefit) and £100000 (loss of personal allowance). The UC elements and earnings disregard are clearly acting as a disincentive to work and the per person allowances are just nonsensical. A child gets about twice as much as a second adult. With rising interest rates there's a real danger people won't be able to keep hold of their own mortgaged house and will have to go back to renting. The increase to the UC bill could be immense but the individual families would be significantly better off financially, at least in the short term. Their dreams and aspirations would have been shattered but they'd be better able to pay their bills with all those discretionary payments and cost of living handouts exclusively for benefit claimant tenants. Even the ones who work and earn decent money. The Chancellor has choices to make. Doing nothing and watching wholesale repossessions is probably the most destructive option. Sunak's scattergun approach caused chaos. Rewarding effort and achievement through the tax system has got to be worth a go.

From: Jo Westlake 29 September 2022 12:22 PM

The biggest inequality is between homeowners and tenants and their entitlement to UC. Tenants get LHA rent plus potentially discretionary housing payments in addition. Homeowners get no help towards their housing costs whatsoever. In terms of earnings a single parent tenant with 2 children can earn around £55000 and still have a UC entitlement while a homeowner loses UC entitlement at about £32500. A second adult in a household adds about £44 a week to the household UC entitlement. At earnings of £600 a week a tenant family will receive about £160 a week more UC than an owner occupier family. That's more than £8000 a year extra for a tenant. No wonder both the Conservatives and Labour are so keen on promoting home ownership. Perhaps the media should stop banging on about poor downtrodden tenants and start campaigning for fairer treatment for homeowners and middle income families.

From: Jo Westlake 29 September 2022 10:00 AM

I don't have a problem with anything mentioned in the article above. Most of the ideas seem well thought out and sensible especially speeding up the court system and I like the idea of a guidance note to tenants on what are reasonable expectations in terms of time frames for maintenance. My biggest concerns about the Rental Reforms White paper are the pets suggestion and ending fixed term tenancies in the student market.

From: Jo Westlake 29 September 2022 09:34 AM

Are they talking about asking prices, sale prices, new builds, second hand houses, estate agent valuations or mortgage surveyor valuations? If they mean a drop in mortgage surveyor valuations a lot of people will be in trouble as in my experience valuations have been ultra cautious for several months already. There's been a mismatch for most of this year but conveyancing has been so slow maybe the trend hasn't been analysed yet due to a lack of completions data. The big problems will be in the remortgage market, especially for those coming to the end of the Help to Buy deal and needing to get a new fixed rate.

From: Jo Westlake 29 September 2022 09:20 AM

They would live in the 7 wards not effected by the Article 4 directive. Quite a few modern houses lend themselves to HMO use (as long as the bedrooms are big enough). It basically means HMO letting becomes more compartmentalized. Students in student areas, professionals in the suburbs that don't have planning restrictions, less than desirable tenants with landlords who specialise in that market, etc. The downside with Article 4 is it can make it incredibly hard to sell family homes in those areas as it is indicating there is a problem in the area that has required intervention.

From: Jo Westlake 28 September 2022 11:29 AM

I'm not convinced we should be scared of a Labour government. The golden age of BTL was under a Labour government and the last 7 years of Tory policies have been a disaster for landlords. Doesn't mean I would vote for them but I have a feeling some of their more outlandish party conference soundbites will be quickly forgotten or spun to mean something completely different. In terms of Kwasi's tax cuts how harmful or misjudged are they really? He possibly started in the wrong place with abolishing the 45% rate. It's a big soundbite with a relatively low cost but it's usefulness in attracting and retaining talent is not immediately relevant to about 97% of the population. Cutting SDLT was relatively pointless as there is carnage in the mortgage market and supply side issues with both materials and labour shortages. The decision to leave Corporation tax at it's current rate was sensible. Should mean fewer businesses go bust. Scraping the NI rise was bizarre as thresholds had already been increased to encompass it. A significant cut to employers NI would be far more beneficial. Cutting 1p off the basic rate of income tax doesn't really do that much for anyone (maximum of £7.20 a week but considerably less for most people). Anyone on UC will lose most of it off their Benefit payment. Devising a housing benefit mortgage interest element of UC for homeowners would have been far more useful. Removing the cliff edges at £50000 and £100000, restoring Child Benefit and the personal allowance would have been more motivational. Proper tangible reward for effort.

From: Jo Westlake 28 September 2022 10:42 AM

Section 24 is going to be a massive problem with rising interest rates.

From: Jo Westlake 28 September 2022 08:19 AM

What about when people change their minds about what they're going to do with the house? Last time we moved house we'd exchanged contracts on one we thought we were going to live in and then a more suitable one became available. We ended up buying both because we'd already paid the 10% exchange fee but that wasn't our intention at the time.

From: Jo Westlake 27 September 2022 17:27 PM

Anyone can come up with sound bites when they're in opposition. If the Conservatives really want to help with the cost of living crisis and ensure victory at the next election they could simply treat mortgage interest the same as rent from a Universal Credit point of view. According to the turn2us benefit calculator a single parent with 2 children living in a 3 bedroom house at LHA rent of £825 a month could earn over £1050 a WEEK and still be entitled to a small UC top up. That's a gross income of nearly £55000 a year. A homeowner with a mortgage loses UC entitlement at just over £600 a week (£32500 a year). If both earned £600 a week gross in terms of take home income the home owner would have £480 wages plus £36.25 Child Benefit plus £8.85 UC. The tenant would have £480 wages plus £36.25 CB plus £169.65 UC. While it would be unreasonable to expect the benefit system to pay towards the capital repayment element of a homeowners mortgage surely there should be some contribution to the interest element. Or put another way why is it unacceptable for children in rental properties to grow up in poverty but perfectly OK for the children of mortgage paying homeowners to freeze and starve?

From: Jo Westlake 27 September 2022 10:38 AM

First we need to know if EPC C is going to be a requirement. Then we need to see what the expected changes to the EPC algorithm do for our properties. Then we need a full list of what each potential improvement would do to our EPC score. Only then can we determine if it is possible or viable to achieve the required EPC.

From: Jo Westlake 26 September 2022 07:42 AM

The Stamp Duty cut applies more to tenants than landlords. Tenants will save thousands and be able to buy sooner. Landlords still have to pay the 3% surcharge on the whole purchase price. With the rise in interest rates it's questionable if BTL is viable in some parts of the country as market rents are too low to cover the mortgage payments so landlords won't be buying anyway.

From: Jo Westlake 26 September 2022 07:35 AM

Michael - I use a fixed 11 months tenancy for students and for everyone else start with a standard 6 month AST which then rolls onto a Statutory Periodic. It's never been a problem. I've never been asked for another fixed contract after the first 6 months. Several of my tenants have been with me over 5 years, some over 10 years. If I subjected them to the stress of having to commit for a whole 12 months every year several would have bailed years ago. I guess different parts of the country do things in different ways. Some areas will have a history of using a series of fixed term tenancies while in other areas rolling onto a SPT is the norm.

From: Jo Westlake 25 September 2022 13:53 PM

Ellie - I'm curious as to what the advantage is in only using fixed term. Do you operate in a specific niche market or mainstream? I know you're very keen on fixed term tenancies but I've never understood why you want tenants to plan their lives to such a degree. Other aspects of life don't normally work in 6 or 12 month chunks. Obviously the student market and winter lets need fixed term tenancies but the rest of it works well on Statutory Periodic. The first 6 months fixed and then rolling with either one months notice from the tenant or 2 months notice from the landlord to end. If someone decides not to vacate at the end of their fixed term surely you still have to do the whole eviction thing just as you would on a SPT. Rent increases are pretty much the same on either. Voids are often shorter on SPTs as long as it's a decent property in a convenient location. As a professional landlord you're going to renew the tenancy anyway so why give yourself and your tenants the stress and hassle of having to work to a defined date every year? I can understand if you use a Letting Agent and that's just the way they've always done things to maximise their fees but as a landlord what is the advantage?

From: Jo Westlake 25 September 2022 11:00 AM

How many of them live apart because they can't afford to live together? The second adult in a household only increases the UC income by £44 a week. How many adults can survive long term on less than £6.30 a day for food, clothing, transport, entertainment, toiletries, phone credit, etc? A child increases the household benefits by about £80 a week combining the UC element and Child Benefit. Just because someone doesn't officially live with their children doesn't mean they don't pay Child Support for them or spend significant amounts of time with them. Some will be feckless but far more will simply be living in the way that makes most economic sense. If the benefit system was more realistic about the second adult element and supported families to stay together the likelihood is that far more families would choose that option.

From: Jo Westlake 23 September 2022 15:36 PM

The easiest way to increase supply would be to lower CGT to encourage landlords to sell some houses. How many of us bought when taper relief existed and had a long term plan of retiring one day? Other countries such as France have a taper relief which results in zero CGT after 22 years.

From: Jo Westlake 23 September 2022 14:41 PM

The LHA is a major problem now. The cheapest available 3 bedroom house within a 5 mile radius of the main employment area in the 500 square mile BRMA I operate in is £325 a month more than the LHA. The cheapest 4 bed is £250 a month more than LHA but requires a minimum income of £40500 and is located in a very rural area so would require a car. At a landlords meeting last night one of our local councils had compiled a questionnaire and was actually asking landlords for feedback on some of their ideas.

From: Jo Westlake 23 September 2022 08:44 AM

Of the 3.5m private tenants which it claims had their rent increased, more than 800,000 saw it put up by more than £100 a month. These numbers are pure guesswork. No one has access to that information with any degree of accuracy. Rental agreements are private transactions between 2 private parties. Unless they mean big corporate landlords, in which case they should clearly say so. £100 a month could either be a big increase or a modest one depending on what the original rent was. On a £2000 a month house it would be 5% (so below inflation). On a £500 a month room in a bills inclusive HMO it would be 20%, but just gas and electric have gone up at least £35 per person per month since last year. Council tax, water and broadband have also all increased in price, so taking that into account something that sounded like a 20% increase becomes closer to 12% for the accomodation element of the overall rent. In reality it's unlikely rents for existing tenants in HMOs have risen by anywhere close to £100 a month. Some of mine have increases next month of between £25 and £70 a month depending on how long they have lived in the houses. It's the first time I've ever increased rent for existing HMO tenants and some have been in over 5 years.

From: Jo Westlake 23 September 2022 08:19 AM

Michael - what exactly is the right thing for tenants in your opinion? In the situation we were in last year signing up tenancies based on utility prices we had contracts for. Those utility companies went bust and the contracts weren't honoured. We were dumped on a range of equally horrendous utility companies on price cap tariffs which are significantly more expensive than the contracts we had signed up for and based our rents on. Legally we couldn't increase those rents while those tenancy agreements were in their fixed period. Unlike utility companies landlords are expected to adhere to the contracts they issue. So we have had best part of a year absorbing huge utility increases. The current price cap is more than double the contract rate we signed last summer for electric and 2.5 times for gas so we have already absorbed way more than £400 per property.

From: Jo Westlake 22 September 2022 14:59 PM

The ones really facing a double whammy are the people coming to the end of the first 5 years on the Help to Buy scheme. Due to the highly imaginative original purchase prices it's questionable if there's any equity in some of them. Certainly not enough to qualify for a respectable LTV.

From: Jo Westlake 22 September 2022 09:42 AM

Last October the electric price cap was about 21p per kWh. This October it will be about 34p per kWh. The gas price cap was about 4p per kWh. This winter it will be about 10.4p. One of my fairly typical 4 person HMOs uses 3073kWhs of electric and 12464kWhs of gas. That's £405 more for electric and £790 more for gas just based on price cap prices (which weren't what we were expecting to pay when we signed the tenancy agreements). My 6 person HMO will be around £3800 at this years price cap compared with the £1569 I had expected to pay when I took out fixed contracts with companies that went bust. Unlike utility companies we can only increase rent once a year and if the tenant thinks the increase we've proposed is excessive they can challenge it at a tribunal. We've already absorbed huge amounts of the extra utility costs and the £400 is a small contribution towards that. The cost of everything else has also increased - Council Tax, water, broadband, insurance, tradespeople, materials, etc. Mortgage rates have risen massively and any landlords reaching the end of a mortgage fix are going to have huge increases made a whole lot worse by Section 24.

From: Jo Westlake 22 September 2022 09:32 AM

Even Octopus are going to start charging more for not having a DD. Most disappointing as I was getting loads of Tesco clubcard points. The standing charge and unit prices are both higher and they reckon the average customer will pay £80 more for not paying by DD.

From: Jo Westlake 21 September 2022 09:50 AM

Now the government have stabilised gas and electric prices for 2 years those of us who include utilities can realign our rents with somewhat more certainty. For the last year it's been pure guesswork. I've just received the annual estimate from Octopus for gas and electric. Assuming those estimates are correct and usage doesn't increase, water and Council Tax don't have more than an inflation linked rise and broadband does, most of my HMOs should be somewhere around £50 to £70 per person per month more expensive for utilities than they were last year. That's a figure I can work with and to a large degree have already factored in. Judging by comparable rents on SpareRoom most other HMO landlords have adjusted their rents by an appropriate figure and the demand for these rooms is huge, so certainly in this part of the country tenants are being realistic.

From: Jo Westlake 21 September 2022 09:41 AM

Do you copy and paste the same thing to allow you more time to hang out at your golf club? It was only a few days ago you last posted this one.

From: Jo Westlake 20 September 2022 07:54 AM

I've had to have a few small rent increases on the bills inclusive HMO rooms but nowhere near as much as the cost of utilities has risen and much lower than CPI. The media keep on about the various percentage utility price increases but the simple fact is in August 2021 I was on fixed contracts for gas at less than 3p per kWh and electric at just under 13p per kWh. Those companies went bust and the contracts weren't honoured. Next month gas will be over 10p per kWh and electric 34p per kWh. That strikes me as a 240% increase for gas and 160% increase for electric. Over the last year I have invested in various energy saving equipment to try and lower utility usage in the HMOs in order to keep rent rises as low as possible. A lot of my tenants have really engaged with the whole energy crisis and have cut usage quite impressively in some houses.

From: Jo Westlake 20 September 2022 07:48 AM

If the data was used as the article specifies it may be a useful exercise. However, with the government freezing the LHA for prolonged periods it seems fairly pointless. I used to fill in the questionnaire every time it was sent but then it occurred to me that my tendancy to not increase rents for existing tenants was helping to keep the LHA impossibly low for anyone looking for a new tenancy. This time round I may do the rooms in shared house version as all of my rooms are more than the LHA shared house rate and I've just increased rents for the first time ever for long term existing tenants in HMOs. I certainly won't be doing the self contained property one as I am fully aware some of mine are far lower for the existing tenants than they would be should those tenants vacate and the property was re let. Giving the government data on artificially low rent would be a complete disservice to tenants in general. They already have some of that data anyway from UC claims.

From: Jo Westlake 20 September 2022 07:22 AM

It's bizarre that whole house Airbnbs have been encouraged to occur with no regulation and have distorted the housing and holiday markets in the process. In some areas the negative impact on neighbouring residents, prospective tenants and established holiday accommodation providers has been huge. Councils are very quick to introduce punitive fees and licensing schemes for HMOs, which provide much needed affordable long term housing for single people, on the basis of maintaining balanced communities and minimising anti social behaviour. Then the government create a tax incentive for houses to be used as Airbnbs, which removes desperately needed long term housing from the rental market and introduces far more ASB into communities than the vast majority of well run HMOs ever would.

From: Jo Westlake 20 September 2022 06:56 AM

In my experience pet owners don't stay as long as non pet owners. The vast majority of my non pet owning tenants have been in their home for at least 2 years. I have one property where I will have pets. I bought it 3 years ago and it now has the 4th set of tenants in it. None of the animals have caused much damage but the smell of dog in the carpets is horrendous. Specialist carpet cleaning and multiple pots of Neutradol improve it but it's impossible to eliminate.

From: Jo Westlake 17 September 2022 16:02 PM

How is a 'responsible' rent rise calculated?

From: Jo Westlake 16 September 2022 10:27 AM

One of my tenants thought 6 months was far too long a period to commit to initially but is still there more than 5 years later.

From: Jo Westlake 16 September 2022 09:19 AM

Robert - if it's a holiday let it's a business activity. If you happen to use it yourself it's a nice perk but still a business. I have a holiday home that is used solely for myself and my family. That is a luxury. It's not a question of begrudging. It's a question of catagorising. BTL provides long term homes for people who don't want, can't afford or aren't ready to buy their own home. It would be reasonable for the government to provide a more supportive tax regime as there is major shortage of long term rental properties. Holiday lets are a commercial activity which produce a taxable income. The far more favourable tax treatment of holiday lets in recent years has been a contributory factor to the shortage of long term lets. Second homes (for personal use only) are a luxury and of no real benefit to anyone other than their owner. It could be argued that they pay Council Tax and don't fully utilize the services provided but that's fairly negligible. Incidentally my holiday home was a derelict building in a town that still has dozens of derelict buildings in France so has no relevance to the UK housing shortage or UK tax regime.

From: Jo Westlake 16 September 2022 09:01 AM

Location, location, location. I'm very keen on solar panels but they're nowhere near as high on my list as location, parking and decent room sizes. It would depend on what level of Feed in Tariff solar panels were on as to how much extra I may be willing to pay.

From: Jo Westlake 16 September 2022 07:33 AM

Personally I'd like to see SDLT abolished for all UK resident buyers and maybe just a fixed tax of about £500 per transaction. Remove Section 24 and go back to the traditional method of determining profit. Reintroduce taper relief for properties held long term and used as BTL. Separate out BTL, holiday homes for rental and second homes for personal use. They're not the same and it causes huge media confusion when they try to describe them all as second homes. A second home is a luxury. BTL and rental holiday homes are business activities. Stop all the nonsense about property income being unearned. We either self manage or pay an agent. Either way someone is doing the work. Removing tax barriers such as SDLT and punitive CGT would increase the number of property transactions and therefore increase VAT receipts. It would also boost employment in numerous industries from plumbers through to curtain manufacturers.

From: Jo Westlake 16 September 2022 07:27 AM

Inappropriately located or poorly managed Airbnbs are a nightmare for permanent residents. It may be a good system for purpose built holiday accommodation or someone's spare room but using whole properties in residential areas can be problematic for long term neighbours of those properties. I own one flat in a block of 4 flats in a seaside town. The top floor flat has been used as an Airbnb over the summer and seriously impacted on the residents of the other flats. Late night noise, female tenants being accosted by drunk men in the hallway, the front door into the building being left open, prams blocking fire exits instead of being parked in the designated storage shed, rubbish not being correctly disposed of, etc. Fortunately, after a few complaints, the building management company have pointed out that the lease prohibits short term letting of this nature and from last week the property is being advertised as a long term rental.

From: Jo Westlake 15 September 2022 09:36 AM

As Andrew says existing tenants often have very low or no rent increases. People who have a proven track record of paying their rent and looking after their homes sometimes go for several years without a rent increase. I've just done my first ever rent increases for tenants in bills inclusive HMOs. Some of them have been in situ for over 5 years and this is the first increase in all that time. I ran the rents through a CPI calculator which said the increases should be between £43 and £96 per month. I then settled on between £25 and £70 per month. So although it's an increase it's much lower than CPI and a fraction of the increased utility costs. Newly vacant properties are a different matter. A quick look on Rightmove or SpareRoom at comparables is the starting point. There's usually multiple applicants, the last time I heard a request for a discount was well over a year ago and this year I've actually had people offering more than the advertised rent or several months up front.

From: Jo Westlake 15 September 2022 09:04 AM

What exactly is the point of the Labour and Conservative conferences?

From: Jo Westlake 15 September 2022 08:42 AM

A freehold property built in 1959 is easy to improve. Doing a fraction of the stuff you listed would have reached EPC C. Exterior insulation for a property of that age with cavity walls is an unusual idea unless the property had structural issues, such as non standard construction, that haven't been mentioned. Upgrading a leasehold flat in a converted Victorian building is a very different matter. Or an old terraced house where the kitchen and bathroom walls form the neighbours garden boundary so don't have exterior insulation as an option.

From: Jo Westlake 15 September 2022 08:32 AM

I signed up for one of the landlord specific MTD ready packages about 3 months ago and it is incredibly time consuming. It's very clever in theory but very confusing to use. Expenses keep getting duplicated, I can't work out how to deal with accounting for refunds of deposits on joint tenancies where each tenant has paid a share of it. Utility bill and insurance receipts simply don't reconcile. They have numerous pages of instructions and multiple training videos but finding what you want and then understanding it is a very lengthy process. They usually respond to email queries within a few hours but I've usually wasted hours struggling before I try the email route. The phone app seems to be very limited in what it can do so most of it can only be done on a PC or laptop. Overall so far it seems much slower than using a selection of spreadsheets.

From: Jo Westlake 14 September 2022 09:39 AM

Bill - it only makes some of the money earned. The managing company can charge up to 15% of the rent to collect the rent and manage the properties. So it depends how much your annual rental turnover is as to whether it's worthwhile. Ours works very nicely with the current thresholds for NI. It probably wouldn't be worth the accountancy fee for only one or 2 properties.

From: Jo Westlake 12 September 2022 12:52 PM

I've gone part way. It seemed complicated and expensive to incorporate the personally owned stuff partly due to the permutations of ownership - mine, his, ours, some with son, one with son and ex, etc. While 2 of us were very firmly in the 40% tax bracket the others weren't and there was no desire from any of us to all be tied together in a company structure. So we compromised. We have 2 limited companies. One to own our most recently purchased properties and one to manage all our properties. The main advantages seem to be that we get paid a salary which means some of what was classed as unearned investment income has been converted into earned income which we can then pay into a SIPP, get tax relief on and goes outside our estate so will be available to go some way towards paying the IHT. There's a few other nice bits like the tax deductible Christmas do, trivial benefits, a very tax efficient EV and the occasional tax deductible take away if we are out property managing all day. That's the other difference, I now go out property managing. Previously I would have gone out landlording. Exactly the same activity, just one is classed as a job with earned income and the other as a hobby. Overall it has complicated life and means 3 lots of paperwork and extra accountancy fees. It's a shame landlords aren't treated as proper businesses in the first place.

From: Jo Westlake 12 September 2022 11:40 AM

They could have said no more than a CPI increase. There's a very good online calculator where you put in the amount at the start of the tenancy and the month and year. It then tells you how much it would be now. If increases were linked to the tenancy start date there wouldn't be pressure to increase by the maximum every year.

From: Jo Westlake 12 September 2022 09:22 AM

Back in the 1980s the Council's owned vast amounts of deteriorating houses that they had failed to maintain for decades. A combination of government overspending and high inflation in the 1970s and the ludicrously low rents meant there was no money to do anything more than the most basic emergency repairs. Most of the houses bought in the early days of the Right to Buy scheme required huge amounts of work to bring them up to a modern standard. The discounts usually covered the cost of the required upgrades depending on how much work the new owners did themselves and how much they needed contractors for. Some people did better than others in that respect. My RTB had extensive dry rot and had to be completely gutted, a friend's RTB had had virtually nothing done in the 50 years since it was built and needed just about everything doing - replastering, rewiring, new kitchen, new bathroom, new roof, etc. Of course once the houses had been improved they were worth more, just as any other renovation project would be.

From: Jo Westlake 09 September 2022 08:10 AM

Most of the new housing is miles away from amenities or transport links, has uncontrolled estate charges and district heating schemes that lock owners to a specific energy provider for decades. Some of the house designs are nice but the lack of garaging and parking is a problem especially as the locations are so far from amenities.

From: Jo Westlake 08 September 2022 13:07 PM

A bed and breakfast would be slightly different as the owner or manager actually live in it. So it is someone's residence. A whole house Airbnb is a business activity. No one lives in it as a long term residence.

From: Jo Westlake 08 September 2022 11:47 AM

There are plenty of things the government could easily do to reach a more acceptable compromise on some of the aspects that are causing landlords to sell up. Make a decision on EPC targets for a start. If location and proximity to amenity was factored in and added a few points hundreds of thousands of older houses would suddenly not have a problem. The saving on transport cost and environmental impact should surely be taken into account. Clear the court backlog and speed up the eviction process for ASB and serious or serial arrears. Why should good tenants be homeless while bad tenants are allowed to stay in houses they're not even paying for for prolonged periods? Scrap virtually all of the Rental Reforms White paper ideas. A couple of bits were OK but the vast majority risks unintended consequences. Reverse most of the tax changes. It has been proved by the current housing crisis they have all been a disaster. Scrap Section 24, overhaul the extra 3% SDLT for BTL, remove CGT for properties that have been owned for over 20 years.

From: Jo Westlake 08 September 2022 08:01 AM

We're constantly being told the profits for Airbnb style letting are much higher. Hardly surprising if they're freeloading off the rest of us.

From: Jo Westlake 08 September 2022 07:29 AM

That's the point. Some Airbnb properties are classed as businesses and don't pay Council Tax. The local council simply doesn't receive any revenue towards their refuse collection. Other businesses have to pay for waste collection. So the Airbnbs are literally getting it for free. It's different for houses that are Council Tax exempt, such as student houses, because the government compensates the Councils for those houses.

From: Jo Westlake 08 September 2022 07:22 AM

On the one hand I agree with Oxford council. If they're not paying for the service why should they receive the service? On the other hand I'm not sure refuse collection is the best way forward from a public health and rodent infestation point of view.

From: Jo Westlake 08 September 2022 07:11 AM

It's still only a proposal. The algorithm is supposed to be tweaked later this year. So until we know exactly what is required this webinar seems a bit premature.

From: Jo Westlake 06 September 2022 06:51 AM

This article is kind of stating the obvious. BTL was by far the most sensible pension idea for the self employed for decades as it meant money was both invested and accessible should the business require it. Traditional pensions were hard to get involved with if you had fluctuations in turnover and profits from year to year. Most of the recent tax changes such as Section 24 and the extra 3% SDLT are a major barrier to younger people becoming landlords. Section 24 artificially inflates taxable income by including mortgage expenses as income and pushes young people out of Child Benefit territory. A fairly common starting point for second generation landlords was to be part owner of parents BTLs. Nowadays that would stuff up the younger person's FTB options and ability to pay normal SDLT on their first home. The super high rates of CGT have meant some of us are holding on to properties later in life than we had originally planned to. Time will tell if having predominantly gereatric landlords is a good idea. Anyone know what actually happens to the tenant when a landlord dies in harness?

From: Jo Westlake 06 September 2022 06:43 AM

Andrew and Catherine - I don't quite get the logic. We are landlords, we provide rental properties for a wide variety of people. Including people with children. Are you saying anyone who hasn't bought a house before having children is an irresponsible person?

From: Jo Westlake 05 September 2022 23:56 PM

John - the world was a different place when we were young. Far fewer things to spend money on, no social media, no influencers, plentiful Council housing, different mortgage criteria, Income Support that covered mortgage interest, etc. Some people were able to buy a house when they first got married and then had children and chose to stay home and look after them. For others it didn't quite work that way. We married people who turned out to be waste of space liars and finished up scrabbling around dealing with whatever situation we found ourselves in. At least we had the options of either a Council house or our mortgage interest paid (if we managed to buy a house). Today's young people don't have those options. We had safety nets that don't exist today. Catherine - you made a choice to delay parenthood and it worked out for you. Countless thousands of women have made the same choice and it hasn't worked for them. The later you leave it the shorter your window of opportunity to both find a reasonably suitable bloke and conceive. Women have been sold the myth they can have it all. Fabulous career, perfect home, relationship and children. Some will achieve it, most won't. It really depends which bits and how much of the package deal you want and how much of a gamble you want to take.

From: Jo Westlake 05 September 2022 20:26 PM

There's something called a biological clock. A great many people don't earn enough at a young age to save a deposit to buy a house. Should those people never have children? Due to the lack of housing benefit for homeowners it could be argued that everyone should be a tenant at least until their youngest child starts school so they genuinely have the choice of how much time they spend at home raising their child. Tenants are financially supported regardless of how little an hour their chosen profession pays or how few hours they choose to work. A great many essential workers are incredibly poorly paid and wouldn't possibly meet mortgage lending criteria. Should they be criticized for being parents because they choose to do an essential job? Homeowners often have to put very young children into daycare purely so they can pay their mortgage. They're then criticised for not spending enough time with their children. Can't win either way.

From: Jo Westlake 05 September 2022 11:41 AM

Ellie - no, not really. For rooms in the style of HMOs I do it would be incredibly difficult. All of mine are let to very similar tenants and have good communal areas which most of them use a lot. Existing tenants are part of the interview process for potential new tenants so they tend to become friends and live in the houses as a group rather than random strangers locking themselves away in their own room. I've even had some who have met as random housemates and then gone on to marry eachother. The tenancy agreements are worded that utilities are included up to a fair usage kWh limit (exact amount varies from house to house). I can't see high quality graduate professionals taking well to prepayment meters. It's simply not what they have been brought up to do. So I was up until 3am last night sending an email explaining the increased utility costs and that for the first time ever I need to increase rents for existing tenants who have had their tenancies for over 12 months. Some of the houses have reduced usage over the last year so I want the increases to reflect their energy saving efforts and not just make them think there's no point in trying. A CPI calculator indicates they should go up by between £43 and £96 per room per month (some haven't had an increase for over 5 years). I spoke to several tenants over the weekend and they were all expecting an increase. Most were very relieved it would be below inflation and certainly not the £100 the media seem obsessed with. It will probably range between £25 and £70 per room, so well below CPI and nowhere close to the real cost increase. Student houses had already had a certain amount of the increased cost factored in. Recently let other rooms had also had some factored in but not to the degree it's turning out to be. The change from 6 month price caps to 3 month ones is especially hard when rents can only be increased annually. I've got solar panels and batteries on order for 2 houses, I've just installed HMO heating programmers in 2 houses and I think a job lot of electric throws is next on my list. I just hope they'll use them!

From: Jo Westlake 02 September 2022 13:56 PM

I include utilities in the rent so would my tenants not be expected to pay any of the increased utility costs? Across 8 houses housing 35 people at August 2021 prices the total utility bill cost would have been £7068 plus Standing Charges of about £1000. (About £230 per person per year). At October 2022 prices the same quantity of gas and electric will cost £32880 plus Standing Charges of £2336. So an increase of £27148. Further increases are forecast for January and April. I've never increased rents previously for existing HMO tenants but with such completely out of control energy prices there's no choice now.

From: Jo Westlake 02 September 2022 09:18 AM

Even if they did exist the mortgage product fee would be around 2% of the total loan added to the amount you borrow plus there would be brokers fees to pay.

From: Jo Westlake 02 September 2022 08:54 AM

Ellie the lack of distinguishing between different types of tenants is always the problem. Tenants are always portrayed as being angelic, poverty stricken, victims who have never done anything wrong in their entire life. In reality they come in dozens of different formats.

From: Jo Westlake 01 September 2022 10:29 AM

Ellie - months at a time is different to a weekend to attend a Stag do. Having a group of drunk men in a third floor 2 bedroom flat rampaging through the building accosting single young female occupants of the other flats is not a pleasant situation. It's breaching the lease anyway but each booking is so short term it's over before whatever steps can be taken.

From: Jo Westlake 01 September 2022 09:32 AM

Airbnb is a nightmare in buildings converted into flats. Drunk holiday makers crashing around a building mainly occupied by long term working tenants is not a good mix.

From: Jo Westlake 01 September 2022 08:10 AM

I've never been a fan of smart meters but have got 3 of them. The first one caused huge domestic strife with the first tenants I let that property to. Weeks of arguing between the couple until the counter display was unplugged and put in the back of a cupboard. The second one was installed in my biggest HMO in March and stopped working after I changed supplier in May. The counter display did help the tenants identify that turning the oven on used quite a bit of electric and to be fair they have cut usage over the last year. Although that was partly because I bought them a heat pump tumble dryer. The third one is in my house, purely because I had to have it to get the Octopus Go tariff. The unit rate on the counter display has been wrong from day 1. It was installed in April and has always displayed the previous price cap prices. In my opinion if tenants want to really monitor and keep on top of bills they need to switch to a company that will produce a bill every time a meter reading is submitted. It may be that weekly would keep it more manageable. Octopus are brilliant in that respect. Every aspect of Octopus billing is far more user friendly than any of the other companies I've used.

From: Jo Westlake 01 September 2022 08:06 AM

Interesting idea. I've got one property that is supposed to be unfurnished. When removals were difficult during the first lockdown I agreed to tenants leaving all their furniture and then gave it to the next tenants. When they left I binned some but kept the white goods, which I then gave to the next tenants. I've given away the same washing machine 4 times now.

From: Jo Westlake 31 August 2022 08:39 AM

It's hard to plan when the government keep changing the rules. My original plan was buy, renovate, rent some, sell some, sell some more, retire. The government stuffed that up with removing taper relief and charging super extra enhanced CGT. So then the plan was bring one of my son's in as he wanted to be a landlord, bin the idea of retiring, take out insurance and do a PAYE job so I can amass money in a SIPP to help pay the IHT. Then the government stuffed that up with Section 24 and the extra 3% SDLT. Being a bit player in someone else's portfolio risks losing a younger person's Child Benefit and causes huge problems and expense when they want to get a mortgage and buy their own home. I could look at incorporating fully but what's to stop the government changing the rules again? I could look at Trusts and all sorts of complicated things but again what's to stop the government changing the rules? It seems to be far harder and more expensive to undo things than to arrange them in the first place.

From: Jo Westlake 31 August 2022 08:03 AM

I did some number crunching over the weekend and spoke to several tenants. I looked at utility usage for a 12 month period from August 2020 to August 2021 and compared it to the 12 months from August 2021 to yesterday. This time last year I had contracts with numerous companies who want bust last Autumn so a lot of my rents were based on those prices. I have so far absorbed the utility price rises for existing tenancies and let newly vacating rooms at whatever current market price has been. After Fridays price rise announcement there is no choice. Existing long-term tenants are going to have to pay more. At August 2021 prices the combined utility bill cost across 8 houses housing 35 students and young professionals was about £7168 plus Standing Charges. At October 2022 prices for the same usage it would be £32760 plus SC. Most of my tenants have tried energy saving measures over the last few months so the annual usage has dropped in most houses and I've replaced a couple of tumble driers with heat pump ones, put solar water diverters in a couple of houses, etc. I'm not including electric in 2 student houses for the upcoming year. Even at the more recent lower usage levels and less houses for electric I'm still looking at an annual bill of £25938 plus SC at October prices with another increase predicted in January. The £400 per house from the government will lower it by £2400 but it's still a £16470 increase. Only 14 tenants have been in situ long enough for a rent increase. The others are already paying rents based on the changing situation over the last year. Having discussed the situation with 5 tenants last night it was something they were all expecting and for some it was a relief that I wasn't looking for the extra £100 a month the media keep mentioning. For tenants who have been with me for between 12 months and 2 years I'm aiming for a £25 a month increase (about 5%). For ones who have been with me longer inflation calculators indicate £75 would be about right. One tenant thought she would be OK with £70 a month increase (after nearly 5 years of no increases) but said her housemate hadn't had the same level of pay rises so perhaps I could be a bit more gentle on that one. Another one wants to pay more than I was suggesting. It's a question of trying to close the gap a bit while still encouraging them to cut usage. My biggest HMO really engaged with energy saving over the last year and cut its gas consumption by nearly 5000 kWhs and electric by 1370 kWhs. At October 2022 prices that would make the annual bill £5680 instead of £7133. 12 months ago the annual bill would have been £1568.

From: Jo Westlake 30 August 2022 09:04 AM

Michael - I'm pretty sure the entire gain is treated under the current rules. Lots of us bought before 2008 when taper relief existed and based our whole business model on that method of taxation. The rules changed and we have had to adapt. CGT is horrendous on properties we have owned for a lengthy period (often over £100K tax bill for every property we sell).

From: Jo Westlake 26 August 2022 22:09 PM

From: Jo Westlake 26 August 2022 09:35 AM

Why would it push all rents up? Affordability referencing dictates what non benefit claimants can afford. LHA rates are currently way below the prices of available rentals on Rightmove. There is currently only one one bedroom property listed at LHA or below in the entire city where I operate. The cheapest 2 bed is £175 above LHA, the cheapest 3 bed is £275 above LHA and the cheapest 4 bed is £550 above LHA.

From: Jo Westlake 26 August 2022 08:59 AM

People who have lived in their home for more than a year is a bit unspecific. They may have lived there for 5 years, 10 years, 15 years? They had been asked for a higher rent at some point. Again a bit unspecific. Was that increase last month or 3 years ago? £100 a month increase could either be seen as chunky or a bit of a bargain depending on how much the rent was in the first place and when it was last increased. On a £600 a month one bed flat it would seem a lot, whereas on a £2500 a month house it would be quite reasonable. The frozen LHA is causing huge problems. It is far lower than market rent in some areas. Even if we keep fairly close to it for existing tenants there's a complete lack of available housing for people to move into if they newly find themselves on UC.

From: Jo Westlake 26 August 2022 08:11 AM

Michael - I struggle to understand the figures you're quoting. The LHA figure for Inner West London range from £623 pcm for a room in a shared house to £2309 pcm for a 4 bedroom house. Those rents were supposed to be the 30th percentile figure in April 2020. Today they are probably closer to the 10th percentile figure. Which would mean the vast majority of tenants are paying more than that. Renting properties out at below market rent is fine if we're happy doing it and can afford to but I'm not sure it should be considered normal. The unintended consequence is that if we report low rents on the Valuation Office survey form it gives the government an excuse to keep the LHA lower than it should be which disadvantages all low income tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 25 August 2022 12:32 PM

I include bills in HMOs and so far it hasn't been as scary as all the media hysteria made me think it would be. The biggest problem since last September has been trying to get regular bills out of the companies I was dumped on and getting credit balances refunded. Now I've switched to Octopus and get bills whenever I submit readings it's easy to monitor usage. I'm taking whatever steps seem like a good idea to minimise usage. I've replaced a couple of old tumble driers with heat pump ones in my bigger HMOs, installed hot water diverters on houses with solar panels, installed HMO heating programmers in a couple of student houses and have solar panels and batteries on order for 2 houses. It's all a bit of an experiment and some of it is a very hefty expense but it should all pay for itself in a reasonable time frame. Rents for newly available rooms in HMOs are at market rent. Whether I need to increase rents for long term tenants partly depends on whether we are excluded from any government help again (been denied the Council Tax £150), whether tenants make some effort to cut usage (most have been very good so far) and how much the kWh price rises to. One tenant has already told me they had discussed it as a household and would far rather have a rent increase than a Section 21. In 2 of my student houses I'm only including gas this year. Most student houses in the city are plus all bills so getting gas included is a bonus for them. They'll obviously get the £400 electric support off their electric bill. The situation with the in between energy suppliers and media hysteria when student tenancies were being signed made me very squeamish about all inclusive. I'm a bit more relaxed about it now. I've taken steps to minimise usage, tenants are making an effort and seem to genuinely appreciate having at least some bills included in the rent. I also still have memories of before I included bills of the condensation issues when tenants refused to heat the houses and would try to dry washing all over the place with no ventilation.

From: Jo Westlake 25 August 2022 10:06 AM

Most of the others charge more if you don't set up a Direct Debit. I think the amount extra varies from company to company but I seem to remember one of them is £84 a year extra. Octopus are incredibly easy to deal with. UK call centre that actually answers the phone, staff who respond to emails within a few hours, bills produced every time meter readings are provided or monthly for smart meters, the ability to pay by whatever method you prefer without penalty, some very clever tariffs for people who have EVs, solar or want to engage with time of use pricing. They even do a £50 refer a friend bonus. The only negative is that they don't do a gas only option.

From: Jo Westlake 24 August 2022 11:01 AM

For rent arrears step one of a Section 21 can be very helpful for a tenant. It's only steps 2 and 3 that require them to move. On several occasions I've issued a Section 21 notice to enable a tenant to get a breathing space from other creditors and get his rent payments back on track. The further down the payment priority list a creditor is the louder they are. Tenants have a tendency to pay whoever is hassling them the most. Just having the initial Section 21 notice can be enough to make them focus on their spending choices and have serious conversations with other creditors. No one wants to be chasing a homeless person for payment. It also gives us the ability to move on to step 2 if there is no sign of improvement. That's our choice though. Rent arrears can occur for numerous reasons such as job loss, problems with UC, illness and no entitlement to sick pay, etc. People have often signed up for memberships, subscriptions and contracts that they can normally easily afford but are very hard to escape from mid contract. Sight of a Section 21 notice can get some of these contracts paused or cancelled and it can also help to get a Discretionary Housing payment in some circumstances.

From: Jo Westlake 24 August 2022 07:48 AM

The Rental Reforms proposal to end fixed term tenancies for student HMOs would be catastrophic for students.

From: Jo Westlake 24 August 2022 07:17 AM

Until we know the per kWh energy costs and the daily Standing Charge it's impossible to know if we each individually have a problem or not. The average mythical £3582 is completely meaningless. Is it based on the average usage from 2020 or the average usage over the last 12 months? Surely most people have tried to reduce their energy usage since last September and new appliances are more energy efficient so today's average use must be lower than last year's average use. The monthly Direct Debit payments set by energy companies are often far too high and they are very slow to refund the credit balance. They all seem to have a different policy on billing. EDF billing is horrendous. If you have a fixed monthly DD they only issue statements twice a year at which point they refund overpayments. Alternatively I think you can pay by variable DD and get a bill every month. The woman in the call centre seemed to get very confused about what was and wasn't possible. British Gas are impossible to deal with unless you are retired or unemployed and have endless time for one sentence every 30 minutes messaging communication. EON set DDs far too high and then fail to bill or refund credit balances. I had 5 electric accounts dumped on them last September when Symbio went bust. Paid every month by fixed DD. Only received regular statements on one account. Moved all 5 to Octopus in May. Eventually got final bills for 3 of them in July. All had credit balances. Promised refund by 29th July. It still hasn't arrived. Still haven't had final bill on 5th account. Surely it shouldn't be that hard for utility companies to produce regular, accurate statements and devise multiple payment options that don't penalise people for not having a DD.

From: Jo Westlake 24 August 2022 07:06 AM

Bring back the good old days when it took less than a month from viewing to completion. Back in 2001 I viewed a property on 9/11. The estate agent was the person who told me about the twin towers. That sale completed on 1st October. It had just had squatters evicted and I needed to obtain a mortgage. In 2011 it took 27 days from a property appearing on Rightmove to completion. It was a probate sale and again I had to obtain a mortgage. Surely with all the advances in computers and electronic communication it should be quicker not slower now.

From: Jo Westlake 23 August 2022 11:59 AM

Barclays used to be really good both for BTL and residential mortgages for people whose main income is from property letting. They're still better than most for residential but lost the plot ages ago on BTL. Very picky on number of properties in portfolio, number of existing mortgages, type of tenants, don't like HMOs or anything other than a joint AST.

From: Jo Westlake 23 August 2022 08:29 AM

The government need to remove the requirement for planning permission for solar panels and other eco improvements on all houses (except grade 1 or 2 listed). I want to put solar panels and battery storage on 2 of my HMOs which are both modern houses built 18 years ago on an estate that had it's Permitted Development rights removed. Numerous houses on the estate already have solar PV. 10 years ago when I put solar panels on other houses on the same estate there was no charge for planning permission. Now it's about £206 if we submit the application by email or £26 more if we use the planning portal. I submitted my applications 4 weeks ago and have phoned or emailed every few days to try and make payment. Yesterday's excuse was that they are suffering from staff shortages and are too busy to take payment and activate the application. If we didn't have to apply for planning permission for things that hadn't even been thought about when the PD was removed they wouldn't have quite such a staffing issue.

From: Jo Westlake 23 August 2022 07:37 AM

The delays in the system and mistakes made by mortgage brokers are horrendous. My son has been homeless for weeks due to delays in the chain. 6 months after his offer was accepted the transaction 2 people above him is still only at underwriter stage. His mortgage offer will expire in 7 weeks time. The broker he used was dreadful (applied weeks later than he said he was going to and for the wrong product, which will mean over 5 years he will have to pay £1800 more than he should have) but maybe that error will mean the offer doesn't expire before the rest of the chain is ready? It took 4 months for me to complete on a newly converted flat with no chain. A different incompetent mortgage broker messed that one up. Gave me an illustration for the 5 year product I wanted but then applied for a 2 year product. I spotted his mistake in May and immediately asked him to reapply for the correct product. He didn't, so the offer finally arrived in July for the 2 year deal. The mortgage lender gave me the choice of accepting the 2 year deal or I could have a 5 year deal at 4.95% instead of the 2.95% on the original illustration. As they were on a 20 day response time by that stage, neither deal was suitable and the vendor was about to pull out I finished up paying cash. Which was supposed to be the deposits for 2 more properties. Between me and my son we have paid around £1600 in broker fees for total incompetence as they all seem to go for the lifetime fee concept. £500 or £600 as a one off fee, then £149 for every mortgage application after that. Anyone know if either of us can apply for compensation for these broker errors? If so, how? Mine has so far offered to refund £299 but hasn't actually made the payment yet.

From: Jo Westlake 23 August 2022 07:20 AM

Social rents should never be lower than the LHA. There are so many perks that go with social housing such as security of tenure, no requirement for a deposit or guarantor, etc. Charging way below market rent even though a sizeable proportion of social tenants have good jobs and earn decent money is just bizarre. Setting rents at LHA would still be significantly below market rent in many parts of the country but would be a step in the right direction.

From: Jo Westlake 23 August 2022 06:42 AM

Very well said. Everything you've said should be blindingly obvious but clearly activists and politicians just want to keep as many people as possible trapped in poverty instead of protecting a system that for decades has allowed ambition to flourish. Employers need a mobile workforce. A mobile workforce needs access to readily available rental housing (at least until they are settled in an area).

From: Jo Westlake 22 August 2022 11:55 AM

Not to mention the vast amounts of VAT we pay on just about everything and the Child Benefit the government is saving by artificially pushing younger landlords into the higher rate tax band with Section 24.

From: Jo Westlake 22 August 2022 11:10 AM

Andrew - they buy them because of things like the Help to Buy scheme or because developers offer part exchange so they don't have to worry about a chain collapsing.

From: Jo Westlake 19 August 2022 19:42 PM

Just think of all the equity they will potentially gain over those years, so not quite like renting. Didn't houses cost about £10000 50 years ago? I know I looked at a 3 bed terrace in 1982 that was priced at £18000. Today it would be around £325000.

From: Jo Westlake 19 August 2022 09:43 AM

I don't agree with pushing older people out of homes that they love, can afford and can manage. Simple fact is a lot don't want or need the space any more and would love to find somewhere more manageable but still close to their friends and neighbours. They still want an en-suite, a utility room, parking, a spare room, rooms big enough for full size furniture and a lifetime's worth of treasures. So not FTB properties. They don't necessarily want multiple spare bedrooms and a big garden or to be located miles away from a supermarket or doctor. I don't agree with communal space as the only option but for the groups I suggested it for the opportunity to interact with other people is important. Somewhere with similar facilities to the modern student halls. Shutting yourself away in a room or small self contained flat and only interacting online can be very isolating and damaging to mental health, especially for young people with limited life skills. You're completely right about the single parent thing which is why I suggested removing the standard stand alone 2 bed housing entitlement. A 2 bed flat in a managed block with an expectation of work and education would be a disincentive for a fairly high percentage of the more problematic families and would potentially save the lives of a few babies and toddlers every year.

From: Jo Westlake 19 August 2022 09:37 AM

Building more houses doesn't help if they are the wrong houses in the wrong locations. Simply building more 3 and 4 bed semis further and further from amenities is crazy. We have an aging population and need far more variety of retirement housing. Someone needs to properly assess what older people want at various stages of life. People often have decades between children leaving home and needing a care option. Providing suitable retirement housing incentivises older people to move out of the well located family size houses they currently occupy. How many people only stay in their current house because they can't find a more suitable alternative? Downsizing is much harder than upsizing. At the other end of the spectrum should we really be incentivising young people to have babies just to have a 2 bedroom housing entitlement? Would a kind of co-living arrangement of purpose built flats in managed blocks complete with a creche and education facilities be an idea worth exploring? Self contained flats with communal lounge, playroom, etc. If a teenager knew getting pregnant meant living in a supervised building with rules and an expectation of getting a job or attending classes how many would see that as an attractive option? It would be far better for the babies though. Does the bedroom entitlement in rental properties cause problems? Just because a child reaches 16 they are entitled to their own bedroom. Should that require the while family to move into a bigger house for what may only be a couple of years or would providing managed co-living accommodation for 16 year olds be a better solution? As someone who left home at 16 for my own safety and finished up in a very grotty bedsit with an older predator I know the teenage issue comes in many different permutations.

From: Jo Westlake 19 August 2022 07:49 AM

Just because a mortgage starts off as a 50 year term doesn't mean it will remain in place for 50 years. Circumstances and earnings change throughout life so as long as overpayments can be made without penalty it doesn't really matter what the initial term is. If a 50 year term means someone can buy a 3 bedroom house instead of a 2 bedroom flat they will have saved thousands in selling and buying costs. Usually when someone sells a house and buys another one they take out another 25 year mortgage so in reality very few people only have a mortgage for 25 years. Having a mortgage into retire can be a useful way to minimise IHT. 20 years ago interest only mortgages were very common and allowed vast numbers of people to buy family size houses and bypass a couple of rungs on the ladder.

From: Jo Westlake 19 August 2022 07:14 AM

Rent is supposed to be a priority payment so surely rent arrears should be a priority debt. How are other creditors going to track down debtors if they're homeless?

From: Jo Westlake 17 August 2022 08:26 AM

John - quite a few of us work that way. The tenant pays market rent for the first year but then it stays at that figure for several years. Some of mine haven't had an increase for over 5 years. If they moved out tomorrow the rooms would be advertised at around £75 a month more and I would expect in excess of 50 enquiries per room. Some of my self contained properties are more than £200 a month below market rent because the tenants look after them and I haven't felt the need for an increase. I don't know if the tenants are aware of the discount they're effectively getting but it feels like a nice thing to do.

From: Jo Westlake 16 August 2022 12:35 PM

Paul - the excesses are less than you think. The landlord has had to put in a huge amount of money before the first tenant moves in. Usually a 25% deposit or more, SDLT, any repairs or improvements, etc. If they hadn't put the money into a rental property it would be getting a return on the stock market or some other investment. If landlords don't use an agent they have to manage the properties themselves, which means they have less time to go and earn a PAYE income elsewhere. So effectively the money they're not paying an agent replaces the money they're not earning elsewhere. Landlords do actually need to eat. Rental profits aren't that high in the early days and may even be negative. Capital growth may or may not happen depending on when you buy and sell and where the property is located. Costs have risen hugely especially for tradespeople. Pre pandemic it was usual for tradespeople to charge between £125 and £150 a day. Now between £200 and £300 is standard. It will vary around the country but just about everywhere will have seen similar percentage increases. The talk of rent freezes is making the problem worse as landlords need to ensure any frozen rent is at least at a viable level so blame Generation Rent and Shelter for that one.

From: Jo Westlake 16 August 2022 09:16 AM

I feel for you but Andrew is right. The government have caused the current supply crisis by inventing taxes specifically for landlords that no other industry pays, such as Section 24 and super enhanced rates of SDLT on purchasing additional rental properties. The risks for landlords are higher now than at anytime since the 1980s. Fines for newly invented offences, the risk of not being able to regain possession of our properties, ever increasing regulations and associated costs. I operate in the lower to mid market and when we advertise available properties we have dozens of enquiries within a few hours. Several of those applicants will be in exactly the same situation you're in. The government need to wake up and stop attacking landlords. Winding back the tax situation to somewhere around 2001 would be a good starting point. Listening properly to both sides regarding eviction also needs to happen. Getting to a point where landlords don't feel that selling up is the only option needs to be the goal.

From: Jo Westlake 16 August 2022 08:11 AM

Anyone who is worried about paying their rent needs to: 1. Read the priority payments list on the Stepchange.org website 2. Apply to their Local Authority for a Discretionary housing payment. If you don't ask you don't get. 3. Cancel any unnecessary subscriptions or memberships 4. Ask for a pay rise or overtime. Even better is to get a second job as there's a second NI free allowance. 5. Make an appointment with Citizens Advice or the local Housing team to ensure all financial options have been applied for. 6. Learn things. Learn how to cook, how to budget, how to understand a utility bill. 7. Communicate. Lots of people are feeling the pressure so there's no need to feel embarrassed. Creditors can offer various assistance if they know about a problem before payments are missed. Friends may welcome cheaper socializing suggestions.

From: Jo Westlake 16 August 2022 07:34 AM

Section 24 just makes the interest rate rises a whole lot worse.

From: Jo Westlake 16 August 2022 07:05 AM

Michael - you choose to keep your rents at below market rent, just as I choose to keep some of mine low. For me (apart from one property which I let via a Council scheme) it is very firmly for existing tenants who have a history of looking after the properties and paying their rent more or less on time (subject to the occasional glitch usually caused by UC). If those specific tenants moved out those properties would be re let at market rent. I wouldn't expect big voids as the properties are all very conveniently located. Some of them may need a bit of a facelift between tenants but that's a slightly different thing. As far as I am concerned discounted rent is something that will come to good tenants in the fullness of time in the form of me choosing not to increase their rent. However, I'm not a charity and activists need to understand it is far more beneficial for tenants for there to be a good supply of rental properties than the situation we have now. We realistically can't keep absorbing more and more costs without increasing rents, at least for new tenancies. Tax increases, mortgage rate increases, licensing schemes, EPC upgrades, more safety checks, etc.

From: Jo Westlake 15 August 2022 12:49 PM

A rent freeze isn't the answer. With mortgage rates increasing and the potential cost of EPC upgrades it would just encourage even more landlords to sell up. The main problem is the LHA is woefully inadequate. Restoring it to the 30th percentile rent for properties of each size would be a good starting point. Before 2011 Housing Benefit was set at the 50th percentile of local rents. If tenants could find cheaper properties they could retain some of the difference between actual rent and the HB allowance. It certainly incentivised them to find and retain cheaper rentals. Reducing the geographical size of the BRMAs would also help. In rural areas they can be over 500 square miles. It's not reasonable to expect low income people to factor in a 25 mile journey to work. When the cheapest available 3 bedroom house to rent on Rightmove within a 5 mile radius of a city is £150 more than the LHA and the second cheapest is £325 more than the LHA there is clearly a problem with the LHA. Freezing it was yet another half baked idea Sunak came up with. People do need to budget and make spending choices but the basic framework of the system needs to be realistic in the first place. It's questionable if increasing the LHA would actually cost anything. The savings on temporary housing would be huge, if tenants weren't having to make up a rent shortfall they would be spending that money elsewhere in the economy on things with VAT and as most landlords have artificially been put in the higher rate tax band HMRC would get back 40% of the extra rent in extra income tax. While some landlords won't entertain the idea of housing people in receipt of UC others are perfectly happy to house low income key workers. My UC tenants include a nurse, a teaching assistant, a cleaning supervisor and a warehouse worker. All are good tenants and I have kept the rents at or slightly below LHA. Collectively that's over £1000 a month below market rent (or looked at another way nearly £5000 a year that HMRC isn't getting). As mortgage deals come to an end and if EPC C comes in rent increases are highly likely.

From: Jo Westlake 15 August 2022 08:01 AM

"with all homes meeting that standard by 2033, where feasible and cost effective." "Getting there will need a much faster installation rate for these zero direct emissions heating systems. In recent years that rate has been around 3,000 homes annually, but we need to reach around 200,000 each year in the latter part of this decade.” Is it even possible to train enough installers for the target of 200000 installations a year to be feasible? Define cost effective? Who would be paying these costs? The end user or the usual tax payers who seem to be expected to pay ever higher taxes to fund all the handouts?

From: Jo Westlake 15 August 2022 06:47 AM

I own most of my properties either solely myself or jointly with my husband or my son. The two most recent ones have been bought through our limited company. It's early days for the company and right now it just seems like an added complication and accountancy expense. There's a couple of nice things about it like trivial benefits and a company Christmas do. Also that it can pay me a salary which means I can get an NI credit and pay more into a SIPP (as the money is classed as earned income not investment income). That then gets tax relief added to it and goes outside my estate so will eventually be available to go towards paying the IHT on my estate. Mortgages can be more expensive depending on how many mortgages you already have and the type of property you want to mortgage but that's the same for personally held properties in some situations. The difference in rates if you have up to 10 or over 10 mortgages is huge.

From: Jo Westlake 14 August 2022 07:46 AM

EPC C hasn't been decided yet. No one knows what EPC C will look like when the algorithm is changed anyway.

From: Jo Westlake 13 August 2022 14:06 PM

Ellie - section 24 is only relevant if you're a borrower but landlord tax should concern all of us. Income from long term rentals is classed as unearned investment income whereas short term holiday lets are classed as a business. Full time landlords without some other source of PAYE or earned income can only pay £2880 into a SIPP each year so miss out on the tax relief that just about everyone else is entitled to. When taper relief existed it was possibly reasonable to say our properties were our pensions. Now CGT is so much higher for landlords than anyone else it seems to be grossly unfair that we don't have access to the same pension planning as anyone else.

From: Jo Westlake 12 August 2022 12:48 PM

I quite like modern houses but tend to buy them as the second owner. Several of mine have been the same price as they were brand new several years earlier and 2 were much cheaper (£15K and £30K). The other big advantage of buying slightly second hand is that the development is finished by that stage. The school has been built, the bus service exists, etc.

From: Jo Westlake 12 August 2022 08:29 AM

That's 6 things that they're suggesting are thrown at the short term Airbnb type market. Haven't landlords been switching to Airbnb style letting because the safety standards are lower, the EPC doesn't matter and the tax treatment is so much more favourable? Getting rid of Section 24 would make a huge difference. If short term letting is taxed as a business why is long term letting taxed as an investment? With all the additional regulations we now have to comply with long term letting became a business activity a long time ago. Tax us accordingly.

From: Jo Westlake 12 August 2022 07:43 AM

Perhaps complete standardisation of safety regulations and taxation across all types of rentals. Get rid of the quirks in the system that overly incentivise short term letting.

From: Jo Westlake 12 August 2022 06:47 AM

Edwin - another day, another insult. It's not the first time you have accused me of virtue signalling and last time you noticeably refused to even confirm if you were actually a landlord. Are you or aren't you? My business model works for me and my tenants. Do you even have any tenants? Maybe it's because I have lived through periods of poverty myself and fully understand how a little help can go a very long way that I have a more humanitarian attitude. Maybe it's because I treat all my tenants with dignity and respect and always assume the best that I actually do receive their best.

From: Jo Westlake 11 August 2022 13:37 PM

Have you seen the price of property in Cornwall?

From: Jo Westlake 11 August 2022 09:04 AM

I don't understand why anyone thinks a rent freeze would be a good idea. As you say landlord costs have gone up. I also don't understand why social rents are so much below market rent or the LHA when there is no requirement for a social tenant to be on a low income. Surely if social rents were at LHA level it would enable social housing providers to build more social housing. Anyone on a low income would get more benefit to pay the extra rent, anyone on a higher income would still be paying below market rent. Can't see there's any real losers in that situation.

From: Jo Westlake 11 August 2022 08:53 AM

Most of the tenants who will be helped by these schemes are genuine people who desperately want to keep their home. The scam artists and rent dodgers wouldn't want the third party digging around in their finances. Agreeing to up to another 12 months if all arrears have been cleared and there is a viable plan going forwards isn't exactly onerous. It will be up to landlords to choose whether to engage with the scheme or not. Some tenants are very good tenants apart from the odd payment glitch, others are a complete pain in the posterior and nothing would induce a landlord to prolong the tenancy. As landlords we all have different ideas, different tenants profiles and different levels of tolerance. Our backgrounds and life experience will hugely influence how we all feel about the behaviour of our tenants and what we will or won't tolerate.

From: Jo Westlake 11 August 2022 08:45 AM

The blanket assumption Gen Rent seems to have that tenants are all poor must be highly offensive to vast numbers of tenants. I do have a few tenants on UC top ups but the vast majority are earning decent graduate salaries and have ample money for both lifestyle spending and saving towards buying their own house.

From: Jo Westlake 11 August 2022 07:17 AM

The £5000 headline is a bit misleading as it then goes on to say up to £5000. I welcome these schemes if it enables tenants and landlords to work together to retain tenancies. Sometimes all it takes is the involvement of a third party to help the tenant with budgeting advice, negotiate with other creditors and provide a relatively small amount of funding to get things back on track. The LHA is woefully inadequate in some areas of the country and tenants are having to make up the shortfall from money that was intended to pay for other things such as food or utilities. Last week in the entire 500 square mile BRMA where I operate there wasn't a single 3 bedroom property available on Rightmove for anywhere close to LHA rent. Most were at least £300 a month more than LHA. Freezing the LHA in the middle of a cost of living crisis was one of the governments most stupid ideas. How exactly is a key worker on minimum wage with UC top ups supposed to afford to make up a rental shortfall, buy petrol so they can get to work (Cornwall doesn't have a great bus service), pay increased utility and food costs without additional funding from discretionary housing funds or charities? All it takes is an unexpected car repair or emergency dental treatment to completely derail their finances. People who can't pay are very different to people who won't pay and as long as the charity understands the difference it's a much needed scheme.

From: Jo Westlake 11 August 2022 07:00 AM

Simon - you're right that some of us are in a good position. Certainly a better position than a lot of tenants but most of us are a lot older and have had more time to get where we are. Back in the 1980s when I was living in a Council flat with a loser husband or the 1990s when I was a single parent on long term income support I never imagined I would ever have any degree of wealth. Fast forward a couple of decades and now I have multiple properties and provide homes for dozens of people. It involved acquiring a more satisfactory husband, working long hours in unskilled jobs and taking some pretty big financial risks but it seems to have paid off and right now I'm in a pretty good place.

From: Jo Westlake 10 August 2022 20:04 PM

It's not just the low life element considering this. It's also degree educated, middle class homeowners.

From: Jo Westlake 10 August 2022 08:54 AM

Yet another article confusing rent and mortgages. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Mortgages can be fixed for several years so of course the payments can't increase in that period. However, insurance, boiler servicing, repairs and maintenance can all increase. Rent can be increased annually but often isn't. In the case of HMOs utilities are usually included in the rent so HMO tenants are largely protected from those price increases. In terms of cutting back on food how much of that depends on exactly how the question is asked? Have I cut back on food? Yes Why have I cut back on food? Because supermarkets and restaurants have had supply issues and I could do with losing weight. Is it related to affordability? No. I'm sure some people are struggling but how much of that is because of lifestyle choices? One of my UC tenants lives in the centre of town opposite Iceland and 2 minutes walk from KFC. She gets Deliveroo to bring her KFC to her.

From: Jo Westlake 10 August 2022 07:51 AM

Direct debit is only one payment option. Some companies give a discount for DD payment, others don't. Some companies have spent the last 10 months thoroughly abusing the DD system, taking unjustifiably high monthly payments and then refusing to refund credit balances. I had accounts dumped on British Gas, EON, EDF and Octopus last autumn. British Gas are incredibly hard to deal with. They are supposed to give a discount for DD payment but then had a glitch on their system and wanted to set my monthly payment at over £5000 a month. EDF have various payment options. If you pay by fixed monthly DD they only issue a statement twice a year at which point they refund your credit balance and then double your DD payment. If you want monthly statements you have to pay by variable DD or some other method. EON didn't produce a bill for the entire 8 months I was with them for 4 of the 5 accounts I had. I switched to another supplier in May, got the final bills for 3 of the accounts in July complete with the £30 compensation payment for late billing and was supposed to have the credit balances refunded buy 29th July. It still hasn't appeared in my bank account. The 5th account still hasn't been finalised. Octopus have been far better to deal with. They don't offer a DD discount so I tend to pay with a debit or credit card. They produce a bill every time a reading is submitted which makes monitoring usage and budgeting much easier. So while I don't condone non payment I can see why paying by other methods is very attractive.

From: Jo Westlake 10 August 2022 07:22 AM

I include utilities and Council Tax in the rent for several HMOs and student houses. So far I haven't increased rents for any existing HMO tenants. For some people that's over 5 years without a rent increase. As rooms become vacant they are re let at current market rents which are usually higher than the previous tenant paid. The number of enquiries for any vacant rooms is huge so clearly prospective tenants think the rents are acceptable. The comment I've heard repeatedly in the last few months is that they want the certainty of bills inclusive rent. The fact that rents can only be increased annually mean we have to try and guess what bills will be like way in advance of any pricing announcements. If we get it wrong we're stuck with it for 12 months. When we could sign up for competitively priced one or two year energy contracts for gas and electric the only thing we had to worry about was the number of kWhs our tenants used. Now the fixed term contracts are so much more expensive than the price cap we have the uncertainty of what the cost of those kWhs will be every time the price cap changes. The fact Ofgem and the media only talk about the average consumption of a mythical house is incredibly unhelpful. The only information we need is the per kWh unit price and daily Standing Charge. I know that my houses use between 2500 and 7000 kWhs of electric a year and between 10000 and 20000 kWhs of gas. Different number of occupiers, different heating controls, different EPCs, some have solar panels, etc. This time last year I was on fixed contracts with Symbio, Neon Reef, PFP, Avro, Zog and EDF that were mainly supposed to run until this summer. I certainly didn't put all my eggs in one basket! Only one of those companies hasn't gone bust yet and their billing is horrific. So since last autumn I've been paying far more for electric than I would have been if those companies hasn't gone bust. The £400 is a fraction of the extra utility cost I've already incurred. All of my houses were denied the £150 Council Tax rebate as the CT bill is in my name not the tenants names. If the council had mentioned the requirement for the bill payer to be both living in the house and named on the bill on the 1st of April before April I could have at least given my tenants the option of setting up the paperwork so they could claim it. However, the council waited until July to mention the requirement. So if activists want to make themselves useful they should campaign to make Councils hand over the Council Tax rebate. To discriminate against people purely because they live in an HMO is outrageous. In reality these rebates should go to the person who is paying the bills and taking the risk. If it's bills inclusive rents the landlord has already had nearly a year of unexpectedly high utility costs and the forecast is for another year of huge increases. If the tenant is directly charged for the exact number of kWhs they use they should get the rebates.

From: Jo Westlake 09 August 2022 08:14 AM

Beryl - it's definitely a gap in the market. Why should a landlord mess up their no claims discount on potentially multiple properties because one dog has been allowed to destroy a property? Insurance companies need to take note and produce a policy for this specific purpose. Whether tenants could afford the premium may influence how much they really want a pet in the first place.

From: Jo Westlake 08 August 2022 11:57 AM

CGT on rental properties is pure greed. It's charged at a higher rate than for any other asset, 28% instead of 20%. Theoretically there's also 18% instead of 10% but most landlords have artificially been turned into higher rate tax payers due to how Section 24 works. Most assets can be sold off in CGT efficient bundles so a person's CGT annual allowance is best utilized. Houses can't easily be sold off in slices. It's all or nothing, so most years landlords don't use their allowance and then WHAM a huge CGT bill if we do eventually sell a property. If we've owned it for a few years and are based in the South that CGT bill can easily be £100K+ per property. Other countries have taper relief and eventually the CGT rate drops to zero. Throughout our ownership the government have received huge amounts of income tax from our rental income plus SDLT when we buy and VAT on all the repairs, renovations, safety checks, etc.

From: Jo Westlake 08 August 2022 08:37 AM

Too many different agendas. Too many so called experts fixating on whatever it is they're trying to sell. We need a full list of potential improvements and what impact they will have. Every house is different and every house occupier has different needs, budgets and levels of engagement. If the immediate objective is to get through this winter without people freezing to death we need quick affordable methods of lowering heating costs. Heat the person, not the house sort of stuff. A decent heating programmer and an electric throw would pay for themselves in a few weeks. We don't have enough available tradespeople to do much more than that anyway. Longer term insulation where appropriate. It must be remembered that insulation can do more harm than good if the wrong product is used. Councils need to remove the requirement for planning permission for energy saving measures other than for listed buildings. Millions of modern houses have had their permitted development rights removed so have to pay for planning permission for solar panels. In this day and age there shouldn't be these barriers to energy efficiency.

From: Jo Westlake 08 August 2022 08:23 AM

Yet again politicians showing how clueless they are about reality It can take years and multiple planing applications before planning permission is granted on big sites. Two near me have both had problems. One has finally got permission for 184 houses instead of the original 200 applied for. The other site is owned by the Council, is being developed by a company the Council have a large stake in, is a derelict brownfield site and it still took years and multiple planning applications for the Council to give themselves planning permission. Once they had finally got permission they decided to vary it and bin the social rented flats they had insisted on in the first place on viability grounds. With rising interest rates it's uncertain what will happen to house prices so the ability to build capital in the form of housing equity is questionable. I bought a house in 1991 (3 years after the 1988 market peak) for 67% of it's 1988 asking price. Even then it carried on dropping in value and was in negative equity until about 2001. Logic indicates house prices should fall as monthly mortgage payments get bigger due to higher interest rates but if mortgage terms are lengthened that stabilizes the monthly payment so maybe houses prices will keep rising? It's more of a gamble right now than it has been since 2009. My advice to FTBs would be don't buy a property that is going to be too small for you in the next 10 years. Negative equity only really matters if you need to move house. Infrastructure first is a nice soundbite but who is going to pay the wage bill of the doctors who don't have sufficient patients or the teachers rattling round a virtually empty school? If kids are bussed in from elsewhere to fill the spaces those spaces aren't available for families moving into the new houses that will be built. Happened on the estate I live on. Within 5 years of the school opening kids that were moving into houses directly opposite the school were being refused places because the school was oversubscribed as they were bussing kids in from miles away. Eventually they solved the problem by enlarging the school by 50% by building on the playground. There is nothing stopping lenders looking at rent payment histories. Just because it doesn't show on Equifax doesn't mean lenders are unaware of it. The all ask for at least 3 months bank statements so can easily see the rent payments being made. Lenders are fully aware that there is far more expense to owning a house than just paying the mortgage. There needs to be enough income to pay for insurance, boiler servicing, repairs, maintenance, utility costs, Council Tax etc. All those things that are included in the rent for the room in an HMO that they've been living in.

From: Jo Westlake 08 August 2022 07:54 AM

I actually completed on another flat on Monday and I'm fully aware of the White Paper. I don't like the idea of pets but fortunately most of my tenants feel the same way. I mainly let to students or young professionals who don't have time for a pet or own flats with no pet clauses in the lease. I have a couple of properties that have pets so I can be a bit flexible on the subject. The idea of not having fixed terms for student housing and winter lets is crazy but if my students decide to move out early there are plenty of professionals who would love to live in those houses. It would be a sad loss for the student population but for me personally it wouldn't be a disaster. I'm a long term landlord so it's incredibly unlikely I would want to evict anyone so I could move into any of my properties. My son plans to take over from me at some point so there shouldn't even be the retirement sale. I do feel strongly that there should be very different treatment for fault and non fault evictions. As far as I am concerned if my tenants adhere fairly closely to the terms of their tenancy agreement they have a home for as long as they want it. In the unlikely event of me needing to evict a good tenant I wouldn't have a problem with compensating them with 2 months rent. Other than the student houses all of my tenancies have always rolled onto Statutory Periodic tenancies. I already have licensed HMOs so the idea of being licensed or registered in another scheme is just another admin thing. So basically I think the White paper is far more harmful to tenants than landlords. It will ensure lots of landlords sell up because it is yet another ill conceived assault on an already battered industry. It's a different way of doing things and just seems to pander to the loudest minorities with no real thought to the consequences. What's the point of having endless rights and protections if you can't actually find a property to rent? Those of us who stick with it will have our pick of some very high calibre tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 07 August 2022 01:11 AM

Michael - that's a perfect example of why individual tenancy agreements can be so much better than joint tenancy agreements. With a joint tenancy agreement you have to give 24 hours notice to enter the house unless the tenants decide to invite you in. With individual agreements you can enter communal areas whenever you want. It's only the bedrooms that need 24 hours notice. It certainly makes general maintenance easier and gives you a far better idea of how the houses are being used and treated.

From: Jo Westlake 06 August 2022 21:14 PM

TheMaluka That's the advantage of having 2 different types of eviction. Section 8 clearly indicates the tenant is at fault and doesn't deserve any help or sympathy. Section 21 was supposed to be more because the landlord decided they wanted the house back even if the tenant had conducted the tenancy impeccably. Unfortunately it was abused by Letting Agents for many years as an excellent way to get extra fees. That's ancient history now but the White Paper seems to be based on the idea that it still happens. The problem is that Section 8 hasn't been mandatory and too many cases have failed because of the flaws in the process. Section 21 is more certain but is often used for cases more deserving of Section 8 purely because it is mandatory. There's no question of having to hope the judge makes the right decision. If there was certainty of outcome subject to a required level of evidence being presented everyone would use Section 8 where tenants are in breach of their tenancy agreement. That just leaves the issue of how people who have behaved impeccably should be treated should the landlord need to regain possession. Having a system where they are treated the same as someone with serious arrears who indulges in ASB is clearly wrong.

From: Jo Westlake 06 August 2022 16:47 PM

Section 21 can be incredibly beneficial for tenants so it seems bizarre that activist groups want to abolish it. For people with financial difficulties a Section 21 notice can be waved at other creditors who will then back off and allow the person some breathing space to get their rent under control. No creditor wants to be chasing homeless people. If a person is evicted under Section 21 the Local Authority has a duty to get a roof over their head (even if it's only a hotel). What is going to happen to the genuinely blameless tenants without Section 21? Are they going to be treated the same as people who have been evicted for rent arrears or ASB?

From: Jo Westlake 06 August 2022 12:35 PM

Andy and Mark - I think the format the scheme is in makes a huge difference. Some councils want complete control of the property and put whoever they want in it. Others are acting more in a letting agent role. The one I use took the details of the property, listened to what I wanted and the kind of person I envisaged the flat suiting. Then arranged for me to meet the most suitable candidate and provided full income and budgeting information. I then carried out standard referencing just to check for CCJs and traceable history. I didn't expect him to pass referencing but I did want to know what it would reveal. It was entirely my choice whether to proceed with that applicant. He moved in well over 2 years ago and in that time I've phoned the Council team 2 or 3 times when his rent payment has been a bit shaky. Each time they have listened to the issues, contacted him and arranged for further budgeting help. I realise I'm lucky to be operating in an area with an incredibly proactive housing team. When they find landlords who will work with them they do their best not to alienate us.

From: Jo Westlake 05 August 2022 11:58 AM

I'm not sure how the following should be interpreted exactly: landlords being obliged to pay tenants’ moving costs if an eviction takes place for the convenience of the property owner. With a slight tweak to the wording it would be fairer: landlords being obliged to pay 2 months rent towards tenants moving costs if an eviction takes place for the convenience of the property owner and the tenant has adhered 100% to the terms of their tenancy for its entire duration. I could see that as being mutually acceptable. It would give tenants a strong incentive to adhere to their tenancy agreements so should cut rent arrears. Any fault based evictions would be unaffected. It's a cost landlords would only ever face a maximum of once per property. Professional landlords don't evict good tenants unless they really have no other option. The requirement to pay 2 months rent as compensation would clearly indicate there really was no other option.

From: Jo Westlake 05 August 2022 07:46 AM

I let one property through a similar scheme in a different council area and it's been OK. The housing team have been good to deal with and the tenant is mainly trouble free. He reports any maintenance issues appropriately, is very willing to do minor repairs himself (such as replacing a broken door handle, which I paid for but it saved me a 20 mile round trip), is always willing to be there for tradesmen, gets on well with the neighbours, etc. The only problems we have had have all been related to Universal Credit not working very well with his fortnightly pay days. We have now settled on him paying rent fortnightly instead of monthly and that seems to be working fine at the moment. The nice thing about the scheme is that I can phone them as soon as any payment issues arise and they will make sure he's receiving everything he's entitled to.

From: Jo Westlake 05 August 2022 07:26 AM

I have 2 properties where I've had tenants with dogs and other pets. Even if the dogs are fully trained and well behaved the properties smell horribly doggy when those tenants leave. It doesn't matter how much deodorising carpet cleaner a professional carpet cleaning company uses the smell is still there. That restricts the number of future tenants to either those with dogs or people who are so desperate they'll put up with the smell. Alternatively the landlord would face a bill of well over £1000 to replace floor coverings every few months. The idea that pet owners stay longer is a complete myth. One of houses where I have allowed pets is on its 4th set of tenants in 3 years. None of my other properties have had that kind of turnover.

From: Jo Westlake 05 August 2022 07:04 AM

The dangers with rent controls are multiple. Landlords who wouldn't normally increase rents would increase them before controls came in on the basis they might not be able to later. Landlords face various costs that are beyond their control such as interest rate rises, licensing scheme fees, insurance costs, repair bills. Surely the price cap in the utility industry should serve as a warning as to what happens when an industry is unable to charge enough to cover costs that are beyond their control. Imposing rent controls isn't going to help tenants if it causes landlords to go bankrupt or be unable to afford to maintain the buildings or persuades even more to sell up and exit the PRS.

From: Jo Westlake 05 August 2022 06:43 AM

It's not just in London. I used to advertise for 22 to 28 year olds to try and keep the houses reasonably cohesive. Now I've increased the upper end to mid 30s because some of the existing tenants have been there so long they are now well over 30. The number of enquiries from people in their 40s, 50s and 60s is staggering.

From: Jo Westlake 04 August 2022 07:44 AM

A great many rents were set long before the energy crisis and can only be increased annually so thousands of landlords have already absorbed massive utility price increases over the last 10 or 11 months. Last summer I signed up for 12 or 14 month electric contracts with Symbio and Neon Reef at roughly 13p per kWh and 13p per day Standing Charge. Those companies went bust in September and October so the contracts weren't honoured and I was dumped on the price cap tariff which currently is just over 28p per kWh and 52p per day Standing Charge. One of my HMOs uses about 7000kWh of electric per year so the bill should have been around £950 if Symbio hadn't gone bust. Under the current price cap it's actually £2150. So just the electric on just one property is £1200 more than the contract I signed up for. The gas is about £950 more than the contract I signed up for. On top of that we have been denied the Council tax rebate. The Council wrote to us in July to say it was only payable to someone who was actually living in the house AND had their name on the bill on the 1st April. Had that been mentioned before April I could have at least asked tenants if they wanted to claim it. Leaving it until it's 3 months too late is just rubbish. None of my HMO tenants have had a rent increase since they moved into the houses. In some cases that's over 5 years. As rooms become vacant they get re let at whatever the current market rate is at the time. I quite like my HMO tenants to have rent stability but if they start demanding the £400 my attitude will rapidly change.

From: Jo Westlake 04 August 2022 07:08 AM

As interest rates rise and landlords come to the end of their current mortgage fix rents will rise even more. We don't just have to factor in the interest rise but also the extra cost of Section 24. Of course FTBs are also looking at higher interest rates so rent will still remain as affordable as it currently is compared with buying. Or put another way both will be more expensive than they are now. The real issues are supply shortages, huge delays in the conveyancing system and general under utilisation of existing housing stock. Also the whole bedroom entitlement thing for tenants is questionable if there isn't sufficient housing stock to satisfy the entitlement. When did that idea come into play? Back in the 1950s my mother was a midwife and often used to talk about the families with 13 or 14 children living in 2 or 3 bedroom Council houses. Now those same houses are only deemed adequate for 4 or 6 people. I'm not in favour of overcrowding but I do question the wisdom of having a housing and benefit system that rewards a tenant with a bigger house simply for having another child they can't afford. Homeowners and their children don't have the same bedroom entitlement.

From: Jo Westlake 03 August 2022 09:11 AM

With the LHA rate frozen at such a low level how does anyone expect low income families to pay the going rate? This one can be firmly blamed on Sunak. It's been recognised for years that the methodology behind the LHA is seriously flawed. Freezing the limit was obviously going to cause huge affordability problems for low paid workers. The LHA was supposed to be set at the 30th percentile rent for each size of property in each rental area. Some of the areas were geographically far too big (over 500 square miles) and have always had issues with the only housing at LHA rent being over 25 miles from the main employment areas. Should someone pay £100+ a month from other money to top up their rent and live somewhere convenient or should they pay £100+ a month to sit on a bus for hours every week so they can live in a cheaper house? Either way that £100+ a month was money that should have been available for food or heating. Another problem is how the 30th percentile figure is derived. A tenancy agreement is a private agreement between 2 private parties. How much data is the LHA figure based on and how skewed is it? Clearly there is far more access to rent figures paid by people in receipt of benefit top ups. It doesn't just include available properties or new tenancies signed up in the last 6 months. It encompasses some very historic rents which pull the figure down far lower than it should be. Thousands of landlords don't routinely increase rent for long term tenants. Although in some respects that's very nice for those tenants it can cause unintended problems. It keeps the LHA figure artificially low making it much harder to find available properties anywhere close to LHA rent. When a rent increase does eventually become necessary it's likely to be big. Then we see headlines about greedy landlords inflicting inflation busting rent increases on poor exploited hard working tenants. No mention of the whopping savings the tenant has made over the years by not having regular rent increases.

From: Jo Westlake 02 August 2022 08:34 AM

13 of my tenants have bought in the last 6 years. Nearly all were in their 20s. Most bought brand new 3 bed semi-detached houses with the HTB scheme. Two of them went straight into 4 bedroom houses as their FTB home. It will save them a fortune in SDLT and estate agent fees over the next few years. It's fantastic for those who did it but I'm not convinced it's very good from a tax revenue point of view for society as a whole.

From: Jo Westlake 01 August 2022 09:05 AM

Lenders always demand to see bank statements as part of the mortgage application process. If they can reject an application because of a gym membership or too many takeaways they can certainly spot rent payments. The simple fact is that the affordability multiples are different for renting and buying. Rent includes a whole basketful of components such as insurance, boiler servicing, repairs, etc. A home owner would have to pay for all those things on top of the mortgage payment. The standard formula for rental affordability is to take the annual salary and divide it by 30 to get the monthly affordability ceiling. A couple both working full time on minimum wage would earn about £36000 so would clear affordability checks for £1200 a month rent. Mortgages are based on house prices instead of monthly payments. Usually 4.5 or 5 times income can be borrowed. So an income of £36000 would allow borrowing of £162000 to £180000 assuming no other debt was being serviced. What those figures translate to around the country will vary hugely. In this area it would cover rent for a small 3 bed house with a garage in a nice area or you could buy a 2 bed ex council flat. To buy a new build 3 bedroom house in this area costs about £350000 so a couple would need to be earning around £70000 and have savings of at least £25000 to cover deposit and fees.

From: Jo Westlake 01 August 2022 08:51 AM

I've been trying one of the other landlord specific packages that is supposed to be MTD ready for about a month and all I can say is it's incredibly time consuming to set up and not especially intuitive to use. The customer support is very good but by the time I've worked out I need to ask for help I've wasted hours struggling. Far too much prior knowledge of double entry bookkeeping is assumed. It's too easy to enter the same expense multiple times and very hard to spot that you've done so. It's then difficult to remove the extra expenses. I can see that certain aspects may save an accountant a bit of time but I'm at a loss as to how it's supposed to simplify things for me.

From: Jo Westlake 30 July 2022 16:14 PM

I don't really see how these companies can justify any additional charge for providing payment management records. It's all totally automated by the banks. Proving a payment record in this day and age is incredibly easy. A few seconds to access online bank statements and it's all there in black and white. Even my UC tenants pay by online bank transfer or Standing Order. Courts should accept bank statements as absolute proof of when rent was paid. Surely there is nothing better than a bank statement for proving financial transactions. It's not like in the old days of cash and rent books. Back in the late 1990s if I wanted to be certain of receiving rent from a couple of my tenants I had to hang around their place of employment on pay day and intercept them as they left the building while they still had pay packets full of cash. The time and effort in rent collecting and the margin for error in record keeping back then was in a different league.

From: Jo Westlake 28 July 2022 09:25 AM

How accurate is it that 40% of rental properties are genuinely below a C? How many properties falsely have low EPCs because either the assessor was clueless about construction methods, terrified of being found to be too generous if audited or deliberately aimed for a low score to get grant funding for insulation? How many of us knew that accuracy was going to be important 6 or 7 years ago when these Mickey Mouse assessments were churned out? Back then it was frustrating that they were blatantly wrong but it didn't actually matter because we knew the reality. EPCs were just another bit of nonsense the government had dreamt up for people to pay for. Now some of us are far better prepared with our paperwork and photographic evidence and insist on being present while the assessment is carried out in any borderline properties. I had one property gain 19 points when I did a guided tour of what should have been blindingly obvious. I hadn't even made any improvements to that property between assessments. How many have had loads of improvements since the last EPC was done but we haven't had a new assessment carried out yet because we don't have to? How many of us are waiting to see what happens if the algorithm is tweaked later this year as expected? I think we all need to bear in mind anyone can become an EPC assessor after doing a 2 day online course with absolutely no previous experience of anything construction related. Even an experienced EPC assessor only charges about £55 so won't have time to look for stuff that isn't obvious. Without us being present to spoon feed them the relevant evidence they are going to make some very inaccurate assumptions.

From: Jo Westlake 27 July 2022 08:31 AM

Robert - you are so right. I wonder how many of us do the sniff test either consciously or unconsciously.

From: Jo Westlake 26 July 2022 09:17 AM

Sounds fantastic for rogue tenants. Comparing renting a house to buying a takeaway is insane. Personally I prefer to meet my prospective tenants or at least have a video call with them. A bit more effort before handing over the keys results in a lot less stress after.

From: Jo Westlake 26 July 2022 07:42 AM

I'm not convinced FTBs are buying FTB type properties. In the last 5 years 13 of my tenants have bought. Only 2 of them have bought 2 bedroom houses. Most have bought 3 bedroom semis and 2 bought 4 bedroom houses. None of them bought flats. Four were secondhand houses while the other 9 were new builds with the Help to Buy scheme.

From: Jo Westlake 25 July 2022 10:41 AM

The main problem with EPCs is that they list the most expensive, impractical suggestions first and often don't mention the far more cost effective options that would get the properly to a C. We don't even know if C is the target yet. One of mine says install solid floor insulation and a gas boiler at a cost of between £7K and £13K. The EPC assessor emailed me after to say ignore all that, replacing the old night storage heater with a Dimplex Quantum at a cost of about £1500 would be sufficient. Another one suggests internal or external wall insulation and solar water heating at a cost of between £8K and £20K. The wall insulation is completely impractical as it would either encroach on other people's land or make an already narrow kitchen too small to open the oven door. Solar PV would cost about £5K and be of very noticeable benefit to the tenant. A few of mine have flat roofs and assessors are very keen on assuming no insulation exists because they don't understand Building Control certificates. Even though they have assumed it doesn't exist it's never one of the things they recommend doing, which seems a bit odd as heat rises. We need a complete list of options in no particular order to choose from.

From: Jo Westlake 25 July 2022 10:34 AM

The whole claimant thing is complicated. I have a very mixed portfolio which includes 6 properties that I choose to let at or slightly below LHA rates. 4 of those properties are currently occupied by tenants with a UC entitlement. Across those 6 properties I am charging more than £1000 a month below market rent. That's a choice I have made that is partially offset by the fact these particular tenants have many years history of proving themselves to be good tenants who take good to excellent care of their homes and almost always pay the rent on time. Late payments are invariably due to problems with UC. All 6 of those properties were bought as repossessions or serious renovation projects and I doubt very much if current LHA rates would be sufficient to satisfy mortgage lending affordability criteria on anything fit for immediate habitation at today's prices, unless landlords were willing to put in much higher deposits than normal. If we do happen to have a property vacant that we advertise at anywhere close to LHA rent we will be absolutely inundated with applicants, most of which will be fully self funding. Nearly all of them will be frantically trying to find a home and we will hear a whole range of excellent reasons why they should be the chosen applicant: Current landlord selling up and evicting them, relationship breakdown, new job, kids needing to be in the school catchment area, new relationship, unexpectedly being given custody of a child, etc. The list is endless but we only have one property available. How do we choose? If Letting Agents are involved it will come down to referencing and affordability checks, which claimants are going to struggle to pass. It is unlikely Rent Guarantee insurance would be available and for many landlords that's a risk they won't take. If we self manage or use some of the Council referral schemes we have to use our judgement. Having a guarantor possibly helps but isn't cast iron. Dealing with the DWP regarding UC claimants is staggeringly difficult. Much, much harder than dealing with the local Housing Benefit staff used to be, so it shouldn't come as any surprise landlords prefer to avoid that added complication. So while I wouldn't want to lose any of my existing claimant tenants and have no intention of putting rent up above LHA rates on any of those properties while those tenants want to live there, it is unlikely I would go out of my way to let to any more UC claimants. There are so many self funding applicants to choose from. The government are too fond of freezing LHA rates for lengthy periods, the LHA rate is far lower than market rent and the DWP are impossible to deal with. Rents on currently available properties are almost certain to be somewhat higher than LHA rates so if we accepted a UC claimant wouldn't there be a risk we would be condemning them to living in poverty? Would any responsible landlord actually want to deliberately do that to another human being? Councils have a certain amount of discretionary funding but it seems to be erratic in its availability. The actual tenants themselves can be great. Like any other sector of society there's good and bad.

From: Jo Westlake 23 July 2022 12:13 PM

Is anyone else struggling with staying accredited since the NLA scheme changed to the NRLA? This article gives us an opportunity to spend £140 to get half a years required points. Has anyone found a way to stay accredited without spending hundreds of pounds in addition to the membership fee? Back in the NLA days keeping accredited was easy. Do a few modules from the excellent library, read the magazine and attend a couple of landlord meetings. All good information stuff. Now it seems to be a case of paying varying amounts for various online things.

From: Jo Westlake 22 July 2022 08:03 AM

Not sure I could be concise enough to fit into 3000 words.

From: Jo Westlake 22 July 2022 07:51 AM

I include Council Tax, gas, electric, broadband, and water in the rent in my HMOs. My local Council sent a letter last week to say that to claim the £150 Council Tax rebate the person had to be living in the property and be named on the Council Tax bill on the 1st April. So none of mine will receive a penny. Had they mentioned the requirement to be named prior to 1st April we could have sorted that but to tell us 10 weeks too late totally discriminates against HMO tenants and landlords. The £400 off the electric is a drop in the ocean compared to how much utilities have increased since all the small companies went bust last year. None of my existing HMO tenants have had a rent increase since moving in (which in some cases is over 5 years ago) so I have largely absorbed the increased costs. Obviously as rooms become vacant those rents are set at current market rent. If there is a requirement to hand the £400 over to each household there will be a very strong incentive to have an inflation linked rent increase alongside it for any tenant who has been in for over a year. For a 5 person HMO that would equate to giving the tenants a one off £80 per person and increasing the rent by about £45 a month. That would still leave the rent at a lower level than market rent for those rooms so the argument that I'd loose loads of money with lengthy voids doesn't really work. There is a bit of a rental crisis at the moment and I had 74 applicants for a room in an HMO last weekend. Activists need to be very careful of unintended consequences on this one.

From: Jo Westlake 22 July 2022 07:46 AM

The report found that installing an air-source heat pump could increase the sales value by around £5,000 to £8,000; solar panels could increase it by around £1,350 to £5,400; and an electric vehicle charge point could increase it by around £5,000. I find those figures quite surprising. Why would an EV charge point add £5000 to the value of a house when it costs less than £1000 to install one? If anyone can find a house with a decent size solar array for only £5400 more than one without solar that has to be a fantastic bargain. Houses with older solar panels will still get the Feed In Tariff payments for several more years plus make significant savings on their own energy bills. To have new solar panels installed is way more than £5400 for a 4kW + array. If you have a battery as well it's closer to £10000. I had quotes yesterday ranging from around £9500 to £12000 for 14 panels plus a 5kW battery.

From: Jo Westlake 22 July 2022 07:12 AM

That is the issue. It would need to be something that the landlord charged the tenant for and passed the money to the insurance company to ensure it was actually paid. It needs to be the case that any claims count against the tenants no claims record, not the landlords though. So basically a different set up to anything that currently exists. It's maybe something a letting agent could sell to a tenant but would data protection prevent them from telling the landlord if the tenant cancelled the policy?

From: Jo Westlake 21 July 2022 18:40 PM

That's the problem. That cute little bundle of fluff rapidly turns into a boisterous, expensive to run liability that requires huge amounts of the owners time.

From: Jo Westlake 21 July 2022 11:04 AM

It needs to be an insurance product. A deposit could never be big enough to cover all the damage an unsupervised animal could cause. Scratched walls, skirting boards, doors and doorframes, chewed up kitchen units, shredded carpets soaked in wee, laminate floors destroyed, etc. One of my tenants arrived with an existing dog that seemed OK. Then it had puppies and they decided to keep one of the puppies..........(see above)

From: Jo Westlake 21 July 2022 08:32 AM

Edwin Of course I'm a landlord. With a mixed portfolio and a complete cross section of tenant profiles. I have second year undergrads through to benefit assisted over 60s. Lots of graduate professionals and 3 families with young children. Non stop landlord since 1998 but did dabble in the late 1980s and actually started out with a DSS B&B occupied by young offenders. I live in a very real and very varied world. What about you Edwin? Are you a landlord?

From: Jo Westlake 21 July 2022 08:18 AM

An experienced pet owner wanting to bring an existing pet is very different to what the Rental Reforms White paper is proposing.

From: Jo Westlake 21 July 2022 06:51 AM

Ellie - I've never been described as promoting left-wing policy before. Holiday lets that are let for the prerequisite number of nights pay business rates instead of Council Tax and aren't subject to Section 24. They also aren't always subject to the same safety standards as hotels and holiday parks. For many years second homes paid reduced Council Tax. It can be argued that holiday lets boost tourism and second home owners employ local tradespeople. In some cases that may be true but in a lot it isn't. It can also be argued second homes are only occupied for a few weeks a year and cause communities to die. Not enough children to keep the local school open, not enough year round trade for the pub or village shop to remain in business. That will certainly be true in some areas. It's not a one size fits all problem. The simple fact is the current tax policies massively disadvantage traditional BTL landlords and in the process disadvantage standard tenants. I'm not a fan of envy politics. If people can afford a second home for their own personal use good luck to them. But don't complain about paying full Council tax on what to most people is a luxury that they can only dream of owning.

From: Jo Westlake 20 July 2022 17:06 PM

If Councils did as Andrew suggests they could buy or build far more houses and use any surplus profits to go towards their pension liabilities. That would then potentially lead to lower Council Tax bills for everyone. Anyone on low pay gets a UC top up towards their rent. Why should anyone on high pay be entitled to subsidized rent?

From: Jo Westlake 20 July 2022 09:59 AM

Ellie - holiday lets and second homes are different but they are both luxuries that prevent some of those properties from being used as a primary residence. Some holiday lets and second homes will be purpose built holiday accommodation on holiday developments and have got planning restrictions preventing permanent occupation. They are being used for their intended purpose and should be taxed accordingly. It's the ones that were built as primary homes and are now used as second homes or holiday lets that are really contentious. Taxing them more favourably than other types of housing is just stoking the housing crisis.

From: Jo Westlake 20 July 2022 09:46 AM

If they're buying them at market price or very close I can't see a problem for the seller. It's the sellers choice who to sell to. It's if they plan to rent them out at a fraction of market rent there's a problem for all the Council Tax payers who would be subsidizing the scheme. An affordable market rent is one thing, a ludicrously cheap, subsidized Council rent would be grossly unfair to all the tax payers who would be funding it.

From: Jo Westlake 20 July 2022 07:16 AM

The idea of classifying properties as a primary home, second home and short-term holiday accommodation makes sense as long as traditional BTL is classed as a primary home. Classification needs to be based on the occupier not the owner where there is a choice. Primary homes are a basic essential. Second homes and short-term holiday accommodation are luxuries. The current housing crisis is largely because the luxury housing classes are given far more favourable tax treatment while long term traditional BTL is taxed to a far higher extent than any other industry. An extra 3% SDLT when we buy, our tax band determined on turnover not profit thereby losing any younger landlords their Child Benefit, a tiny tax credit towards our finance costs unlike every other industry where finance is a fully deductible cost before determining the taxable profit, a higher rate of CGT than any other asset if we sell. Then the Rental Reforms White paper wanting to force us to allow pets and messing about with the eviction procedures. If traditional BTL landlords were treated as proper businesses with clear, consistent ideas of fair and proper behaviour relaxing to both landlord and tenant there wouldn't be a rental crisis. The problem with licensing schemes is the unintended consequences that always become apparent after a period of time. Also the lack of flexibility to accommodate an ever evolving housing need.

From: Jo Westlake 20 July 2022 07:03 AM

Simon - the one in my house was supplied by Octopus and is for electric. On the bottom of the counter display unit it says Chameleon Technology. On that model there's 6 white squares at the bottom right hand side of the display. Touch them and Accounts should come up towards top left. Touch that and use right hand arrow a couple of times. It should get you to tariff followed by standing charge on the next screen. Mine is currently saying 21.41p per kWh (instead of 28.4p) and daily standing charge is showing as 25.66p (instead of 51.36p). The other smart meter was installed by Eon before I switched to Octopus for that house. The counter top display is completely different and has a different selection of information. Every time I look at it I haven't got a clue what I'm doing and just randomly press buttons until it comes up with whatever it is I'm hoping to find. There's loads of information in it but not especially intuitive to find. The accuracy of the counter top display doesn't really matter too much unless anyone believes it's giving them correct information. The energy supplier should end up with the correct kilowatt usage regardless of how much the display unit says you have spent. The danger is that people think the display is correct and budget for that figure. When the bill turns out to be 30% higher than the display unit said it would be they've got a problem. I hate to think what this winter will be like. I've tried a few experiments in various houses over the last few months with things like solar diverters to take surplus solar energy to the hot water immersion heater, heat pump tumble driers in my biggest HMOs, electric throws and lowering the central heating temperature in my own house. They've all made a difference but have involved a certain amount of financial outlay. The next one I'm going to try is the HMO heating programmers. If anyone has any experience of them it would be great to hear about.

From: Jo Westlake 19 July 2022 15:55 PM

Michael - I wasn't knocking him, just agreeing with Andrew that tradespeople have already increased their rates.

From: Jo Westlake 19 July 2022 12:04 PM

Andrew - paying monthly is probably why you get proper regular bills. I still have 2 accounts with EDF with monthly Direct Debits set up and their website says: You normally get two bills a year – just after your two Direct Debit check-ins. This is when we check your payments are still on track. The problem with that is they don't update the account balance when you submit readings, only when the DD payment goes in. So it shows an ever increasing credit balance with no indication of usage. I had 5 accounts with Eon when I was dumped on them last September. All with DD payments. No idea why but one of them billed properly. The other 4 just showed an ever increasing credit balance. I switched all 5 accounts to Octopus in May and have only just had the final bill for 3 of the accounts last week. That was the only bill produced for the entire 8 month period and was produced so late they had to pay me £30 per account for not producing a final bill within 6 weeks of me switching. I still haven't had a bill for the 5th account.

From: Jo Westlake 19 July 2022 11:00 AM

Tradesmen certainly have. Not that long ago it was around £150 to £175 a day for about an 8 or 9 hour day for a decent carpenter. Last week I had a fencing contractor in for 3 days. He turned up at 09:30 and went home no later than 14:30 and charged £200 a day. I'm sure he would say collecting the materials and disposing of the waste added extra time to his working hours but that should have been once on the first day and once on the last day, not 3 hours every day.

From: Jo Westlake 19 July 2022 08:08 AM

These figures are now meaningless. How many households haven't made an effort to cut usage? Therefore the average consumption has to be lower than it was 12 months ago. We need the kWh and daily standing charge prices not some fantasy household average. We need bills to be produced every time a meter reading is submitted. Octopus do it that way so why can't Eon, EDF or British Gas? Smart meters need to work. I've never been a fan of smart meters but eventually gave in earlier this year and had them for electric in 2 different houses. The one in my house has never had the correct tariff on it. The one in the other house doesn't have the correct tariff and it also doesn't transmit data. It's only function so far has been to make the tenants aware that cooking and boiling the kettle uses quite a bit of electric. Instead of scaremongering we need proper information about kWh prices and sensible proven suggestions to cut usage without harming our houses or health.

From: Jo Westlake 19 July 2022 07:56 AM

The main residence thing is bizarre. It's not a question I've ever thought to ask as my assumption is that if they are renting somewhere on an AST for a period of time that is where they will be living for that period of time. They have lived somewhere else before and will live somewhere else after. Their partner and children may still be in their before house. They may be in the process of selling their former main residence. I don't consider it is any of my business if they want to rent a temporary home because they're doing a work related thing or because they're on a trial separation. Without a fully functional crystal ball how exactly are we supposed to guess where a tenant would think of as their main residence. A holiday let is different as it is clearly for holidays.

From: Jo Westlake 18 July 2022 09:48 AM

Ellie - if you're giving them a standard AST for a short let then wouldn't it be classed as standard BTL letting rather than a holiday or short let anyway?

From: Jo Westlake 18 July 2022 08:58 AM

They certainly seem to be focusing on the renting the spare room in the hosts own home side of Airbnb rather than the converting a long term BTL into a holiday home version.

From: Jo Westlake 18 July 2022 07:50 AM

I agree with Simon that ASB is the worrying one. Gathering proof or neighbours statements is incredibly hard if they are terrified of possible repercussions. One of my tenants had their car windows smashed because their neighbour mistakenly thought my tenant had reported them to the Council. It was actually me who had asked the Council what they were doing about their tenants behaviour. It took 10 years for the Council to finally rehouse the person who had spent 10 years torturing the neighbourhood with her constant stream of drug dealer boyfriends, uncontrolled dog, throwing dog mess off her balcony, loud music and out of control kids. If Councils can't evict their tenants for ASB what hope have PRS landlords got?

From: Jo Westlake 18 July 2022 07:42 AM

Renting out parts of their home to generate funds is completely different to taking a property out of the long term BTL market and changing it's use to a holiday let. Airbnb encompasses both. The former version has always been encouraged with the Rent a Room tax break and is a good way of utilizing surplus housing capacity to bring in a bit of extra money. The latter has soared since Section 24 was invented for traditional BTL and is causing major difficulties in certain parts of the country.

From: Jo Westlake 18 July 2022 07:19 AM

I understand the concerns about operating without Section 21. It's always been nice to know it's there even if we never need to use it. However, how many tenants are evicted for any reason other than rent arrears, ASB or because the landlord or close family member wants to move into the house or sell up? The White Paper claims all those things will still be covered. The no fault connotations of Section 21 are hugely beneficial to tenants and I don't think it's been fully understood how harmful to tenants the loss of Section 21 will be. The Council will no longer have a duty to house them as it will be seen to be their fault they have been evicted. Whereas with Section 21 it's hard to get any debt repaid, with Section 8 it's far easier.

From: Jo Westlake 17 July 2022 17:12 PM

Ellie - I understand that some tenants request another fixed term but have always wondered why they want something so prescribed and theoretically inflexible. I can understand why Letting Agents loved fixed term tenancies as they used to be able to charge lots of fees to all parties. I've never understood the attraction for landlords or tenants. In reality what do you do if a tenant wants to leave mid way through a fixed term? Legally you could expect them to pay until the end of the fixed term and just leave the house empty. In reality how many landlords would do that? I have an extreme example at the moment. A single male professional moved into one of my HMOs last Saturday on a 6 month AST, started a new job on Monday, realised it wasn't for him, packed up and moved back to London, emailed me on Friday to say he's gone, knows he's liable for the rent but could I try and re-let the room ASAP. I listed the room on Friday afternoon, have had 45 enquiries, did 6 viewings yesterday, narrowed it down to 3 for the other housemates to meet and choose from. Depending which one they choose the new person will move in sometime between 24th July and 31st August at which point the original tenant's liability ends. Apparently I can charge a £50 admin fee for finding a replacement tenant.

From: Jo Westlake 17 July 2022 09:35 AM

I don't understand why anyone would think anything other than fixed tenancies are suitable for either the student or winter let markets. I always offer my students first refusal for the following year. It's usual for part of a group to stay and find new people to fill gaps for the following year. If groups are staying for an extra year I don't charge for August which they really appreciate. This summer 2 of my students are staying right through the summer, as they have part time jobs here, and they have friends and family coming to stay for mini breaks. It's nice for them and means I don't have to deal with any cleaning or decorating in that house this summer. Next year the September 2023 group will be signed up around January. The current ones will graduate in mid July and vacate the house by 31st July. I will have August to do any decorating or repairs. It's a proven model that has worked for decades and would be tragic if it was changed. Equally I don't understand why the vast majority of other tenancies wouldn't roll onto Statutory Periodic tenancies after the initial fixed term. Life doesn't work in 12 months chunks after leaving education. It must be horribly stressful to try and guess how a landlord would react if you were offered a promotion 200 miles away 3 months into another 12 month contract in your home. Or spend the second half of every 12 months worrying about whether the landlord will renew. In reality how many landlords who use fixed term tenancies routinely don't renew those tenancies? How many wouldn't release someone mid way through if their circumstances changed? I've always let non student tenancies start as a 6 month AST and then roll onto SPTs. It's always worked well. Tenants can get on with whatever stuff is going on in their lives without having to factor in an unnecessary barrier. They can accept job offers, move in with partners, buy a house without worrying about where they're at in a 12 month tenancy. They just have to give a month's notice when they want to leave. I suspect a great many stay much longer than they would if they were on fixed term tenancies as they don't have that milestone annual tenancy renewal rigmarole to think about. It would be interesting to know if Section 21s are mainly issued to tenants on fixed term tenancies or on SPTs.

From: Jo Westlake 17 July 2022 08:43 AM

It would be so simple to fix. Landlords need certainly, consistency and long term fair tax policies. 1 - A decision on EPC requirements now, immediately not some distant date in the future. Plus a guarantee that requirement can't be changed for a minimum of 30 years. Also a guarantee that properties can't drop a band due to changes to the EPC algorithm. Once a C always a C or above. 2 - Standard SDLT on all traditional BTLs and a refund of all the extra 3% SDLT that has been paid on any properties where it can be proved they have only been used for standard AST type letting. These are long term homes for people not some luxury toy. 3 - Abolish Section 24. Tax us on the same definition of profit as every other industry. 4 - Cut CGT. Unlike other assets houses can't easily be sold off in optimum size lumps to best utilize annual CGT limits. Either cap CGT on property assets at 10% or bring back Indexation or taper relief. Ideally do the same as France and have zero CGT after 22 years of ownership. 5 - Sort out the eviction situation. Cases of rent arrears or ASB need to get to court quickly within weeks, not months. Decent tenants who have fully complied with their tenancy agreements need financial compensation towards their moving costs if the landlord needs to evict. A long term landlord would only be in that situation when they eventually want to retire or move into the property themselves so it's a one off expense that can be planned for and may never need to happen. 6 - The government must guarantee to never, ever again ban evictions and suggest rent payment holidays without giving us a full financial support package.

From: Jo Westlake 15 July 2022 07:51 AM

Any politician needs to understand property is cyclical and is largely driven by tax policy. Right now the taxation on holiday lets is far more favourable than on traditional BTL. Therefore we suddenly have a vast amount of holiday lets and a shortage of long term rentals. If landlords of long term BTLs weren't viewed as the first port of call for extra tax every time politicians wanted a sound bite policy we wouldn't have such a housing crisis.

From: Jo Westlake 14 July 2022 06:57 AM

Michael - they're having a Redress Scheme anyway, regardless of what anyone thinks or wants. We have to live with whatever is put in place. This article was about recruiting a cross section of people to the Advisory Council panel of the Property Redress Scheme. So all the different players who are impacted by whatever the Redress Scheme does have had the opportunity for some input into policy rather than being completely excluded as usual. Whether it will make any difference is debatable. At least they have acknowledged they need to seek a wider range of experience and opinions than has previously been the case. The one sector they really need to consult with are people working in Local Authority housing departments. Not managers, just frontline staff. They have day to day first hand experience of dealing with people who are made homeless because of ill conceived policies.

From: Jo Westlake 12 July 2022 09:38 AM

At least landlords are one of the 11 categories of experts they're looking for. It doesn't really explain how much expertise an expert is supposed to have but as tenants and homeowners are 2 of the other categories maybe they really are looking for grassroots experience not just the big players.

From: Jo Westlake 12 July 2022 06:53 AM

How many properties are still exactly the same as when the EPC was last done? How many EPCs were deliberately done to achieve a low score by insulation companies to get grant funding? How many assumptions are being made regarding property standards purely by looking at flawed EPC ratings? I have one that used to be D57. The original EPC said that to get a C I would need cavity wall insulation, upgraded heating controls and a new band A condensing boiler. I applied for subsidised cavity wall insulation and their starting point was to do an EPC. This time it was E47 (they decided to assume the roof had no insulation even though I had Building Control certificates to say it complied with the standard required in 2014 and photos of the roofer installing it). It stated I needed cavity wall insulation, solid floor insulation, a new condensing boiler, solar water heating and solar photovoltaic panels. In reality a different assessor would give it a much higher score now as I would be far more insistent on the roof insulation being acknowledged and I've done the cavity wall insulation, upgraded heating controls and new boiler. I'm not willing to pay for another EPC right now so it can stay as being registered as E until either it expires in December 2025 or I want to remortgage and try for a Green mortgage. It may only be £55 for an EPC but it's my £55 and it's staying in my pocket for as long as possible. As I include the utilities in the rent for that property it is in my interest to make the property as energy efficient as possible. As far as I am concerned I have carried out every viable improvement possible and the fact the EPC certificate doesn't currently reflect the reality is just one of those things.

From: Jo Westlake 11 July 2022 09:04 AM

It goes against the grain to say it but I think landlords have less to fear from a Labour government. Everyone else will be worse off but last time Labour were in power was a fantastic time for landlords. It may have been because Tony Blair was creating optimum conditions for his own property owning gains. In 1997 I was a young widow on Income Support. By 2010 I owned 5 houses (all with at least 4 bedrooms) plus the house we lived in. The coalition wasn't too horrendous but since the Conservatives gained overall control in 2015 it's been assault after assault on rental housing.

From: Jo Westlake 09 July 2022 13:48 PM

You're not the only one who cares. I'm very concerned about the impact on both the student market and winter lets. I don't do winter lets myself but I live in a tourist area so I'm pretty aware of their value. Certain areas of university cities are more suitable for students than others. If students decide to leave in March we're not going to leave the houses empty until September. We'll re-let to either employed or unemployed single people to retain our HMO letting rights. We can't risk letting to families if we operate in Article 4 areas. Once those houses are occupied by non students they will be out of the student market for the foreseeable future. Students will spread further and further from the universities completely changing the character of family areas. They will have to travel much greater distances to get to university, which isn't great from an environmental point of view. Properties that are used as holiday lets in the summer are often used as 6 month or shorter lets in the winter. Very useful for seasonal workers who have spent the summer working in agriculture, the festival circuit or as a holiday rep abroad, etc. Or for people planning major renovation of their own home. For years it's been both types of use coexisting perfectly. Landlords would have to choose whether to only do holiday lets or try for a series of short lets without being able to line up the next one until the property is vacant. It would lead to huge amounts of totally unnecessary voids and would be an appalling under utilisation of housing stock.

From: Jo Westlake 09 July 2022 13:31 PM

Mark - why do you think anti landlord policies are popular with the majority of voters? How are you quantifying MAJORITY? Do you really just mean a few hundred very loud activists? Most people will rent accomodation at some point. While they are at university, when they move to a new city to start a new job, when they first live with a new partner, when their house needs major renovation, between selling one house and buying another, when their marriage breaks up, etc. Some will choose to rent because the benefit system supports tenants and not homeowners. Access to rental property is vital for a flexible, mobile workforce. On the whole the relationship between landlords and tenants is very positive. Haven't we recently seen surveys that shows close to 90% of tenants are happy with their landlord and home? Surely it doesn't take a MENSA candidate to see that every time policies are introduced that increase taxes or expenses for landlords rents will increase at the earliest opportunity. Often in advance of the additional cost being incurred.

From: Jo Westlake 08 July 2022 13:06 PM

Interest rate rises should be of far more concern to anyone wanting to buy a house. The monthly mortgage payment is the only thing that really matters long term. Asking prices and sales prices are often miles apart. Transactions are taking far longer than they ever have in the past so it's questionable how up to date any data is at the moment. By the time sales data feeds through it is probably nearly a year after the property was listed for sale.

From: Jo Westlake 08 July 2022 08:32 AM

Does the wider public mean any adult old enough to vote? MPs tend to be middle aged. They were around at the golden age of BTL when just about anyone could get a BTL mortgage. In the early 2000s huge numbers of self employed people bought BTLs and there was the middle class dinner party brigade. The fact they are MPs kind of demonstrates they've put themselves in the higher achievers catagory so would be more likely than the wider public to invest in property. It's mystifying why they come out with quite so many harmful policies regarding the whole housing market with their vast experience of property ownership. Help to Buy - caused price rises. Stamp Duty holiday - caused massive price rises and overwhelmed conveyancing system. Section 24 - caused rent increases. Extra 3% SDLT for additional properties - caused rent increases due to decreased supply of rental properties. EPCs - will lose thousands of perfectly good, well located houses from the rental market and cause rent increases. Eviction ban - terrified landlords and caused far more than usual to sell at the earliest opportunity.

From: Jo Westlake 08 July 2022 08:14 AM

Which is why a 50 year term or interest only isn't a bad thing. There would be less equity for the government to tax. Leaving people with more disposable income now would help create jobs and bring in income tax revenue, NI and VAT now. People piling all their money into short term mortgages does nothing for the economy until many years into the future.

From: Jo Westlake 06 July 2022 12:02 PM

Twenty years ago interest only mortgages were very popular. Fantastic product for people with some level of financial discipline.

From: Jo Westlake 06 July 2022 10:29 AM

The article is using the words 'key worker' a lot. It means someone earning close to minimum wage. Someone who if single will be struggling financially especially if they have to pay bus fares to get to work. However, if they have children they will have significant UC top ups. As a tenant they would be entitled to the LHA element of UC. If they were a homeowner they wouldn't get any help with their housing costs. Their UC top up would be much, much lower than a tenant received and they would have to pay for any property repairs and insurance themselves whereas that sort of thing is included in the rent. There are advantages to being a tenant and it really isn't helpful for the media to constantly portray being a tenant as being disadvantaged or downtrodden. Even if someone is earning enough to buy a house they may well choose to be a tenant because they could afford to rent a much better house. That's purely down to the different affordability multiples used by mortgage lenders and letting agents.

From: Jo Westlake 06 July 2022 08:56 AM

A good EPC assessor will already run 'what if' scenarios and advise clients on more cost effective ways to improve an EPC score. For example one of my properties was recently assessed as D67. The recommendations are solid floor insulation, extra jacket on hot water cylinder, install a gas boiler. Cost between £7000 and £13000. The assessor emailed to say all I really needed to do to get to EPC C was replace the old night storage heater with a new Dimplex Quantum. Cost around £1500. That assessment was done earlier this year. Why is the EPC computer program recommending unnecessarily ripping out and dumping tons of concrete (which the local Environmental Health Officer has described as an environmental disaster and not something they would ever want a landlord to do) and install a gas boiler shortly before gas boilers are banned? How are Vibrant planning to override the EPC recommendations?

From: Jo Westlake 06 July 2022 08:37 AM

Article 4 is exactly what would work to control the rise of holiday lets. I operate in an Article 4 area and have quite strong views on the inappropriate use of Article 4 in some situations and how it prevents optimum utilisation of housing stock. Holiday lets may actually be an appropriate use of Article 4.

From: Jo Westlake 05 July 2022 14:59 PM

For BTL mortgages it's a much lower risk. None of us know if EPC is going to become a requirement but if it does improving EPCs on some houses is going to be costly and will require the property to be empty while work is carried out. That massively increases the risk that a landlord may be unable to pay the mortgage. For residential mortgages it's just a token gesture so lenders can claim to be environmentally aware and be seen to be doing their bit. The discounts on residential rates are derisory. The one my son applied for was 1.98% for the green mortgage or 1.99% for the standard one. Because the broker got it wrong he's now having to pay 2.24%.

From: Jo Westlake 05 July 2022 14:51 PM

Any talk of rent controls is going to scare landlords into selling. The only realistic way to reduce the number of properties switching from long term lets to holiday lets is to require planning permission for change of use.

From: Jo Westlake 05 July 2022 08:58 AM

If a property already has the required EPC rating getting the slightly better mortgage rate is a nice idea. In the BTL market it's obviously a lower risk for the lender, especially on 5 year mortgage deals. There are currently 2 main flaws in the concept. The first one is that if you buy a property that has a lower EPC the mortgage rate doesn't drop if you make energy improvements and get a better EPC. If these 'green' mortgages were anything to do with energy efficiency and not just a straight risk based product there would be a facility for the rate to drop mid term on production of an improved EPC certificate. Secondly if a mortgage broker makes a mistake and applies for the wrong product. My son has had this issue and the brokers error is going to cost him an extra £30 a month for the next 5 years. The house has an EPC C, which some lenders class as green while others don't. The green product was £1.60 a month cheaper than the standard product. The broker didn't check the criteria properly as the NatWest green mortgage is only for EPC A or B. Originally he'd been talking about applying to Nationwide or Halifax and then suddenly decided NatWest. Perhaps NatWest pay a higher commission? By the time the lender processed the application interest rates had risen and instead of just viewing it as an error on the part of the broker and switching it to the standard product NatWest decided to reject the application and reprocess it from scratch on it the new higher interest rates. By that time everyone else's rate had risen so there was no point going elsewhere.

From: Jo Westlake 05 July 2022 08:53 AM

Most of it would come under buildings insurance as it would be classed as fixtures and fittings rather than contents. Doors and kitchen units are part of the fabric of the building. Beds and sofas are contents. Floor coverings are a bit of a grey area. Pet damage can hardly be described as accidental as it's a totally foreseeable event. It's not just the excess that's the issue. It's also the no claims discount that would be lost (potentially across the entire portfolio). Why should a landlord face such severe consequences just because a tenant can't be bothered to supervise their pet? If insurance is the solution the insurance industry needs to come up with a new category of policy. The landlord must be the beneficiary of the policy, while the tenant must incur any loss of no claims discount. It needs to be a very comprehensive policy that covers fumigation, deodorisation, the void period while the kitchen, doors and floor coverings are replaced, etc. It needs to be completely separate from the landlords standard buildings and contents policy. If standard landlord policies will be expected to cover pet damage the premiums will increase across the board so tenants without pets will face increased rent to cover the increased costs to landlords.

From: Jo Westlake 04 July 2022 13:02 PM

Why can't the government see that there is a huge difference in homeowners having pets and tenants having pets? If a homeowner's pet destroys the carpets, kitchen units, doors, etc the homeowner pays the full cost of repair, or claims on their insurance (which will mess up any no claims discount) or sells the house at a lower price than a property in good condition would fetch. Either way the full financial consequences are bourne by the pet owner. Until a situation can be reached whereby pet owning tenants face the same financial consequences as home owning pet owners it is completely unreasonable to expect landlords to facilitate pet ownership. The landlord is completely innocent in all of this. We provide decent long term homes for people. It is important those homes remain decent and aren't turned into zoos.

From: Jo Westlake 04 July 2022 09:52 AM

It called for dogs and other animals to be allowed in rented accommodation so long as owners demonstrate their care for them. How do you prove the above statement? A landlord has probably never met the new tenant until they view the property shortly before moving in. Or the viewing is done by video so the landlord and tenant don't meet before moving in day. If it's referring to existing tenants getting a pet at some point during the tenancy how can they demonstrate their care in advance of owning an animal? How many people got pets during lockdown and have regretted it? How many articles have been run in the media about animal rescue charities being overrun with unwanted pets? How many articles do we see about animal neglect or cruelty? That's all before a few million tenants have a go at keeping animals without having a clue about animal welfare realities.

From: Jo Westlake 04 July 2022 07:58 AM

You missed out the eviction ban and rent payment holidays during the pandemic. No other industry was expected to provide full service for it's clients with no right to expect payment or government support. Thankfully most tenants are decent human beings who wouldn't dream of abusing their landlord in such a way but the fact the government put measures in place that left us so vulnerable is shocking.

From: Jo Westlake 01 July 2022 09:45 AM

This article was about short term lets not second homes. A property used for short term lets usually pays much lower business rates instead of council tax and the mortgage is fully tax deductible. For some inexplicable reason it is treated as a business whereas conventional BTL is treated as an investment with completely different tax treatment. A property used as a holiday home for personal use only is a completely different matter.

From: Jo Westlake 30 June 2022 09:39 AM

I'm not fussed what someone identifies as. In a self contained property it's totally their business. In an HMO it's always down to whether an applicants hobbies, interests, work pattern and general demeanor fit with the existing tenants. Sexual orientation is completely irrelevant. I don't know exactly how many gay or LGBTQ+ tenants I currently have as it's not a question I ask on my rental application form. At a guess I'd say about 3 or 4. Occasionally people will state that they are gay or LGBTQ+ when enquiring about a room but usually they don't mention it.

From: Jo Westlake 30 June 2022 09:24 AM

It's useful for landlords of student houses to be made aware of what schemes are in place for rubbish and recycling. We don't usually live in student areas ourselves and don't tend to be on the social media student information sites so us getting information about these schemes is a bit unpredictable. They usually operate for 2 or 3 weeks on specific days and we often don't know about them until after they have happened, which can be frustrating.

From: Jo Westlake 30 June 2022 08:13 AM

I've never understood why the short term holiday lets have been treated so favourably from a tax point of view and had approximately no requirements from a standards and safety point of view. It has given them massive advantages over both the traditional holiday accommodation industry (hotels and holiday parks) and the traditional property rental industry. Someone using their spare room for a bit of B&B may be a useful addition but someone taking multiple whole houses and flats off the long-term rental market and turning them into short term holiday rentals has numerous negative consequences to both the local community and the traditional holiday industry. The fact the government have incentivised short term lets to quite such a degree is bizarre.

From: Jo Westlake 30 June 2022 07:59 AM

It is another example of the government eventually doing something way OTT long after something has resolved itself. This week it's party size Airbnb which Airbnb themselves have banned. Last week it was abolishing Section 21 even though the tenant fees ban had largely already solved that one.

From: Jo Westlake 29 June 2022 13:34 PM

Some people do choose to live in an HMO. Some people hate the idea of going home to an empty space, especially if they're new to the area and don't have friends or family nearby . Some choose to stay far, far longer than they originally intended. Some HMOs are proper, cohesive households. I've even had some where housemates get married to eachother. They may start out as strangers but often become long term friends.

From: Jo Westlake 29 June 2022 09:23 AM

HMOs are occupied by a very wide range of people and good ones will be virtually invisible within the community. When the government changed the Housing Benefit entitlement for single people aged between 25 and 35 surely they expected an increase in the number of HMOs. Where else did they expect people to live? Even though most 25 to 35 year olds aren't on benefit it clearly implied that youngish single people should be looking at house sharing rather than self contained properties. Financially it makes a lot of sense for single people to live in HMOs. The Council Tax and utility bills on a one bed flat are a big chunk of money. Living in an HMO is a very good way to save enough money for a deposit to buy a house. From an efficient utilisation of housing stock and environmental impact HMOs are highly beneficial. In the right building or location HMOs shouldn't cause any problems. Councils need to ensure refuse collections are fit for purpose and sufficient bins are available. Parking is also something Councils could improve. Restricting the number of permits per house as a blanket policy is often unhelpful and causes more problems than it solves. If the HMO is within walking distance of work, shops, university, railway station, etc limited parking permits may be OK. Any HMOs in the suburbs are likely to be occupied by working tenants who each need a car.

From: Jo Westlake 29 June 2022 08:24 AM

I've let to undergrads since 1999 and have had very few problems. The vast majority have treated the houses very well and returned them in excellent condition. Occasionally a parent has been a bit of a pain but it's few and far between especially since GDPR. I know it's the first time the students will have lived in unsupervised accommodation and the first few months will be a learning curve. For most of them no one will have ever taught them basic house stuff like what to do if the electric trips. We tend to think of the second year undergrads as trainee adults and hope that by the time they move on after graduation they have learned some useful tenant skills. Such as to email a photo of whatever the problem is and check with Google.

From: Jo Westlake 29 June 2022 07:43 AM

There are several different types of renting in retirement. Firstly there is either Social Housing or Private Sector. Then there is specific retirement housing or standard housing available to all age groups. There are the people who have rented their entire life. Some as Social tenants with ludicrously low rent, others in the PRS with inconsistent levels of rent. Some will have annual rent increases to keep pace with market rent, others will very rarely have rent increases. Some will move from the PRS to Social housing as circumstances change. Maybe the arrival of children or declining health. Some will have always fully paid their own rent, others will have relied on benefit top ups. Then there are people who have to suddenly rent due to changed circumstances. Relationship breakdown for example. They are probably in the worst position of all renters. Then there are those who have owned for most of their adult life who decide to sell to release their equity and remove all property maintenance responsibilities. Having potentially a couple of decades of renting in later life if you have a big pot of money and a decent pension strikes me as a very good idea for some people. Especially someone who has been widowed and is worried about Inheritance Tax. The ability to easily move to more suitable housing should mobility decline without the hassle of trying to sell your current home is worth a lot. The likelihood of eviction is minimal if you're renting specific retirement accomodation, either in the social sector or PRS.

From: Jo Westlake 28 June 2022 10:01 AM

Did they have to suggest drying washing on an inside airer? No mention of having the windows open or an extractor fan or dehumidifier running. How many supposed damp problems would be eliminated if that one stupid suggestion was made illegal?

From: Jo Westlake 28 June 2022 07:51 AM

A tenant on low to moderate income is entitled to UC which includes the Local Housing Allowance towards their rent. A homeowner isn't entitled to a corresponding payment towards housing costs.

From: Jo Westlake 28 June 2022 07:37 AM

I got a room back yesterday. Lovely tenant, always paid rent early, etc. Today I have to spend the day cleaning bits of mould off walls and order a new bathroom radiator as the current one has gone rusty. The windows were firmly shut, the trickle vents were closed and the extractor had been turned off at the isolator. This is in a high end house, with highly educated tenants and all bills included. There was no reason whatsoever to not ventilate it correctly.

From: Jo Westlake 27 June 2022 10:14 AM

Apart from rent arrears, ASB, wanting to sell the property or move into it themselves why else have landlords ever evicted tenants? If these are all going to mandatory grounds what has actually changed? Since the tenant fees ban there has been no incentive for letting agents to evict tenants just so they can charge massive fees to both landlord and tenant for reletting. Losing the 'no fault' concept does far more harm to tenants as the Local Authorities will no longer have a duty to help.

From: Jo Westlake 25 June 2022 10:49 AM

ASB is a problem. I have an ex Council flat below one that is still owned by the Council. For the first 9 years my tenants lived there they suffered from the ASB of the upstairs neighbour. Within 2 months of moving in the Council tenant had been issued with a warning that she would be evicted if her behaviour didn't change. About 12 different neighbours had all reported the fighting and drug dealing to the Council over the space of one weekend. I casually mentioned to the Council a couple of years later that things were still bad and 2 days later my tenant had his car windows smashed. Nine years later she was rehoused by the Council because by that stage she had 3 children and the flat was deemed to be overcrowded. If Local Authorities can't deal with ASB effectively with their own tenants what hope have we got?

From: Jo Westlake 24 June 2022 09:24 AM

Until we have full details of exactly what the mandatory grounds are and have seen in practice how long it takes to get a court hearing none of us know how downbeat we should be. If eviction under mandatory grounds is speedy and robust maybe things will be OK. Maybe tenants will prioritize paying their rent on time and not indulge in anti social behaviour. I guess the fear most of us have is that there will be insufficient court capacity and the waiting time to get a hearing date will be lengthy. A tenant will know that they will be homeless and probably have a CCJ so there is no point in paying any more rent. As they'll have stuffed their life up to that degree would having a criminal record do much more harm? If they decide it wouldn't what's to stop them stripping the house of anything they can sell or just trashing it? A tenant who is evicted under Section 21 has an expectation that the Council will ensure they have somewhere to live, even if it's only a hostel. A tenant who is evicted for breaching their tenancy under Section 8 has made themselves intentionally homeless. In reality where are they going to live after eviction? The answer to that question may well determine how downbeat we should be.

From: Jo Westlake 24 June 2022 07:54 AM

I'm undecided if it's a sad state of affairs or a sensible idea. If the choice is living in a small self contained one bed flat and paying 75% Council Tax plus gas, electric and water including the whole standing charges or living in a shared house with amenities such às a garden, garage, parking, a decent size lounge and well equipped kitchen alongside other people at a similar stage in life is it such a hardship? Especially if it's hundreds of pounds a month cheaper. A lot of people like a bit of human interaction and don't enjoy living in isolation. It's nice to go home to an occupied house. Of course some HMOs are just a load of rooms where people lock themselves away and never speak to their housemates. That really is a sad state of affairs for anyone who has to live like that at any age.

From: Jo Westlake 22 June 2022 10:28 AM

I've certainly had far more enquiries from older people wanting to live in HMOs. Rent inclusive of bills seem to be very attractive.

From: Jo Westlake 22 June 2022 08:26 AM

The Stamp Duty surcharge is a major disincentive for landlords to buy anything and is one of the main reasons we have a rental crisis and soaring rents. A reduced supply of rental properties and booming demand is only ever going to result in increased rent. The SDLT on a decent HMO is over £30K in the South. That's a huge amount of money to find in addition to a 25% deposit and all the set up costs prior to letting. It is a very questionable argument that "those buying a home to live in should be treated differently to those looking to make money out of property or buying a second home". People already have the benefit of not paying CGT on their main residence. First time buyers already have the advantage of not paying SDLT on traditional FTB properties. The fact that some of them choose to bypass the properties FTBs used to buy and go straight in with much larger properties is their personal choice. The Stamp Duty surcharge has been in place for long enough now for it to be clear to see just how much harm it is doing to the rental market with reduced supply. We have now got to the point where employers are struggling to recruit staff because people can't find anywhere to live. Is penalising landlords to this degree really beneficial to anyone?

From: Jo Westlake 22 June 2022 08:16 AM

In many existing houses heat pumps simply wouldn't do the job and there is nowhere to put them anyway. As they're not even being routinely installed in new build houses there is clearly still a problem with them. Is that problem down to installation cost or that building companies don't want a load of bad publicity about ineffective heating or high energy bills? Realistically it's only a few weeks in winter that heating is a major problem. Whichever heating system we use is going to be expensive for that period. Most people want a system that can actually do the job and due to the construction of older houses and lack of outside space that's currently a gas boiler. Moving forward replacing those gas boilers with another type of boiler may be viable. For now simply changing the way we use existing heating systems would go someway to whatever target the government is going to fail to hit. Smart heating controls make big difference to gas consumption. Solar panels can cut gas usage significantly. Surplus solar energy can be diverted to either the hot water immersion heater or a storage heater. Time of use electric tariffs could also have a similar effect if used for water heating or storage heaters. Solar panels also boost an EPC score by usually between 7 and 10 points depending on the number of panels. I have 2 identical HMOs in the same street, one with solar panels and one without. I had a solar diverter fitted a few weeks ago and have just switched energy provider on both houses so I'm actually getting bills now. Gas bill for 23 days for house with solar panels £22.87, electric £46.23. Identical house without solar panels gas bill £46.95 and electric £77.43 Both sets of bills included standing charges of £5.95 for gas and £11.25 for electric. Obviously the winter period wouldn't be such a difference but I think it shows that hybrid situations may be worth exploring. A combination of solar panels, solar diverters, storage heaters and time of use electric tariffs alongside a boiler would give a good compromise between cutting gas consumption and effectively heating homes.

From: Jo Westlake 20 June 2022 10:22 AM

Responsible pet owners and beloved pets are constantly mentioned. Unfortunately the Rental Reforms aren't just restricted to the above but also apply to people who have never owned a pet, are completely clueless about the time and money required to properly look after a pet and as lockdown proved will result in animals being inappropriately bred with genetic defects causing huge distress to both animal and owner. At the very least there should be a requirement for someone to attend a course on animal welfare before requesting permission to get a pet. A three month course of one hour a week should do. Courses could be run by Local Authorities or animal rescue charities. If someone can't find the time to attend they are unlikely to have the time needed to properly care for an animal. It could also be argued that if they can't afford insurance for their pet they certainly couldn't afford a vets bill. This isn't just about landlords and tenants, it is also about animal welfare. It is an indisputable fact that a great many rental properties are unsuitable for pets and a great many tenants don't have the time to properly care for a pet.

From: Jo Westlake 20 June 2022 08:58 AM

Andrew - there is a difference and sometimes my flexibility will depend on the circumstances and attitude of the tenant. A few years ago I had a recent graduate move into an HMO. A few weeks later he was offered his dream job in Amsterdam. He very politely and excitedly explained the situation and agreed to pay until a replacement was found. He knew he was legally liable for over 4 months rent. I knew the room would be re let within a fortnight. Sometimes I think it's nice to be nice, especially if it doesn't actually cost me anything.

From: Jo Westlake 18 June 2022 16:36 PM

I've always been a bit flexible with the end of tenancy. I tell the tenant the date they are legally liable until and ask what date they really intend to leave. New jobs and new tenancy agreements rarely coincide with the existing tenancy. Then I'll advertise the room as available from a couple of days after the date they intend to leave. Usually I get someone pretty close to that date so the outgoing tenant gets a few days rent refunding. When it works it's win, win, win. The outgoing tenant gets some money back, I don't have a void but have had time to do any decorating or cleaning and the new tenant gets to move in on a date that suits them and often saves paying for a few nights in a hotel.

From: Jo Westlake 18 June 2022 15:47 PM

Some of the reform ideas are OK, while others need work and far more detail. The portal will work better for some landlords than others. It should enable tenants to choose a long term professional landlord more easily, rather than an accidental one who can't wait to sell. It may well encourage rogue tenants to target inexperienced landlords. The changes to mandatory eviction grounds need to be fully published before any of us can decide if we think they're workable. One thing we do need is for the government to guarantee to never again ban evictions or tell tenants they can have a rent payment holiday. Local authorities need to have sufficient funding to treat everyone on a case by case basis and maintain tenancies wherever possible. A few hundred quid, a bit of mediation and some budgeting help is all it would take in many cases. The pets idea is highly contentious. A great many rental properties are completely unsuitable for pets and a great many tenants have never owned a pet so have no idea about the realities of animal welfare. My biggest concern is that there doesn't appear to be a minimum tenancy period. What would stop someone treating what should be a long term home as a very temporary holiday let? Two or three months rent would often be cheaper than a 2 week holiday let. How is it going to sit with mortgage lenders who want initial tenancy agreements to be between 6 months and 3 years? Treating student lets the same as every other type of let is also problematic. If students don't stay for the standard academic period those houses will be re let to professionals or the unemployed and it could be years before they return to the student market. Most university cities have got a workable balance right now often controlled with Article 4 planning restrictions. The focus was on balanced communities. If established student housing leaves the student market (and is re let as an HMO to other people) students will spread further away from the universities and potentially unbalance other areas. Or they will occupy more one and two bedroom properties close to universities and city centres, thereby preventing other people from occupying those first homes or downsizing homes. Either way the environmental impact would be significant with both students and professionals having longer journeys.

From: Jo Westlake 18 June 2022 15:05 PM

Depends what type of tenant group you let to. Families and retired people are more likely to want pets than students or young professionals.

From: Jo Westlake 17 June 2022 13:49 PM

There's certainly going to be winners and losers. The government will rake in staggering amounts of CGT if all the landlords who say they are going to sell actually do so. They'll also get a hefty amount of SDLT and VAT from all those extra transactions. Local authorities will be paying out eyewatering amounts for temporary housing for all the newly homeless people. Does that come out of the Council Tax revenue or from the government out of general taxation? Either way we're all paying for it. Tenants who have historically had minimal or no rent increases will in future have regular rent increases if their landlord isn't one of the ones who has sold up. Those of us who plan to adapt and stay with it will probably do OK financially. We'll just have to be a bit less human and helpful.

From: Jo Westlake 17 June 2022 11:05 AM

As most of the current inflation is caused by global events completely beyond the control of anyone or anything in the UK I don't understand how increasing interest rates is supposed to help control inflation. How is causing people to default or pushing companies into bankruptcy in any way going to help? In terms of getting a cheap mortgage now, that ship has sailed. Two or three months ago there were some good deals but they are a distant memory. It probably will get a bit worse but unless the Bank of England want wholesale repossessions they will eventually have to come up with a different inflation policy.

From: Jo Westlake 17 June 2022 09:36 AM

So last year people wanted outside space and this year they don't. Presumably they've discovered outdoor space takes time to look after and is only enjoyable for a few weeks a year. This year they want to keep pets. Maybe by next year they will have worked out animals require a lot of care and attention that anyone working full-time is unlikely to be able to give the animal.

From: Jo Westlake 17 June 2022 09:23 AM

How much of the reason for this rental reform stems from something that was legislated out several years ago? When letting agents could charge massive fees to tenants there was a big incentive to evict them every 6 months. All those fees for inventory checks, cleaning, finding new tenants and referencing them, etc. That incentive was removed when tenant fees were banned. Have self managing landlords ever routinely evicted anyone for no reason? It's unfortunate the government are giving landlords so many reasons to not just evict the genuinely blameless tenants they currently have but to get out of the PRS entirely. I'm not sure that tenants in receipt of benefit are discriminated against as such. They don't fit the affordability criteria for most properties but that's because the government have frozen LHA at such a low level. If the LHA was restored to the 30th percentile and reviewed every 6 months benefit claimants would have the ability to compete for far more properties. There also needs to be reform of the UC system as it is incredibly frustrating for landlords to deal with. Back in the day when Housing Benefit was dealt with by real people at the local Council it was much easier to iron out any little problems. Now it's incredibly time consuming and uncertain. My main concern with the proposals is that fixed term tenancies are being removed and there doesn't seem to be a minimum term. This is going to make the student market incredibly difficult. Every university city operates on a slightly different timeframe but where I am most of us offer 11 month tenancy agreements from 1st September to 31st July. Undergrads tend to look for housing around Christmas for the following September. Most student houses are on joint tenancy agreements and a few on individual room agreements. Presumably the rental reform means any on individual tenancies can move out at any point in the year with just 2 months notice. Finding a student to replace them could be difficult. With joint tenancies there will be a real danger of one tenant bullying or coercing their housemates to quit before they would ideally want to. We won't be able to sign up the next household until the current one has actually left. So there will be a mad panic for student housing in August while most students are nowhere near the university they attend. Even if we do 90% of it in advance there will still be far more admin in August just when we normally spend our time actually preparing the houses for the new students. If students leave too early we will have to re let the house to professionals so that house will be lost to the student market from that point on. That may suit the companies that are building purpose built student halls but for most UK students living in a shared house with 3 or 4 of their friends is a huge part of the whole university experience.

From: Jo Westlake 17 June 2022 09:10 AM

From: Jo Westlake 17 June 2022 08:15 AM

I do nearly all my shopping in Lidl or Aldi. On the very rare occasions I go into Waitrose I wonder round thinking "How much!!!!!" and "They're having a laugh!!!!!". Probably explains how I managed to buy quite so many houses.

From: Jo Westlake 16 June 2022 12:18 PM

Abolishing Section 21 is going to cause more harm than good to tenants. The only tweak that was needed was for long term genuinely blameless tenants to be compensated with maybe 2 months rent to help cover their moving costs. Abolishing it will see thousands of people evicted before the ban kicks in, thousands of properties removed from the PRS causing rents to rise even more. Much stricter referencing for tenants. The stigma of a Section 8 eviction and probably a CCJ for thousands of tenants who currently walk away without clearing the rent arrears that were the real reason for the eviction. A Section 21 notice could be served for any reason or no reason so the recipient was seen as being a poor innocent victim (regardless of the reality). There was no stigma. In cases of rent arrears it was a powerful piece of paper that helped tenants negotiate with other creditors and get their finances back on track, thereby enabling some of them to continue with their tenancy. A Section 8 has only ever been served to rogue tenants so there will be no opportunity to elicit sympathy or help. They will just be seen as people who have brought their troubles on themselves.

From: Jo Westlake 16 June 2022 09:12 AM

So the few thousand that fit the room size criteria and have decent landlords will all dutifully sign up and pay the fee. The council will run around inspecting things and will claim a great success for tenants. Meanwhile the ones that don't fit the criteria will carry on regardless knowing that a) the council are busy inspecting thousands of other houses and b) they don't want to discover too much unsatisfactory housing as they would then have a duty to rehouse the occupants.

From: Jo Westlake 16 June 2022 08:15 AM

Paragon have been offering some pretty good rates on their green mortgages, while their non green mortgages haven't been so competitive. I'm just about to complete on 2 remortgages with Paragon on 2 HMOs that have always had good EPCs. I didn't have to jump through any hoops because the properties already fitted the criteria. The really good thing with Paragon is they will deal direct with me instead of insisting on using a broker. The biggest improvement to the concept of green mortgages would be for the ability to convert a non green one into a green one mid term after energy efficiency improvements had been made. If simply sending in a new better rated EPC certificate triggered a drop in interest rate that would be a real incentive to landlords.

From: Jo Westlake 16 June 2022 08:05 AM

If it moves to a single type of periodic tenancy there will be major problems in the fixed term student market.

From: Jo Westlake 16 June 2022 07:42 AM

I have some properties where I allow pets and some where it would be completely inappropriate. In suitable self contained accommodation well behaved pets with responsible owners can be OK. Insurance against pet damage would help as in no way does a deposit of only 5 weeks rent come anywhere close to repairing the damage some pets can cause. In shared houses, HMOs or leasehold apartment blocks it could be cruel to the pets, the housemates and the neighbours. We allowed an emotional support rabbit in one of our smaller shared houses and it was horrendous for the housemates. It's owner was often too depressed to feed it or clean up after it. The housemates hated the smell and mess and reluctantly fed it because it would have starved if left to its owner to deal with. It was completely unfair to the animal and the housemates and was clearly a responsibility it's owner couldn't cope with. Another problem we encountered was a neighbouring terraced house had a supposedly well behaved dog. It was fine while it's owners were at home but howled and barked relentlessly all day while they were at work. Before imposing stupid policies politicians need to have a very good look at the housing real people live in. Unlike politicians a great many tenants don't have a nice detached house with a big garden and plenty of distance from the nearest neighbour. Respect and consideration for neighbours should carry more importance than someone's desire to keep an animal in unsuitable accommodation.

From: Jo Westlake 15 June 2022 12:09 PM

The methodology in the article is a bit questionable as they have used average rent and average household income. It doesn't mention average household composition. It also doesn't mention if any allowance has been made for the fact that some rents include bills while others don't. It implies it includes all sectors of rental properties including subsidized social housing and by using the phrase "average household income" also implies all benefit derived income is included.

From: Jo Westlake 15 June 2022 10:12 AM

Michael - In London of course some people need a vehicle to do their job and some people will have a vehicle just because they want one and can afford one. In other parts of the country the choice is either have a vehicle or be unemployed. Even office type staff would need a car to get themselves to the edge of town park and ride that would take them the rest of the way assuming they worked conventional hours while the service was running. In this area most of the jobs are in and around the main city while cheap housing that comes anywhere close to LHA rent is 25 miles away. To get cheap rent someone would have to look at a long journey to work. You have people paying a fortune to commute into London because housing is cheaper outside London. So again it's the combined housing and travel to work cost that should be looked at. The article was about the average percentage of income spent on rent and the regional differences. My opinion is that travel to work costs are a highly relevant part of someone's living costs and in many cases it's a straight choice between paying more on housing, less on transport or more on transport, less on housing. When you get to the lower end of the income and rent spectrum where UC is part of the equation things get messy. Rent up to LHA limits is factored into someone's UC and there may also be discretionary housing funds available. There is nothing allowed for travel to work costs.

From: Jo Westlake 15 June 2022 09:21 AM

Housing is only one element of people's expenses. Travel to work costs is the other major one. London has extremely good public transport, so people don't have to factor in car ownership, petrol or parking. In many parts of the country a car is essential as public transport barely exists and certainly not at times that coincide with work patterns. Housing and travel to work costs should be combined when trying to determine affordability. At the moment rent is about the only stable cost most people have as rents can only be increased once a year. A great many landlords don't routinely increase rents for existing tenants at all. Everything else goes up far more frequently. Food, petrol, utilities, etc.

From: Jo Westlake 15 June 2022 07:54 AM

In perpetuity is a dangerous clause. The housing market evolves over time so something that may seem desirable right now could be a nightmare in a few years time. Would mortgage lenders be willing to lend at standard rates on properties with restrictions or would it only be niche lenders charging higher mortgage rates, thereby negating the whole point of the exercise?

From: Jo Westlake 15 June 2022 07:29 AM

If this is about helping tenants save money on energy bills the guide has missed several very easy ways to do so. Understanding heating controls and setting programmers appropriately makes big savings. Lowering the evening setting and using an electric throw cut the gas consumption in my house by nearly 4000kWhs over the last 12 months compared to the previous 12 months. That's over £300 at today's prices. More importantly, we weren't cold and the house wasn't cold. Engaging with solar panels is another big saving. Timing appliances to come on when there's most chance of solar energy. Installing a solar diverter so surplus solar energy that would normally be exported gets diverted to the immersion tank to heat the hot water. The gas bill for one of my HMOs with a solar diverter was £23 for the last 26 day period compared with £47 in an identical HMO that doesn't have solar. I know that most rental properties don't currently have solar but it is by far the easiest way to boost the EPC rating on any property with a suitable roof and really does lower energy bills for whoever pays the bills. Heat pump tumble driers are supposed to use half the electric of a standard one. I recently put them in my 2 biggest HMOs and haven't had any whinging about longer drying times yet so I guess they're OK.

From: Jo Westlake 14 June 2022 08:42 AM

The guide says: The UK Government has announced changes to the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards for England and Wales – all rental properties will need an EPC rating of ‘C’ or above by 2025 for new tenancies and 2028 for every existing tenancy. Not having a valid EPC could mean you face penalties of up to £30,000. Was I asleep and missed the announcement that this has been decided or is the guide getting a little ahead of itself and it's still a proposal?

From: Jo Westlake 14 June 2022 07:29 AM

Simon - I don't fully agree with that. Some of us are in it for the long haul and feel a great sense of responsibility towards our tenants. I've been a landlord without any gaps since 1998 and had a couple of stints before that. My son intends to take over from me in the fullness of time. As far as I'm concerned my tenants have homes for as long as they want (as long as they behave in an appropriate fashion).

From: Jo Westlake 13 June 2022 19:51 PM

David Edmonds - It would be interesting to know a bit more about your renting history. Did you rent via a letting agent or direct with landlords? Did your landlords have multiple properties or just one? Were you renting as an individual or part of a joint tenancy? Did they ever state reasons for the Section 21? Were you always under the impression it would be a long term let or did you know in advance some of them would be time limited?

From: Jo Westlake 13 June 2022 17:24 PM

The survey is asking about how ensuites should be counted, changing the wording of bathroom to complete bathroom. Allowing a dishwasher instead of a second sink in large HMOs. If non related people should be allowed to share rooms. As an HMO landlord I am aware of how many young people want to share rooms to save money. The LHA and UC is woefully inadequate for a single person on minimum wage especially if they're unable to get regular full time work or have significant travel to work costs. It's not something I do, as all my HMO rooms are strictly for single occupancy only, but every time I advertise a room I'm inundated with enquiries from friends wanting to share or people asking if it's OK for their partners and children to live with them. The thought that occurred to me was that if the room is big enough and the license permits the extra person how would a landlord know if the second person was a friend or cohabiting partner? Would we be expected to ask very personal questions about their sleeping arrangements? I can just imagine the headlines about sex obsessed landlords. Does the nature of the relationship matter if the room is big enough and amenities in the house sufficient? Obviously allowing is different to compelling. There was nothing especially sinister about the matters they are consulting on. Some of it was just looking for clearer wording to avoid confusion.

From: Jo Westlake 13 June 2022 12:50 PM

Average rents are per property unit. It would include a room in a shared house, right up to an entire mansion. If you look at the LHA rates for London you will see the 3 bedroom rate is just over £1900 per month in East London (more elsewhere). The LHA for a room in a shared house is over £589 per person per month. I don't know how close to market rent the LHA is in London. Where I operate market rent is around 20% to 40% higher than LHA.

From: Jo Westlake 13 June 2022 08:18 AM

Green mortgages are a good idea to a point. It's fine if the property already has the required EPC. The issue seems to be that product switch at end of current fix green products aren't readily available for existing mortgages. Also that if you improve the EPC during the term of the mortgage the rate doesn't drop down onto the green rate. There is a bit of a lack of consistency as to what the EPC requirements are to qualify for a green mortgage. Paragon want A, B or C for BTL whereas NatWest wants A or B for residential. A broker's lack of knowledge on that point has just added £30 a month to my son's mortgage offer as the broker applied to NatWest for a green mortgage on a property with an EPC C. By the time his mistake was noticed rates had gone up so through no fault of his own my son will have to pay an extra £1800 in interest.

From: Jo Westlake 11 June 2022 13:50 PM

There are too many different agendas at play with very limited joined up thinking. Why do lenders charge higher mortgage interest rates to medium size landlords than to small scale landlords? Up to 4 properties BTL mortgages are dirt cheap. Over 10 BTL mortgages and the choice of lenders is severely restricted and rates are sky high. Incorporation may have some tax advantages but the rates on limited company mortgages are still much higher than for small landlords. Expanding a portfolio is incredibly difficult if we're trying to keep to no more than 10 mortgages. Early repayment penalties makes consolidating borrowing very time consuming or expensive. EPCs are a nightmare. The default setting is for the report to say solid floor insulation is the number one improvement required. My local environmental health department casually mentioned that's the last thing they would expect a landlord to actually do as the environmental impact of removing and dumping tons of concrete would be huge. We need a pick and mix list of exactly how many points anything we do would give us. Some EPC assessors are now apologising for the nonsense on the reports and saying ignore that, all you really need is a new night storage heater or whatever instead of the £6K solid floor insulation and £4K gas central heating system recommended on the EPC. We don't even know yet what standard we are going to have to achieve or how the exemptions will work. The media have universally vilified landlords and accused us of denying FTBs the ability to buy a home. They have completely failed to acknowledge that we provide homes for people who are only wanting somewhere relatively short term - students, temporary or seasonal workers, people trying out an area before deciding where to buy. Or people who suddenly have an unexpected housing need when a relationship breaks down. We often buy big houses that FTBs wouldn't want or afford. Or properties that require extensive renovation. Without a ready supply of rental properties employers are going to face serious recruitment problems. It's already happening in tourist areas. Why do the media imply all tenants are poverty stricken benefit claimants? Many tenants have extremely good incomes, they just don't want to buy a house yet. Many will choose to wait until they've got their dream job and partner. Why does the government assume landlords can absorb hit after hit? Extra SDLT, extra CGT, extra income tax, loss of Child Benefit due to Section 24, eviction ban and rent payment holidays during pandemic, ludicrously low LHA rates, extra Council Tax during voids, licensing fees, more and more compulsory alarms and safety checks, etc. I'm one of the landlords who isn't planning to give up any time soon. I just hope the government wake up and realise the harm so many of their policies since 2016 have done and reverse at least some of them before there is an even bigger crisis.

From: Jo Westlake 11 June 2022 11:59 AM

While I agree in theory that everyone should have a well maintained, warm, dry home with repairs carried out in a timely fashion the reality faced by landlords doesn't always make that possible. Whenever these policy ideas are thought up there always seems to be the assumption that everyone is a thoroughly decent person who lives by the same middle class code of conduct. While most tenants are thoroughly decent people there are some with substance dependency or mental health issues. Social housing providers have some quite challenging tenants who have zero respect for their homes. How many tradespeople are going to be willing to enter a property with a snarling pit bull at the door? How many tradespeople will be willing to work in a squalid mess sky high with rubbish and rotting food while the tenant is slumped on the sofa gaming or semi conscious? How many homes are cold and damp because the tenant never opens the window and spends their money on alcohol instead of gas? There needs to be a balance between rhetoric and reality. Should resources be targeted towards the decent tenants who cherish their homes or disproportionately spent on those who wilfully destroy their homes purely so the housing providers can minimise the chance of being sanctioned?

From: Jo Westlake 10 June 2022 08:36 AM

Coles - says renters are having a tough time. “They already spend a significantly larger chunk of their income on housing costs than their home-owning counterparts, and runaway rising bills from energy to petrol and food means they can’t afford to pay more to rent their current home. Why does she think renters are having a harder time than millions of homeowners? Everyone is facing the same rising bills for food, petrol, utilities, etc. Any homeowner coming to the end of their current mortgage fix is likely to face a big increase in mortgage payments due to rising interest rates. Materials and labour costs to repair and maintain houses have all risen massively but is something a tenant doesn't encounter. If a tenant is on a low to moderate income they are often entitled to at least some help towards their rent with UC. Homeowners don't have any corresponding help at the moment. If in some cases they are spending a larger chunk of income on housing it is often because they can, not because they have to. The income multiples required for renting and buying are different. For example a couple earning £50K would clear referencing for £1666pcm rent (which in this area would get them a decent 4 bed) or they could get a mortgage for maybe £225000 depending what other financial commitments they had. Assuming they had sufficient savings for a deposit and buying costs that would get them an OK 2 bed or maybe a tired 3 bed. Rent for a corresponding 2 or 3 bed would be between about £900 and £1200pcm and of course includes all maintenance, insurance and other expenses homeowners would have to pay.

From: Jo Westlake 10 June 2022 08:05 AM

If anything it has pushed some of us to buy cheaper properties instead of the bigger houses we used to buy.

From: Jo Westlake 10 June 2022 07:33 AM

There are times when people really fall through the cracks in the system but they're likely to be short term. I had a 3 month period in 1987 when all I was entitled to was a giro for 33p a week, milk tokens and Child Benefit for 2 children once every 4 weeks. It was very specific unusual circumstances. I had gone back to college to do A levels as a mature student, so had received a student grant in January. My marriage broke up in February long after the grant had been spent and the next one wasn't due until after the Easter holidays and my husband wasn't paying any child support. The DSS attitude was that I'd had everything I was entitled to so tough, just get on with it and manage. Back then we didn't have food banks but the Salvation Army was giving away the EU cheese and butter mountain. I used to walk into town with my baby and toddler and queue up 4 times for cheese, butter and occasionally tinned meat. My mother worked next to a bakery and could buy a sack of past its sell by date bread for 50p. People used to cut the money off coupons out of newspapers for me as some supermarkets didn't insist on you buying the correct products. My sister lived in an HMO with housemates who had a somewhat alternative lifestyle so I shared their communal washing up bowl of whatever was for dinner 2 or 3 times a week. It wasn't easy but we survived. It certainly taught me to never look down on anyone and that help when you really need it can come from the most surprising quarters.

From: Jo Westlake 09 June 2022 11:56 AM

I'm also 50 something and have gone through the gambit of financial offerings. Endowment mortgages, self cert mortgages, interest only mortgages, credit cards, HP, etc. Coupled with periods of unemployment, self employment and zero hours employment. Credit can either be your best friend or worst nightmare depending on your self discipline with the repayments. I haven't actually used cash for anything for over 2 years and buy everything on a credit card, which I pay off in full every month. This has multiple benefits: A complete record of all spending, Section 75 protection, Tesco Clubcard points which I convert into hotel accomodation for mini breaks. Before buying anything I ask myself: Do I want it, do I need it, do I really like it, where will I keep it, what will I do with it? The most dangerous phrases people use are: "It's only........" and "I deserve....."

From: Jo Westlake 09 June 2022 11:22 AM

Very good point.

From: Jo Westlake 09 June 2022 10:09 AM

People do need to be more engaged and proactive when things get tough. I grew up in the poverty trap, experienced several periods of living on income support, had many years of precarious self employment, etc. A few years ago I had several periods of depression and PTSD. Wallowing in self pity while doing nothing constructive is a quick route to depression. Taking control of the small stuff can give a huge feeling of achievement. Learn how to understand an electric bill, how to cook lower cost meals, new cheaper hobbies. Do some adult education classes or online courses. Chip away at debt. Set targets, be competitive. Use comparison sites, cashback websites, loyalty cards, special offers. Just having a bank account with separate pots within it or a spreadsheet to list all spending can make budgeting much easier. Change to a utility company that bills frequently if you're worried about building up a big utility debt. The cost of living the way we have lived in recent years is going to be more expensive. There's no reason to continue doing exactly the same things though. A few modifications can be much cheaper and often better.

From: Jo Westlake 09 June 2022 09:35 AM

How on earth can landlords be expected to come up with an allocated parking space outside most properties? Millions of houses were built before cars were invented so certainly don't have any private parking at all. Planning policy for the last 15 to 20 years has been to build new estates with woefully inadequate parking to discourage car ownership.

From: Jo Westlake 09 June 2022 07:42 AM

Back in the 1980s councils had no money and a deteriorating housing stock which was a maintenance nightmare. The Right to Buy made sense at that time. It removed part of the headache and released some funds that were used to repair and upgrade the remaining stock of ageing council houses. The level of discount has always been a bit questionable. Very few people have ever qualified for the maximum 60% or 70%. The houses that were bought under the Right to Buy scheme in the 1980s and 1990s often needed extensive renovation - new kitchens, bathrooms, rewiring, double glazing, insulation, roof repairs or replacement, etc. They weren't nice, well maintained houses in a great many cases. A 30% or 40% discount (which is closer to what a lot of people got) didn't cover the full refurb costs. Obviously when the houses had been renovated they were worth more, just as any other renovated house would be. The main problem with the concept of Right to Buy is that most long term social tenants are unlikely to want or qualify for a mortgage. Social rents are so ludicrously low it's unlikely most could see that long term they may be better off buying. Especially as home owners have no access to financial help towards their mortgage payments, unlike tenants who have Housing Benefit as part of their UC entitlement. Social housing is (or should be) in better condition now than it was in the 1980s. Back then it was an opportunity to improve your living conditions as the Council's certainly didn't have the resources to do so. Now that shouldn't be the case to the same degree if Housing Associations are doing their jobs correctly.

From: Jo Westlake 08 June 2022 10:17 AM

I'm willing to believe there used to be no fault evictions when letting agents were allowed to charge fees to both landlords and new tenants every time a property was re-let. Now that tenants can't be charged fees there is no incentive to evict them unless they are breaching their tenancy agreement. So how much of the current retoric is based on historical events that have already been legislated out?

From: Jo Westlake 07 June 2022 08:50 AM

There are many different catagories of second home/additional property and currently the tax treatment is perverse. 1. Holiday home/mid week crash pad for personal use only 2. Holiday home - traditional property for holiday letting 3. Holiday home - purpose built on holiday park for holiday letting. 4. BTL - for standard long term letting 5. Additional residential property - for a relative to live in long term Of those 2 is the most contentious but is the most favourably treated by the tax system. 4 is the most socially necessary and is absolutely hammered. It would make life far simpler if all properties paid full council tax. If the government then wanted to give rebates to certain people such as single occupiers or students that would be easy enough. If local authorities wanted to charge extra licensing or registration fees for holiday homes that would also be easy enough.

From: Jo Westlake 07 June 2022 07:58 AM

There seems to be a lack of basic landlord specific MTD software at present. How can we be ready if the tools aren't fully developed? I just want something simple that does the HMRC required stuff initially. It may be useful eventually to add on bits that plan my life once I've got the hang of the basics. Then again it may not be. It's something I want a choice on. So far I haven't seen anything landlord specific that would cover a mix of ownership of properties. Or unequal percentage ownership. Some of our houses are owned individually by either me or my husband, some jointly by both of us, some are family owned by us and our son. Some are owned 50/50, others 80/20 or 67/22/11 or 25/25/50 or 40/40/20. Once something is set up I'm sure I will be fine with inputting the required data. It's finding an appropriate package and setting it up that I'm finding daunting.

From: Jo Westlake 01 June 2022 11:00 AM

I sometimes house people through various Council schemes and so far they've all been fine. The one I have at the moment is a nice chap who has one of those lives where things just happen. He came to me as he was on the verge of being homeless after a relationship breakdown. The rent often comes in installments as his pay cycle doesn't align with his UC payments but it always comes at some point in the month. He reports any maintenance issues appropriately, deals with any tradesperson attendance and carries out minor repairs himself if I reimburse the materials cost. He's been my tenant for over 2 years and says he's very settled. I needed to phone the Council a couple of times to get things on track initially, mainly regarding the importance of communication, and they were great. As long as the property is in a suitable location and the rent is close to LHA level this type of letting can be fine as part of a mixed portfolio. I guess Councils can vary and maybe I'm very lucky with the Council staff in my area. The main fly in the ointment is that suitably located properties that can be viable at lower rents are often older properties with poorer EPCs. I have 6 properties at roughly LHA rent and 4 of them are EPC D. So even though I'm willing to engage with this type of letting changes to the EPC rules will probably mean it will no longer be viable. A couple more of my even longer term tenants came with Council assistance (deposit and up front rent) and are brilliant tenants. I knew them well beforehand though so it's not quite the same.

From: Jo Westlake 01 June 2022 09:48 AM

I always find the question confusing. Does it mean raise the rent of existing tenants or does it mean raise the rent for that house or room if it becomes vacant? I very rarely raise rents for existing tenants but go with market forces when advertising for new tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 31 May 2022 07:14 AM

I would agree with the rising demanding from over 55s due to both relationship breakdown and the fact that renting makes a huge amount of sense if downsizing after a certain age. I'm not convinced it will be into bungalows though due to the lack of supply and huge demand for bungalows as family homes with potential to extend.

From: Jo Westlake 31 May 2022 07:07 AM

One of my HMOs uses an average of 20kWhs of electric per day. This time last year I was paying about 12p per kWh. Now I'm paying over 28p per kWh. So £3.28 a day more. Even if electric didn't go up in October that will be well over £1100 extra this year just for electric. The gas bill is well over £900 more this year. I haven't increased rents for existing tenants ever in that house and would prefer not to. Obviously new tenants pay whatever the market rent is when they move in so I'm not completely stuck in a timewarp. Realistically the choice is leave things alone and the bill payer gets the £400 or force the bill payer to hand it over to tenants and they all get a rent increase. A 9% inflation linked increase would equate to just over £40 per tenant per month or just over £2900 a year for that house. So Generation Rent and other activists be very careful of unintended consequences with your campaigning.

From: Jo Westlake 30 May 2022 13:18 PM

I bought one in 2015 with tenants and it was one of the easiest transactions I've had in the last 10 years. It was very specific circumstances though. The property was next door to another house I own and I knew the tenants. Their landlord had given them notice, they couldn't find anywhere suitable and they were aware rents were a fair bit higher than they had been paying. They knew the choice was pay a lot more to live somewhere inconvenient or pay a bit more to stay in the home they had lived in for 6 years. The previous landlord discounted the sale price a bit as he wasn't having to pay an estate agent and wouldn't have any lost rent during the sales period. So it worked well for all parties. I bought a house for slightly less than it would normally be with good tenants and rent from day one, the other landlord finished up with slightly more than selling it with vacant possession as he had rental income until completion and the tenants kept their home, didn't have any moving costs and a smaller rent increase than if they had moved.

From: Jo Westlake 26 May 2022 10:25 AM

Do these people not know how long selling a property can take? Or how many sales collapse because someone further along the chain has a problem?

From: Jo Westlake 26 May 2022 08:01 AM

Two main reasons for Section 21 evictions appearing to be a bit higher than usual right now are the backlog caused by the eviction ban during the pandemic and the uncertainty over what the EPC requirements will be. Many landlords with properties that can't reach EPC C at a sensible cost are selling up now while Section 21 is available to them. The government need to make a decision regarding EPCs ASAP so we can all plan our next move. It would be interesting to know how many landlords have been negatively impacted by the rent payment holiday during the pandemic. How many had to ask for mortgage payment holidays and has it affected their ability to get a decent product switch or remortgage? How much has it influenced the eviction numbers now?

From: Jo Westlake 25 May 2022 07:15 AM

What people think they may theoretically like and what they are willing and able to pay for aren't necessarily the same thing.

From: Jo Westlake 25 May 2022 06:50 AM

Precisely. When taper relief was removed our retirement plan effectively disappeared.

From: Jo Westlake 24 May 2022 23:32 PM

If someone had bought a house for around £65000 back in the early 1990s and it's now worth £500000 by the time selling costs have been factored in they would be looking at a CGT bill of around £114000. So they would pocket about £375000 if they sold. They almost certainly have other assets such as the house they live in, investments, maybe other BTLs. If they then got hit by a bus it's fair to say 40% of the £375000 would go in IHT as there hasn't been time to give it away or spend it, so that's another £150000 to the government in IHT on top of the £114000 in CGT they had recently received.

From: Jo Westlake 24 May 2022 18:46 PM

Chris - while CGT, SDLT and IHT are all so high landlords tend to hold on to the properties they have for longer than they want or should. Some have thrown in the towel and decided to quit but most can't stomach the tax take. When I started out around 25 years ago I used to buy run down wrecks, renovate them, rent them out for 2 or 3 years then sell them usually to FTBs. Now the extra SDLT has stopped that being viable. £10K goes a long way towards a new kitchen and central heating. If we have owned stuff for 20 years or so the CGT can easily be around £100K in the South. If we sell and then inadvertantly get run over by a bus shortly after the government will get both CGT and IHT on the same asset. Also if we didn't have to pay such eyewatering CGT and SDLT we would be more likely to buy more properties to rent out and increase the rental supply. If I sold just one of my mid size properties right now it would provide sufficient deposit to buy 3 or 4 more houses. Either new build or renovation project. Either way increasing the supply of habitable housing.

From: Jo Westlake 24 May 2022 10:38 AM

The government need to stop inventing complicated divisive policies in the property market. Every policy they come up with has unintended consequences. Go back to the old days where all buyers and sellers are treated the same. Section 24 has made far more landlords higher rate tax payers than would be the case if rental profits were determined in the same way as for every other business. Therefore 28% CGT is completely extortionate. Most other assets can be sold in smaller lumps to best utilize CGT allowances. Selling quarter of a house is tricky. We have already paid huge amounts of SDLT, income tax and VAT throughout our period of ownership. Reducing CGT and reintroducing taper relief could be easily justified and would massively boost the number of houses for sale if it was applied universally to the sale of all BTLs regardless of buyer status. The extra 3% SDLT on all BTLs costing more than £40000 has incentivised us to buy more bottom end properties that would traditionally be FTB territory. Especially in the South. Buying one HMO for £500K would give a SDLT bill of £30K. Buying 2 small houses for £250K each gives a SDLT bill of £20K. Help to Buy pushed FTBs to buy much bigger new builds as their first home, which is going to have some very painful consequences when they need to remortgage if interest rates keep rising. It doesn't matter what CGT cuts are proposed if they are conditional on the status of the buyer. How many of us would be willing to play the hunt the proceedable FTB game? Property transactions are a serious matter. We need to know the tax implications before we embark on them.

From: Jo Westlake 24 May 2022 07:49 AM

Over the many years I've been a landlord I've found both of the Council's I operate in to be very good with landlords. Now the NRLA accreditation scheme is so awful we need a better alternative.

From: Jo Westlake 23 May 2022 09:03 AM

A Section 21 notice doesn't automatically mean someone will be evicted or even that the landlord really wants them to leave. It can just be a warning shot or wake up call. In situations where a tenant has an affordability issue or a patchy payment history a Section 21 notice can be a very powerful piece of paper that gives a tenant the ability to get other creditors to back off and give them the breathing space to get their finances under control. It can give them the motivation to stop burying their head in the sand and go and see Citizens Advice or the Housing advice team at the local Council. They will be given help with budgeting, dealing with other creditors and any additional discretionary funding to get them back on track. Or they will be told their current housing is inappropriate and they need to downsize. The landlord is merely taking the first step on a three step journey which he can choose not to continue on if circumstances change. Very few landlords evict good tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 23 May 2022 08:56 AM

A landlord shouldn't pay to compensate a tenant who has breached the tenancy agreement. In reality landlords lose a huge amount when tenants breach, either in court fees or repair costs or lost rent. Why should a tenant who has behaved impeccably suddenly be faced with having to pay moving costs purely because their landlord has had a change of mind? How many professional landlords ever evict good tenants?

From: Jo Westlake 20 May 2022 09:21 AM

So Help to Buy and the Stamp Duty holiday have made it harder for FTBs. Who couldn't have predicted that?

From: Jo Westlake 20 May 2022 09:11 AM

Especially in the student market how many of us did much shorter or cheaper tenancies for the current academic year because if Covid uncertainty? These tenancies will be skewing the data. The last academic year that should be used for rental comparison purposes is 2018 - 2019. Rents that include utilities are also skewing data. How much of that rent is rent and how much is utilities? This time last year I had electric deals at 12.5p per kWh (now 28.4p) and 9.5p daily standing charge (now 52p). He's right that LHA needs to be unfrozen. It was set far too low in the first place and must have included social housing rents to get the 30th percentile figure as low as it was. A few weeks ago in this 500 square mile LHA area there were a total of 6 rental properties available on Rightmove for LHA level rent. Here the choice is pretty much pay £200 a month more than LHA and live close to work or pay £50 more than LHA and either be unemployed or spend a fortune in petrol or bus fares to get to work.

From: Jo Westlake 20 May 2022 09:05 AM

Many years ago someone proposed a Deed of Assurance which with minimal modification strikes me as exactly what would work for all parties now. Something like if a tenant fully complies with the terms of the tenancy (pays the rent on time, doesn't behave in an anti social manner, etc) then should the landlord want to evict the tenant they would have to pay compensation of something like one or two months rent. It would certainly clarify just how rare no fault evictions really are if it was coupled with improvements to Section 8. It would incentivise tenants to prioritize paying their rent on time which would probably mean fewer landlords would want to sell up in the first place.

From: Jo Westlake 20 May 2022 08:33 AM

There used to be similar schemes in this area and they seemed to work well from the landlords perspective. Not necessarily so good from a neighbours perspective. Back in the 1990s I lived next door to a 4 bedroom house that was leased to the council. For the first 5 or 6 years it was fine. Then they put a huge family of known troublemakers in and it was horrendous. Police round every couple of days, swearing, intimidation, etc. I actually moved house to get away from them. The only real flaw in these schemes is that people forget the human aspect. Tenants are people not just revenue streams or cases. They become part of the community they live in. If the wrong person is put in the wrong street it can cause huge harm. Councils and police know who the trouble makers are. There should be some duty if care towards the wider community when housing them. I sometimes let a couple of my properties via council schemes and so far haven't had any issues or fees. The most recent one was where the council matched the property to prospective tenants, prepared a full budgeting report, provided a deposit bond, paid the first months rent and made sure the tenants UC claim was up and running. I interviewed the tenant and could decide if I wanted them or not. Two years on he says he feels very settled, the neighbours are happy and it all seems to be going pretty well.

From: Jo Westlake 19 May 2022 09:27 AM

Is it that landlords choose not to buy insurance or that insurers choose not to insure some properties? I'm in the process of getting insurance for several properties. Ideally buildings, contents (for HMOs) and landlord emergency insurance. The current building insurer has merged with someone else and now has an impossible website and uncompetitive renewal prices. The current emergency insurer has pulled out of the BTL market completely. I thought I'd found the solution with one company and had got to the fourth property, which is a second floor leasehold flat. They said to be able to buy emergency insurance I would need to take out a landlords fixtures and fittings policy. However, they then wouldn't insure it because of the flooding risk! It's a second floor flat in a seaside town that hasn't had any recent flooding and has spent millions on flood defences over the last decade.

From: Jo Westlake 19 May 2022 08:43 AM

If holiday lets and long term lets both had the same tax treatment how many landlords would bother with the hassle of holiday lets?

From: Jo Westlake 19 May 2022 08:11 AM

The measure that would help people the most would be to mandate that all energy companies must produce an up to date statement of account every month. The ones that went bust nearly all did it but the remaining companies generally don't. I got dumped on British Gas and Eon last September. In that 8 month period British Gas has managed to produce one bill per property and Eon haven't done any yet. I put in meter readings every month and pay by direct debit but have no idea what the account balances are. They're showing massive credit balances but I kept getting messages telling me to increase my direct debit. EDF also bill very infrequently. The one that is really impressive is Octopus. They update the account information every time a meter reading is submitted. I don't really approve of smart meters but have given in and got them on 2 electric accounts. They are both SMET2 but the differences between them is huge. The one on the Eon account has a better countertop display but no information on my online account log in. The Octopus one has huge amounts of information on my online account. Lots of graphs for daily, weekly, etc and the ability to see 30 minute usage. It's a bit nerdy but really does give the ability to analyse usage patterns.

From: Jo Westlake 17 May 2022 07:49 AM

The price cap has been a disaster and caused multiple companies to go bust. Consumers used to have the ability to shop around and sign up for the deal that best suited them. It may have been the cheapest, greenest, best customer service, etc. Or they could just do nothing. Then the nanny state stepped in and decided people who couldn't be bothered to engage and look for the best deal needed protecting from their own inertia. The government has no control over world market prices and forcing companies to sell at a price that was below cost was obviously going to cause casualties. Let's hope the government have learnt that lesson and don't try it with rent controls.

From: Jo Westlake 17 May 2022 07:13 AM

Whether now is a good time to buy depends on so many factors. Can you find anything you want to buy? Is it to live in or let? Will a lender lend to YOU? Will a valuer agree with the price you have offered? How long can you fix the mortgage rate for? Are you likely to want to sell in the next 10 years? Does the idea of negative equity worry you? One thing for sure is that if prices drop lending criteria will get far, far more difficult and lenders will want higher deposits. If interest rates keep on rising it would have been far cheaper to buy now on a 5, 7 or 10 year fix than wait for house prices to drop and get your mortgage when rates are higher.

From: Jo Westlake 16 May 2022 09:53 AM

The biggest help any of these Local Authority schemes could come up with is to employ an experienced building surveyor as an EPC assessor to reassess properties that fail to get the required rating (whether that's E or C). It would be far more cost effective for them to pay one person's wages than shell out money on poorly targeted grants or extra emergency housing to accommodate all the people who will need to be evicted if landlords slavishly follow the recommendations on the EPCs. Anyone can currently qualify as an EPC assessor after a 2 day online course with absolutely no building related experience. The EPC software is firstly totally dependent on the input data and secondly churns out the most expensive, impractical list of recommended improvements. One of my ex council flats was originally assessed in January 2011 and deemed to be E48. It was reassessed this year and found to be D67. I hadn't done anything to it in that time. The difference was purely down to the fact the first assessor hadn't spotted the cavity wall insulation. The list of improvements on the current EPC is 1. Solid floor insulation cost £4000 to £6000 2. Add additional 80mm jacket to hot water cylinder £15 to £30 (shame it would only add 1 point when I need 2 points to get to a C) 3. Gas condensing boiler £3000 to £7000. The EPC assessor actually emailed and said ignore all that, just replace the old night storage heater with a new Dimplex Quantum with smart controls for about £1300. Why is the EPC report recommending incredibly expensive, highly intrusive unnecessary work when there is a far cheaper alternative that can be installed in less than a day with minimal disruption to the tenant?

From: Jo Westlake 16 May 2022 09:35 AM

I've got an EV and solar panels. It's early days so I'm still assessing the realities of it. The charger we bought cost nearly £1000 even after the £350 discount but it does allow us to choose whether to just use surplus solar electric for the car or import from the grid. My concern with having car chargers in rental properties is that most tenants don't understand electric bills. How many would say the property is really expensive to run because they've forgotten to take out the cost of the electric the car is using? I don't know how much information the cheapest chargers give. Mine tells me how much electric the car has used, how much solar the hot water has used, how much the house has used, how much imported and how much exported. If a tenant who paid their own electric bill wanted to pay to have one installed by a professional installer I would be happy to let them do so. I don't have any concerns about the electrical supplies to any of my properties. Right now none of my tenants have EVs so it's not something I've encountered yet.

From: Jo Westlake 14 May 2022 19:08 PM

How many of those homes are damp and cold because the tenant doesn't understand the importance of ventilation and can't afford adequate heating? If people try drying washing indoors without heating or ventilation their walls will be covered in mould. There is usually nothing defective or unsafe about the property, just the direct actions of the occupants. There needs to be a public information program regarding the importance of ventilation especially now utility costs have got so high. The government need to ensure minimum wage and Universal Credit are sufficient for people to be able to afford rent, food and heating. It's no good laying the blame on landlords if it is government actions that are directly causing the problem. LHA is woefully under market rent as it has been frozen at a figure that was unrealistically low 2 years ago. Tenants are having to use money that should be for other living costs to pay the rent shortfall. They can't then find extra money for extra utility costs.

From: Jo Westlake 12 May 2022 06:47 AM

Until we see exactly what the new eviction procedures and timeframes are it's a bit early for anyone to claim victory.

From: Jo Westlake 11 May 2022 08:47 AM

James - These are mainly substantially built houses that people have happily lived in for 100 years or more. They are located in the heart of communities, close to all amenities. They aren't some kind of shanty slum dwellings. EPC assessments are churned out for about £55 a go by people who in some cases have no experience of construction and have just done a 2 day online course to become qualified as an assessor. Their lack of accuracy is staggering. The algorithm is flawed and unduly penalises modern electric heating or solid fuel. Assessors refuse to acknowledge that insulation exists if paperwork doesn't specify exactly what product was used. A lot of work was done before EPCs were invented so doesn't have paperwork.

From: Jo Westlake 04 May 2022 14:25 PM

It's a widespread problem. Insulation is mainly hidden (apart from loft insulation). Building control certificates may mention the job has been done to the standard in whichever year but doesn't mention exactly what type or thickness of insulation was used. Contractors invoices often don't specify the exact thickness of insulation. Even if you buy the insulation yourself and have receipts stating exactly what it is the assessor will say he can't be certain it was used at that address. Photos of it being installed are sometimes accepted if there is a view from the window in the photo or if it's a flat roof of neighbouring properties and there is a tape measure held against the insulation. Even then the assessor will often put 'assumed none' as he isn't 100% convinced it's sufficient proof to satisfy an audit. We don't even have the option of drilling a core sample without ruining the integrity of the insulation. So tens or hundreds of thousands of houses are insulated but don't have EPCs that reflect it.

From: Jo Westlake 04 May 2022 10:48 AM

EPCs are only very loosely connected to the cost of heating a property. Far more of it is related to the occupiers engagement with and understanding of whatever system they have. EPC scores vary wildly with assessors showing little consistency even on straightforward properties. Once mixed construction and mixed heating sources are present the EPC score is just a number with approximately no correlation to energy bills. How many of these properties with F and G EPCs are old stone houses with an open fireplace or woodburner in the lounge, an old night storage heater (which the EPC would class as the primary heat source) and timed electric heaters in the bedrooms? That mix gives a terrible EPC score but used properly could be cheaper than gas central heating to use (especially if someone has a supply of free or cheap wood). Why aren't gas and electric bills or meter readings used as part of the EPC assessment? How many of the 263000 rental properties with F and G EPCs already have insulation but because the assessor didn't know exactly what thickness just put 'assumed none'? How many of them are below average rent, which would help offset any extra energy costs? There was an awful lot of averaging and assumptions in her attack but no indication of the actual reality. A more interesting study would be into how properties with F and G EPCs rank in overall living costs. Combining rent, utility bills and transport costs. How much difference would there be in the cost of renting and living in an old house in a town centre close to work and shops compared to the same size new build on a new development on the edge of town with a district heating system?

From: Jo Westlake 04 May 2022 08:52 AM

These green mortgages are fine up to a point. The flaw is that the property has to have a good EPC rating at the point of purchase or full remortgage to a different lender. None of them seem to give the option of dropping down onto a lower rate once EPC improvements have been made.

From: Jo Westlake 03 May 2022 08:30 AM

The Right to Buy social housing is great for a very limited number of social tenants. The majority wouldn't be able to get a mortgage. Either their income or their age would make it impossible. Some wouldn't want the financial responsibility of property maintenance and some are in houses that are too small for the number of children they have. If the government really wanted to enable more people to be homeowners they would treat mortgage interest the same as rent for Housing Benefit purposes. Only the interest and only up to certain limits, so it couldn't be argued the tax payer was buying people's houses for them. It would give the banks more confidence to lend to a wider range of people. People would still need to repay the capital and maintain the house so there would be no incentive to just sit back on Benefit for a prolonged period. It would just provide enough of a safety net for both lender and home buyer.

From: Jo Westlake 03 May 2022 08:19 AM

Wouldn't the proposal mean that all tax payers were taking a hit INSTEAD of just landlords? If the arrears were cleared or didn't happen in the first place wouldn't that be a good thing? Maybe tax paying friends and family of non paying tenants would be saying a few harsh words to them? Maybe the activists have realised it's far cheaper for the tax payer to keep people in their long term homes rather than having to pay for hotel accomodation or emergency hostels. Some people are undoubtedly free riding low life's as you say but vast numbers of low income tenants are what used to be known as "Salt of the Earth". They're genuinely decent people working long hours for very low pay in jobs that no one else wants. Just one unforeseen emergency can completely derail their finances. The £20 UC uplift would make a huge difference, as would discretionary funding and restoring the LHA to at least the 30th percentile rent. As a tax payer I would far prefer my taxes were used to enable people to afford secure long term homes than the myriad of half baked ideas the government currently waste it on.

From: Jo Westlake 29 April 2022 10:57 AM

Demands 3, 4, 5 and 7 look perfectly reasonable. Demand 6 is a bit shaky. If someone can't provide a UK homeowning guarantor or fails a credit check there isn't really much of an alternative if we're not willing to take a massive risk. Demand 1 is highly problematic. We've all seen what happened to the gas and electric industries when they weren't allowed to charge the necessary amount to stay in business. Mortgage rates are rising, which means our Section 24 tax hit is also rising. Tradespeople and materials costs are rising, insurance, the costs of bringing properties up to EPC C are all factors beyond our control. Just because rents increase doesn't mean landlords are making more profit. Demand 2 (if I've read it right) goes some way on arrears based evictions. If two months arrears is an automatic, unchallengeable ground for eviction it will help a lot of people (both landlords, tenants and prospective tenants). If it makes UC or Housing Officers work in a more timely fashion it would prevent the need for thousands of evictions. However, a lot of evictions are for other reasons. Anti social behaviour being one of them. One bad tenant can cause fear and misery for the whole neighbourhood. Then there's the fact sometimes landlords just need the house back. Either to sell it, upgrade it or to protect their own mental health. A tenant may not actually be seriously breaching the tenancy agreement or upsetting the neighbours but they can be causing huge mental stress to the landlord with bizarre behaviour and demands.

From: Jo Westlake 29 April 2022 07:03 AM

Interesting points Jim. Evicting on a stated fault basis would probably show a more accurate picture of who is the good guy and who isn't. It may well do exactly as you say in regards to more help being available for rent arrears situations. We need to have confidence the system will work correctly and not be based on the whim of a non housing specialist judge. People only use Section 21 because Section 8 isn't reliable. Or maybe didn't used to be reliable but is possibly better now??? I can understand why most of us want the ability to be able to evict, even if we hope we never have to. I can understand why activists want blameless tenants to have a greater degree of security. I don't have a problem with compensating good tenants in the unlikely event of having to ask a good tenant to leave. As far as I can see most of us would be happy if there was a reliable, swift eviction route to remove bad tenants and possibly a slower route to remove good tenants should we want to sell, move into the property ourselves or the property needs extensive building works.

From: Jo Westlake 28 April 2022 21:46 PM

Andrew. It's kind of a balance. Changing a tenant isn't free. There's likely to be at least a couple of days void, maybe longer if the room needs redecorating or it's a quiet time of year. My longest staying HMO occupants are all really good tenants. The kind who look after the property, notify me appropriately of maintenance issues, pay their rent on time, engage with the process of finding new compatible housemates as rooms become vacant, etc. The kind of people who create a home and mini community rather than just view an HMO as somewhere to sleep. As people move on the rent for the new tenant is whatever seems appropriate compared with various property websites. So while I could certainly increase rents I'm not convinced it would increase my profit by a significant amount whereas it would undoubtedly increase my workload.

From: Jo Westlake 28 April 2022 10:15 AM

Likely to be, probably, average........ In reality tenants can be the people most protected from these cost of living hikes. None of my existing HMO tenants have had a rent increase since the day they moved in. Their rent includes council tax, gas, electric, water and broadband. Some of them have been in the houses for over 5 years and still pay exactly the same rent as 5 years ago.

From: Jo Westlake 28 April 2022 06:52 AM

A Section 21 notice is very different to a Section 21 eviction. The notice is the first step of a multi step process that the landlord can choose not to proceed with at any point. The notice may just be a warning shot and can be very effective in its own right with no need to go any further along the eviction path. In my many years as a landlord I've issued a total of 5 Section 21 notices, 4 of them to the same person. In his case mainly because of errors in his Housing Benefit or Universal Credit claims. Each time the notice gave him the impetus to engage with his situation for a few days and get his finances under better control. Having the Section 21 notice meant Benefit and Housing officials gave him proper attention and other creditors backed off for a while. At one point he owed me £1800. By the time he left of his own accord he had cleared the arrears totally. All credit to him. It was a long hard journey with multiple job losses and depression. The other Section 21 notice was to someone in an HMO who constantly forgot to lock the front door both when leaving to go to work in her day job or when coming home from a late night bar job. This caused huge stress and anxiety to the rest of the household but wouldn't be covered by Section 8. I had to be seen by the other tenants to do what I realistically could. Written requests to remember to lock the door had failed numerous times so the only option was a Section 21 notice.

From: Jo Westlake 27 April 2022 13:19 PM

Another interesting statistic would be how many Section 21 notices proceed to become Section 21 evictions. A Section 21 notice is only the first step towards an eviction and can actually be an incredibly helpful piece of paper for a tenant to have. If waved in front of other creditors it can give tenants sufficient breathing space to get their finances back on track. Creditors all know rent is a priority payment and no one wants to be trying to track down a homeless person for payment.

From: Jo Westlake 27 April 2022 10:04 AM

Shelter cites new figures from the charity’s YouGov poll reveal a quarter of all private renters have had three or more private rented homes in the last five years. What has the above statement got to do with Section 21? It doesn't say how many of them have done so from choice. It's very easy to make statistics imply whatever you want. Moving 3 times in 5 years would be perfectly normal at certain stages in someone's life. Between the ages of 16 and 21 I moved 3 times. Between the ages of 22 and 27 I moved 5 times. This was all from choice and changing circumstances. I've never been evicted. These days it's perfectly reasonable to assume someone will move into a PRS student house in their second year at university, then a different size student house for their final year at university, then move to a different city for their Masters, PhD or first job and move into an HMO, then meet a partner and rent a self contained flat, then upgrade into a house or better flat if the relationship goes well. All of it from choice and life's natural progression but it certainly can be spun to imply a lack of security if that's how Shelter choose to interpret the data.

From: Jo Westlake 27 April 2022 08:42 AM

Without Section 21 how are people going to qualify for Social Housing? Don't they have to be homeless through no fault of their own for the Local Authority to have a duty to help them? What happens if they decide to have multiple children after moving into an HMO? Does the landlord get fined for allowing overcrowding and breaching their licensing conditions?

From: Jo Westlake 27 April 2022 06:51 AM

The problem with selling is the CGT. I imagine a few of us have properties that we would quite like to sell but won't or can't with the current level of CGT. In some cases where landlords have remortgaged the mortgage plus early repayment penalty plus CGT plus selling costs are more than the house would sell for. In cases where the landlord hasn't remortgaged properties they bought pre 2005 they would often release more cash by remortgaging than they would retain by selling and paying CGT plus selling costs. They'd also still have the house and income. In the South CGT can easily be well over £75000 per property. In London much higher than that. Bearing in mind we have already paid SDLT, higher rate income tax on the rent we receive and VAT on a huge quantity of goods and services during our period of ownership charging a higher rate of CGT than for any other asset seems like pure greed.

From: Jo Westlake 26 April 2022 07:08 AM

I don't understand the obsession with heat pumps. Surely if they were any good developers would put them in new builds. If they're not good enough for properties built with the current required levels of insulation why on earth would anyone pay out vast amounts of money for something that clearly isn't going to be suitable for an older property. It would make far more sense to encourage greater use of solar panels and/or battery storage.

From: Jo Westlake 25 April 2022 15:28 PM

If anyone wanted to protect long term tenants and the jobs that come with the regular tourism industry there would be a requirement for all Airbnbs to have planning permission, licencing and pay proper tax. In the right place there is nothing wrong with Airbnb style letting but in the wrong place it's decimating communities and creating havoc for remaining residents.

From: Jo Westlake 25 April 2022 07:38 AM

I used an agent once a few years ago and hopefully won't need to repeat the experience any time soon. I don't know what the agent had said to the tenants but they were terrified to phone us when anything needed doing.

From: Jo Westlake 22 April 2022 09:00 AM

There certainly needs to be a full range of housing tenures. Home ownership and Social housing suits those who want to put down roots and are settled long term. The PRS is vital for people who aren't ready to settle or who need to be able to relocate quickly for career progression or who suddenly find life takes an unexpected turn such as divorce. It especially suits those who want to live in a location of their choosing or have a couple of spare bedrooms, not a property allocated by the Local Authority or Housing Association. The one area of housing that could really do with expansion is rental retirement housing for people in all income brackets. We have an aging population with complex housing needs. If the government, financial institutions and local authorities focused on retirement housing it would free up existing family size housing close to amenities. It would give peace of mind to people who were worried about how they will afford to live on a pension or how they will heat, clean or maintain a large house. Done right it would help prevent bed blocking in hospitals and provide better quality home help, when people reach the stage of needing it, to enable people to retain their independence for as long as possible. Retirement housing has the advantage of taking up less land, so can be built on smaller brownfield sites close to amenities. While many people don't want to buy a retirement apartment, due to the difficulty in selling it when the time comes, renting one is far more attractive as long as the tenancy is secure.

From: Jo Westlake 21 April 2022 07:32 AM

How are landlords supposed to know if a household has a gross income of less than £30000? Does it mean TOTAL gross income or gross EARNED income? The only time we ask about income is when referencing before a tenant moves in. After that unless we have a single tenant working for a company that is known to pay close to minimum wage it's almost impossible to guess a household gross income. A couple working full time in minimum wage jobs will exceed £30000 as will a family with a UC top up. A recently qualified graduate may well be on less than £25000 for a couple of years while a similar age tradesperson who has worked since leaving school is more likely to be on over £30000. If funding is going to be available let's at least make qualifying for it realistic.

From: Jo Westlake 20 April 2022 07:13 AM

Of course we want to know a bit about the applicants before arranging a viewing. We may have over 30 applicants, often before the property has been vacated by the existing tenant. It would be grossly unfair to the outgoing tenant to have days of completely unsuitable applicants nosing around their home. If applicants can only be bothered to say "Is it still available" without giving any information about themselves they go into the "to be replied to if I get round to it" catagory. Ideally someone will tell me what their household composition is - number of adults, number of children with ages and gender, pets. Occupation, age and why they think the property would be suitable for them. When they would be hoping to move in and if they are looking for something long-term or a defined period.

From: Jo Westlake 14 April 2022 08:54 AM

What planet are these activists on? If tenants report something we can fix ourselves we're usually there to fix it within 2 hours. If it's a plumbing or drainage issue British Gas send someone usually within 24 hours, if it's something else covered by the household emergency policy it is usually within 24 hours, if it's covered under the boiler warranty within 3 days or so is normal. If it's something we need to contract a tradesperson for it's as soon as one is available and materials can be obtained. What more do they think we can do?

From: Jo Westlake 14 April 2022 08:26 AM

That's a very good example of why we need clarity and why we need it now. The government need to understand people care far more about keeping their home than what its often wrong EPC rating is. If they decide properties have to be EPC C or above they need to explain what assistance they will provide for people who are made homeless through no fault of their own. Your landlord has been happy to provide you with a very long term home where you have felt secure enough to spend large amounts of your own money to customise it for your families needs. The fact the government think it's acceptable to put you through potentially years of worry and stress is abhorrent. As landlords we need to know what target we are going to have to work towards, in what timeframe and we need a list of how many points each improvement would make as a standalone job so we can make an informed decision about how to proceed. You don't need the stress and worry of what might happen in 2028. You certainly don't need the threat of having to move out so solid floor or internal wall insulation can be installed. Loft insulation, better heating controls and solar panels are far more tenant friendly improvements with virtually no disruption to daily life while being installed but for some inexplicable reason either aren't listed as recommendations or are at the very bottom of the list.

From: Jo Westlake 13 April 2022 18:06 PM

Reply to EverythingPRS. You're right if it's a pitched roof with a loft hatch. It's flat roofs or roofs with a shallow pitch and no loft hatch where the problem really arises. A flat roof normally used to be insulated as a cold roof whereby the original deck was taken off and insulation put between the joists. Then the deck and new roof felt put back on. It's impossible to see the insulation after the job is done. Nowadays flat roofs tend to be done as warm roofs where the original deck remains in situ and Celotex is put on top, then a new deck and roofing material. It looks much thicker than a cold roof construction but again the actual insulation is hidden. Even with a Building Control certificate saying it complies with the standards in the year it was done and photos of it being installed and receipts for the insulation assessors still won't acknowledge it exists.

From: Jo Westlake 13 April 2022 17:36 PM

We wouldn't even need to give false readings in a lot of cases. We'd just need to make sure we input what we know exists. How many of us have poor EPC ratings because assessors have failed to spot the cavity wall insulation or assume no roof insulation when we have photos proving 120mm of Celotex or have put the wrong model of night storage heater, etc? It would also give us access to how many points each improvement would give us instead of being told to evict our tenants so we can replace the floor or rip out kitchens and bathrooms to do internal insulation. Those 2 recommendations should be an absolute last resort not the first 2 recommendations listed.

From: Jo Westlake 13 April 2022 11:34 AM

Of course rooms rents are going up if bills are included. The current gas and electric costs are roughly £30 per person per month more than they were 12 months ago. Those figures are based on a 4 person shared house. There's another increase due in October and then there's talk of the price cap changing every 3 months so those upcoming increases also have to be guessed at and factored in.

From: Jo Westlake 13 April 2022 09:13 AM

Until we know what rumoured upcoming changes to the EPC algorithm will do to the EPC score we can't really do anything. Until the government have announced exactly what the requirement will be again we can't really do anything. By the time the government have made a decision there is unlikely to be sufficient tradespeople or materials to do the work in the unrealistic timeframe they will give us anyway.

From: Jo Westlake 13 April 2022 08:53 AM

The government have made the ability to evict extremely difficult, introduced massive penalties for renting to someone who doesn't have or ceases to have the Right to Rent, frozen the LHA at way below market rent and then wonders why, when we have a queue of people applying for a vacant property, we may actually prefer to let to someone we think may not result in us facing a big fine or affordability issues. How many times are unsafe or overcrowded conditions caused without the landlords knowledge? A tenant who lets their cousin and 4 children come and stay with them for example. Something a homeowner could do without hesitation but in a rental property would be classed as overcrowding. How many tenants deliberately overcrowd in the hope it will get them closer to getting Social housing? Local authorities already have a wide range of powers. What they don't have is a supply of housing to offer to people who would be made homeless. The vast majority of landlords are decent human beings who want long-term sustainable tenancies. We want tenants who look after their homes and appropriately report any maintenance issues.

From: Jo Westlake 13 April 2022 08:40 AM

Karen - you're right that the government has no idea of real costs. However, if your tenant is saying they're only getting £330 towards the rent they're being very selective in the information they're giving you. The LHA rate for a 2 bed in Monmouthshire is £500 a month. If the tenant is receiving £330 UC that's because they are working on a lowish income. The UC will only be a top up, not their entire income. The earnings disregard is quite generous so they will be on way more than an unemployed person. Plenty of people on UC choose to live in properties that cost more than LHA because they will be located closer to work so travel costs will be much lower. In this area the choice is to pay close to LHA rent and travel 25 miles to work or live close to work and pay £150 a month more than LHA for rent. Either way the overall cost is about the same.

From: Jo Westlake 12 April 2022 10:10 AM

Michael - why do you think financially shackling yourself to a band of housemates ensures better accomodation than having an individual tenancy agreement? I do both joint tenancies and individual tenancies in HMOs and on the whole find individual ones work better. Joint tenancies can be problematic when groups have formed just to fill the house. People with no compatibility signing a joint tenancy agreement with people they hardly know just so a few friends can rent a house that is too big for them. With individual tenancy agreements the newbie can be selected with compatibility in mind. Existing tenants can be part of the selection process. People can leave the household with no financial impact on the other housemates. Managing properties with individual tenancy agreements is far easier as communal areas can be entered without notice. HMOs with joint tenancy agreements require 24 hours notice to enter and even if you turn up at the request of one tenant another one will start screaming that you've illegally entered because they don't actually talk to eachother.

From: Jo Westlake 12 April 2022 09:34 AM

Generally some sensible questions. The only bit that jumped out at me was "they might not even be comfortable with the use of Blu Tack on their walls." Do any of us welcome Blu Tack? Universities fine people per blob. It either rips the paint off the wall or leaves a greasy residue that bleeds through subsequent coats of paint for years to come. To deal with it properly requires considerable effort. Cleaning the affected area with a solvent based cleaning product, painting with stain blocking paint and then several coats of room colour paint. Has anyone got a less labour intensive method?

From: Jo Westlake 12 April 2022 07:39 AM

Currently a great many tenants don't have regular rent increases. Several of mine are still paying the same amount as the day they moved in 4 or 5 years ago. I've only just increased rent on one property for the first time in the 10 years I've owned it. Demanding rent increases should be capped at wage inflation simply means that instead of probably no increase there will be a guaranteed inflation linked increase every year. The real winner will be HMRC as 40% of that extra rent (that we wouldn't normally have asked for) will go straight to them as extra tax.

From: Jo Westlake 12 April 2022 07:25 AM

As long as there is a swift eviction route for tenants who don't pay their rent, deliberately damage the property or cause distress to their neighbours I imagine most of us would be happy. Section 21 is a strange idea in the first place. Mainly used instead of Section 8 because it's certain rather than relying on a Judges interpretation of a case. Make Section 8 more certain and the use of Section 21 would be minimal, as it's slower. How many landlords routinely evict good tenants? Back in the day when letting agents could charge huge fees for everything on tenant changeover it may have been more common but those practices were legislated out several years ago. Self managing professional landlords have always wanted good tenants to stay for as long as possible. Being able to evict so we can sell is important but historically fairly infrequent among deliberate landlords. Accidental landlords may be a different matter as they didn't want to be landlords in the first place. Putting some kind of compensation in place, such as 2 months rent, to help cover moving costs would be fair if the eviction genuinely was through no fault of the tenant. I have never got as far as a court hearing to evict anyone but I have used Section 21 notices as a warning shot. Either for behaviour in an HMO that other housemates find upsetting (repeated failure to lock front door) or rent arrears. A really important aspect of Section 21 is the power it gives tenants to sort out their finances. Just because we serve the notice doesn't mean we have to carry on and proceed to a court hearing. Having a Section 21 notice means tenants have 2 months to improve the situation so we don't proceed. The presence of a Section 21 notice can get other creditors to back off and renegotiate payments as they know they are lower down the payment priority order. The last thing any creditor wants is a homeless client. I just don't understand the obsession with rent controls. Don't they understand that means almost guaranteed annual rent increases?

From: Jo Westlake 07 April 2022 10:19 AM

Estate agents training to be EPC assessors. Will their observational skills and attention to detail suddenly improve after doing a 2 day online course? If the standard of sales details is anything to go by this is a very bad idea. In the last few weeks I've viewed a property that was described as having a gas central heating system. It actually had an electric boiler. Another one didn't mention heating at all and had an 8 year old EPC with a D rating mentioning night storage heaters. It actually had a recently installed gas central heating system. My son is in the process of buying a house that was listed 4 months ago saying EPC coming soon. Turns out the estate agent still hasn't got round to it and it's now delaying the mortgage offer. Now EPCs are a serious matter the standard of training EPC assessors receive needs to be massively upgraded. The last thing any of us need is even more unskilled people churning out factually inaccurate EPCs that potentially devalue our properties by tens of thousands of pounds or require us to spend thousands on often completely impractical upgrades purely because the assessor can't spot stuff we already have..

From: Jo Westlake 06 April 2022 08:38 AM

Sarah Coles, personal finance analyst at business consultancy Hargreaves Lansdown should be aware rent and mortgage isn't the same thing. To imply they are comparable indicates a surprising lack of financial awareness. Someone with a mortgage also has to pay insurance, property maintenance, servicing and repairs. They have had to pay a significant sum upfront for deposit, legal fees and often SDLT. Someone who rents needs a maximum of 5 weeks rent as deposit, then simply pays a totally predictable monthly sum to live in the property. That figure includes insurance, maintenance, repairs, upgrades, wear and tear, safety checks, licensing scheme fees, etc. Tenants on low incomes or who experience an unexpected financial downturn get higher Universal Credit payments than homeowners as there is an entitlement to rent up to the LHA limit but no corresponding entitlement for mortgage interest or other housing costs for homeowners. As children get older tenants may be entitled to higher LHA top ups as children in rental properties have specified bedroom entitlements subject to age and gender. Children in owner occupier properties get what their parents can afford.

From: Jo Westlake 05 April 2022 07:24 AM

In HMOs the landlord is responsible although occasionally tenants shoose to do it. In self contained properties the tenant is usually responsible. The results will depend largely on what they were presented with in the first place.

From: Jo Westlake 04 April 2022 08:58 AM

Now he needs to try listening to at least a few thousand landlords.

From: Jo Westlake 04 April 2022 08:50 AM

I'm totally confused by this article. Why is it felt tenants are in any way more affected by rising utility bills than anyone else? Tenants have far greater access to discretionary benefits than homeowners do. Tenants living in accomodation with included bills are protected for longer than other people from fuel price increases as rent can only be increased at the end of the fixed term or once a year after that. As a landlord I'm having conversations with tenants. I know some of mine hate Direct Debits but I've explained they're paying in some cases £100 a year extra by not having one. Why does the government allow that to be legal? Some of my HMO tenants have already asked if there's going to be a rent increase. Right now I'm trying a multi pronged approach whereby I experiment with some energy saving products, don't even look at increasing rents until the autumn (or hopefully not at all) and they try to cut usage. So far I've changed some light fittings, swapped to a heat pump tumble drier in one of the HMOs and installed a device that sends surplus solar electric to the immersion tank in houses with solar panels. Next step is solar panels and battery storage for at least one more of the HMOs. The tenants in a couple of HMOs have set the heating a bit lower and are analysing which appliances use the most power (I finally gave in and had a smart meter) and if they can realistically do anything with their usage pattern to lower energy consumption.

From: Jo Westlake 04 April 2022 08:48 AM

Michael has a very good point. While LHA is woefully inadequate it's considerably more generous than the amount homeowners can claim. If a tenant is struggling to make ends meet they can apply for discretionary housing benefit in addition to the normal LHA. Alternatively they can downsize into a cheaper property or a more energy efficient one or one closer to work (assuming they can find one) and the costs to move are relatively small. There isn't really any assistance for struggling homeowners other than maybe foodbanks. If a homeowner needs to move they have to pay thousands of pounds in estate agent fees, solicitor fees, SDLT and possibly early repayment mortgage penalties. Selling takes months and there's always the risk the chain will collapse and the mortgage offer expire. If things get so bad eviction is on the cards a tenant seems to have far more time before the bailiffs are appointed. Mortgage lenders appear to have a more effective eviction process.

From: Jo Westlake 01 April 2022 15:36 PM

They're right that housing benefit needs to be made fit for purpose. A quick look at Rightmove shows there are currently about 6 properties available within LHA rent limits in this entire 500 square mile rent area. That's 2 one bedroom properties, 3 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom. Two of them have E rated EPCs, one is only available to someone who has worked for the same employer for more than 3 years. Only one is in the main city in the area. The others would all involve a costly commute to where most jobs are. LHA was supposed to cover the cheapest 30% of each size rental property. In this area it used to be the choice was either rent at LHA level 20+ miles from the main city or pay more rent and live closer to work. Now it seems to be pay more than LHA wherever you choose in the entire 500 square mile area. I'm not opposed to renting to people with a UC top up. Several of my tenants work in low paid jobs and receive UC. They all pay the rent themselves. My experience of direct payment from UC was stressful to say the least. Why are DWP incapable of paying as per the tenancy agreement? One month in advance on the date stated on the tenancy agreement. The idea of them paying in arrears, if they haven't sanctioned the claimant or stuffed up the claim, on a random date of their choosing is ridiculous. Giving us no way of contacting them is also ridiculous. If the idea of giving the rent element of UC to the claimant is to give them some half baked idea of dignity at least make sure the system works in real time not some fantasy land. Personally I think ensuring people can keep a roof over their heads would give them far more dignity than anything else.

From: Jo Westlake 01 April 2022 08:31 AM

Millions of people who receive UC already work full time. Often as essential workers. It's unfortunate the government decided to call all benefits Universal Credit. Lumping the hard working low paid in with the serially unemployed or cash in hand brigade is just plain wrong.

From: Jo Westlake 31 March 2022 09:12 AM

I'm more shocked that the LHA actually covers the rent for 44% of private renters. In the majority of cases these are likely to be long term tenants who look after their homes and pay the rent on time. People the landlord doesn't want to lose. I currently have 6 properties at or below LHA rates. That's only while the current tenants are in situ though. I'm fully aware those properties are between £100 and £500 a month below market rent. When they eventually become vacant they will be re let at whatever the going rate is at the time.

From: Jo Westlake 31 March 2022 09:02 AM

We can explain and discuss the importance of ventilation and how damaging mould is to both their health and our buildings. Then they see an article about draught proofing their home to save a couple of quid on the gas bill and every word we have said is instantly forgotten. Trickle vents shut, extractor fans disabled, ventilation grills blocked, wet washing hung all over the house and then the phone calls and texts about damp problems and the house being defective.

From: Jo Westlake 30 March 2022 11:08 AM

Currently a great many tenancies go on for years without a rent increase. Rent controls simply mean guaranteed rent rises on an annual basis don't they? It says Scotland already has limited rent increases to once in 12 months, with a landlord required to give three months’ notice in advance of the increase; it also enabled tenants to challenge rent increases via adjudication by a Rent Officer. I thought all of us could only increase rents once a year for existing tenants. Giving 3 months notice instead of one month's notice isn't difficult. I have no idea what current Rent Officers are like but back in the day when Housing Benefit was determined by Rent Officers things worked far better than they do now. “For private tenants seeking rent adjudication, we will change the legislation to only allow adjudications that either decrease or maintain it at the level proposed by the landlord.” Doesn't that just mean the Rent Officers can't suggest a higher rent than the one proposed by the landlord? So if the landlord proposes an increase that is in line with inflation or local housing market prices the Rent Officer is likely to agree. If the proposal is for a £10 increase the Rent Officer can't say £30 would be more realistic. So without rent controls millions of tenants don't have regular rent increases. (One of mine has had one increase in 10 years, another has had one in 6 years, several are still paying the same as the day they moved in 4 or 5 years ago). Rent controls will ensure the vast majority of tenants have annual rent increases at a minimum of the inflation rate. If Trade Unions want to interfere in housing matters they should be lobbying for the LHA to be set at a realistic level not campaigning for annual rent increases.

From: Jo Westlake 30 March 2022 10:51 AM

Simon - I'm not saying a council retirement flat (which often aren't on council estates) would be a dream destination but for a great many people it is a very good option. We own the former matron's house on a council retirement development. It's a lovely development of 16 bungalows, communal gardens, close to shops, doctors, dentists, on a bus route, etc in one of the most expensive postcodes in the city. It's a proper community with people sat outside their bungalows chatting to eachother or tending to their window boxes and hanging baskets. Obviously council estates vary around the country and some of them are far better than others. Clearly wealth gives more options but personally I think the worst option of all is to be a poor homeowner without the physical or financial ability to maintain your home.

From: Jo Westlake 29 March 2022 13:25 PM

Renting in later life strikes me as very sensible. Being able to easily and relatively cheaply try out a new area or new style of housing after children leave home. There's no SDLT, estate agents commission or conveyancing fees with renting. As you get older there are lots of private sector retirement developments where renting is possible. Retirement council housing never had the Right to Buy and Councils seem to be building lots of retirement flats so there is a reasonable chance of getting one. Not having to worry about building maintenance or being ripped off by people pretending to be tradesmen seems like a nice idea. People who haven't made any provision for retirement will be poor wherever they live. Surely it's better to be in an over 55s council flat so whatever benefit top up fully covers the rent. Being a poor owner occupier worrying about how to pay for roof repairs would be horrendous. For people with savings or better pensions renting gives so much flexibility and potentially better quality of life. The ability to easily move into a purpose built development should mobility or health problems problems occur is worth a lot. A homeowner would take months to sell their home and be able to move whereas a tenant can spot an ideal property and commit to it instantly knowing they only have to give a months notice on their current home.

From: Jo Westlake 29 March 2022 12:16 PM

Gordon - Green mortgages are a little bit cheaper. The lenders will lend on the property regardless of EPC score but at a slightly lower rate if it's A, B or C rated.

From: Jo Westlake 28 March 2022 10:47 AM

A single tenant would be unlikely to rent the average property. They would rent a one bedroom flat or a room in a shared house. The people renting the average property would be far more likely to be a couple or family so would have 2 incomes and possibly a UC top up. The thing all these studies constantly overlook is that working homeowners get no help with housing costs while tenants have the LHA element of UC. This is often thousands of pounds a year for working tenants that simply isn't available to working homeowners. Rent isn't just the equivalent of a mortgage. It also includes insurance, boiler servicing and property maintenance.

From: Jo Westlake 28 March 2022 10:02 AM

It's an OK idea. Until estate agents engage with EPCs there are flaws. I viewed a flat recently with an 8 year old EPC. It was a D. The property details didn't mention anything about heating. The EPC register mentioned night storage heaters. When I got there there was a gas central heating system that had been installed 5 years ago. So clearly it should be a C. It would be better if there was the ability to switch to the lower rate as soon as the EPC had been improved. Definitely needs to be available on product switch at end of term. Incentivising us to improve properties has got to be better than just incentivising us to buy a restricted range of well insulated properties in the first place. Landlords are in a far better position to carry out improvements than owner occupiers as we can have work done while properties are unoccupied. Trying to live in a building site with children isn't much fun.

From: Jo Westlake 28 March 2022 09:49 AM

33% of mine are D or E. It would be reasonably easy to get a C on two of them. Dimplex Quantum in one and solar panels on the other. One is impossible to get above a D. It's a ground floor leasehold flat so I'm only allowed to do what the freeholder will give consent for and no option of solar. The others will be pot luck on the day with the assessor. I have photos of lots of roof insulation being installed but whether the assessor accepts it exists isn't guaranteed. There's also no guarantee a property that is currently C rated will still be C rated next time it's assessed. A couple of mine were 5 points lower on the most recent assessment.

From: Jo Westlake 28 March 2022 09:28 AM

These activist people seem to have invented a problem that simply doesn't exist for the vast majority of tenancies. As Emily says we already have periodic tenancies and as Michael says they walk any time they want. Apart from students all of my tenancies start as 6 month ASTs and then become Statutory Periodic. Some of my tenants have been in more than 10 years. Even in HMOs some have been over 5 years. When they want to leave I ask them what date they really mean (not necessarily the date the tenancy agreement specifies). Then advertise the property to best accommodate their actual moving out date. They're only liable for the rent until the new tenant moves in or the end of their notice period or a date in-between that allows time for redecorating. So this often saves them a couple of weeks rent and minimises voids. Student housing is let for an academic year. If someone doesn't fit the household dynamic I will assist them with finding a replacement and assigning their bit of the tenancy. I always offer existing groups the opportunity of renewing for the following year, either as the same complete group or with some changes. One house rolled on for 6 years in this way before it was fully vacated. Occasionally upon graduation a student tenant will move into one of my other HMOs. One of my ex students has been with me for about 8 years now. The danger of having no minimum tenancy period is that we all assume new tenants are only going to stay a week and increase the rent accordingly. We've already seen how that plays out with the rise of holiday lets and AirBnB. In effect my tenants already have what the activists are campaigning for. The only difference is I have the right to evict them should I choose to. No good landlord is going to evict a good tenant unless their personal circumstances give them no alternative. What we will do is not increase our portfolios and sell off properties as they become vacant if we don't have the ability to evict. It needs to be a workable system that is fair to both parties. As Tricia says we're the PRS not Social Housing.

From: Jo Westlake 23 March 2022 09:00 AM

The main problem seems to be there are landlords who have chosen to be landlords and who view their job as providing homes for people to rent for as long as they want to rent them for. We wouldn't dream of evicting a good tenant unless we were required by law to do so (potentially EPC requirements). Then there are landlords who became landlords accidentally or after a wine fueled dinner party conversation. Maybe they couldn't sell a property and decided to rent it out until the market picked up, maybe they inherited a property, maybe their friends told them it was a get rich quick scheme? The responsibility of property rental is somewhat greater than investing in the stock market. These are the people who will evict good tenants with no concern about the expense and inconvenience it will cause. Good tenants and good landlords need eachother so whatever the government does needs to be beneficial to both parties. Personally I would like to see Section 8 beefed up and fast tracked. In exchange I would be perfectly happy with a requirement to pay compensation of up to 3 months rent in the unlikely event I ever needed to evict a tenant who had fulfilled their side of the tenancy agreement. Bad tenants out pronto, good tenants and professional landlords made to feel more secure.

From: Jo Westlake 21 March 2022 10:18 AM

There may be CGT. Even if you give it away I'm pretty sure you need to get a professional valuation and CGT is charged according to what it's worth not at what you receive. If it's mortgage free there wouldn't be any SDLT.

From: Jo Westlake 15 March 2022 12:05 PM

I really dislike the following statement: "It makes no sense to tax the supply of new homes supplied by landlords investing in new build or bringing empty homes back into use.” If we buy new builds we are accused of preventing FTBs from getting a foot on the ladder as HTB was only offered on new builds. There aren't that many empty homes and only a percentage of landlords want to get involved in renovation projects. It goes on to say: "As this study indicates, removing the tax will actually generate more revenue, not less." While that is undoubtedly the case we can only buy if there are available houses to buy. Builders are building at a slow enough rate to keep the price of new builds sky high and very few second hand properties are being listed. In this area most of the houses listed on Rightmove and Zoopla as being available are actually Sale Agreed. A couple of weeks ago I phoned various agents about 8 different houses. Only 3 were still available. I phoned about an ex show house listed on Friday and was told they'd had over 100 enquiries for it. It wasn't cheap, it was on one of the worse plots on the development and it didn't even have a garage. So while removing the SDLT surcharge would undoubtedly encourage some of us to buy it's not quite that simple. We need available stock to buy. We need to know what is happening with EPC requirements. We need certainty that we can quickly evict tenants who don't pay their rent, cause malicious damage to the property or distress to their neighbours. We also need a better exit route regarding CGT. How many of us are holding on to properties that no longer really fit our business model because the current levels of CGT and SDLT mean it would be insane to sell them?

From: Jo Westlake 15 March 2022 07:41 AM

Section 24 is one of the reasons landlords are switching to holiday lets. The other is the proposed removal of Section 21. Without the ability to make a profit and evict problematic tenants in a timely fashion the risk of being a traditional landlord is far greater than it should be.

From: Jo Westlake 14 March 2022 12:41 PM

Everyone is facing a reduction in living standards. If anything tenants are more protected from some of the cost increases faced by homeowners. Rents can only be increased at the end of the fixed term or annually. Rent includes property insurance and maintenance. Homeowners and landlords are having to pay more for tradesmen and materials immediately. Some tenants in shared houses have bills included so are protected from the current utility price rises for considerably longer than anyone else is. The last 2 years have been unprecedented. We often froze rents, re let at a lower than normal rent or had longer voids during the pandemic. The reported rent increases are partially off a lower than should have been base or because the properties have been improved during the voids.

From: Jo Westlake 14 March 2022 08:14 AM

While I think points 2, 3 and 4 make a lot of sense points 1 and 5 could both be highly problematic or just plain vindictive. The properties used for holiday lets are often older properties close to the sea. While they may have wonderful views or proximity to the beach they often have very low EPCs and would be unable to be let as long term homes. They are often quirky or charming, which is lovely for a few days but not very easy to live with full time. Charging full Council Tax seems fair and administratively easy. If the houses are empty for most of the year they aren't using any services. Charging less is unnecessary, charging more is greedy and administratively complex. The use of these properties will vary hugely from year to year depending on fashion, weather, travel restrictions, the owners personal circumstances, etc. Varying levels of Council Tax based on the number of days of occupancy would be a complication Councils don't need. Point 5 may work for housing association rental properties but would cause problems for anyone else. If discounts were locked in for future buyers the properties simply wouldn't be properly maintained or improved. Tradesmen and builders merchants aren't going to give a discount just because someone lives in a house with a compulsory discount clause attached to it. We already have Section 106 to ensure some properties can only be sold to local people. A lot of leasehold flats have clauses in the lease that state the properties can't be used as holiday lets. Creating clauses and covenants based on current issues that apply to a property for as long as the property is standing should be avoided. Looking at some of the Land Registry titles from the 1980s would clearly show the difficulties. They are hugely out of date already and causing unforeseen issues. Property usage needs to be able to evolve as societies needs evolve. If restrictions are considered desirable they should be for a fixed term not the entire life of the building.

From: Jo Westlake 14 March 2022 07:54 AM

A lot of people in full time work receive UC top ups. Apparently it's possible to be a higher rate tax payer and still have a small UC entitlement now the earnings taper has been adjusted.

From: Jo Westlake 11 March 2022 09:44 AM

You're correct that landlords should have every right to decide who they let to. None of us want the people you describe. However, a lot of UC recipients work in essential industries. Things we all rely on such as supermarkets, deliveries or health care. It's not their fault the government set minimum wage too low. While a few may be as you describe the vast majority will be thoroughly decent people who will be excellent tenants. I currently let to 3 families in receipt of UC and all of them take great pride in their homes. Maybe I've been lucky? Maybe you've been unlucky?

From: Jo Westlake 11 March 2022 08:43 AM

With the LHA set so far below market rent how exactly are UC recipients supposed to clear financial referencing? We want long term sustainable tenancies. We don't want to condemn people to living in poverty. We can use a benefit calculator and see how much each component of a household needs in UC terms. In this area most 2 bedroom properties are well over £200 a month more than the LHA. That means people would need to use part of the UC amount meant to cover their personal or child costs to pay part of the rent. Or they could possibly work more but we know the DWP have first dibs on any extra money they legally earn, reducing the UC top up by 55p for every extra £1 of take-home pay. So to get the extra £200 a month for the rent they would need to earn about an extra £700 gross. If we have vacant properties at anywhere close to LHA rent we are inundated with applicants. These will be a mixture of people with a UC entitlement and people who are fully self financing. We can only let the property to one applicant. Every applicant will think they should be the chosen one and it's not fair if someone else gets it.

From: Jo Westlake 11 March 2022 08:18 AM

The conversion of historically long term homes to holiday lets is a tiny part of the shortage of affordable rental accommodation. On a national scale only a small percentage of properties lend themselves to the tourism market. Instead of penalising a few thousand property owners how about treating all landlords fairly so we can confidently invest in more long term homes? It would make a far more meaningful impact if Generation Rent campaigned for decent and consistent treatment of traditional landlords. 1. Reinstate taper relief so we have the ability to hold properties long term without the risk of a massive tax bill purely because of inflation. Death shouldn't be our only viable exit strategy. We have already paid huge amounts of income tax, VAT and SDLT throughout our period of ownership of the property. Punitive CGT is just counterproductive greed. 2. Abolish Section 24 so our mortgage interest costs are tax deductible at the conventional point in our tax returns (not as a partial tax credit applied after younger landlords have lost their Child Benefit). 3. Remove the extra 3% SDLT on property that is for the long term rental market or refund it after five years of that property being let on ASTs. 4. Make all improvements relating to energy efficiency fully tax deductible in the tax year the work is done. 5. Introduce far quicker eviction for those who fail to pay their rent, maliciously damage the property or cause distress to their neighbours. 6. Ensure that the Local Housing Allowance is updated annually 7. Ensure landlords can contact a designated case worker regarding UC tenants by telephone and email. 8. Ensure landlords aren't charged Council Tax for short void periods between long term tenancies If landlords were treated in a similar way to just about every other business there would be a plentiful supply of rental properties at a range of prices and standards. Every time a new tax or disincentive is introduced the supply of rental properties reduces and rents increase.

From: Jo Westlake 09 March 2022 08:24 AM

There are many landlords with perfect credit histories and substantial deposits who struggle to meet lending criteria. How about the mortgage industry sorts out a few decent products for those applicants before inflicting financially inept landlords on some perfectly good tenants?

From: Jo Westlake 01 March 2022 11:47 AM

Education, education, education! Until someone finds a way to convince tenants that ventilation and communication is the solution there will be mould problems. In their pursuit to save money tenants shut trickle vents, refuse to use extractor fans and never open windows. They don't understand that simply breathing, cooking and bathing produces many litres of moisture every day. If that moisture can't escape it condenses on the walls and forms mould. It doesn't matter how much we ask them to use extractors or how many condensation control leaflets we provide them with they will see an article somewhere about draft proofing or turning off every appliance and instantly forget about the importance of ventilation. The other issue is failure to report small maintenance issues. Good landlords would far rather know about any repairs that are required before the property suffers damage. Minor water ingress or leaks can lead to dry rot requiring tens of thousands of pounds of repairs. Media reports of people being evicted for mentioning repairs have caused many completely avoidable problems for good landlords. We want our houses to be in the best possible condition and certainly won't evict tenants for helping us to keep them that way. We are far more annoyed when tenants eventually tell about something and then mention they noticed it over a year ago. Even when we pay for plumbing and drainage policies tenants are reluctant to notify us about leaks.

From: Jo Westlake 26 February 2022 11:58 AM

I'm fairly neutral on the whole MTD idea. I can't quite see the point of it for landlords but if a straightforward landlord focused version of software is available I'd probably be fine with using it. The problem I have is knowing where to start. What am I supposed to be looking for? Does a suitable program currently exist or are landlord focused ones still being developed? I would want to be able to see exactly what it did and how to use it before signing up to it. We seem to be bombarded with various versions of landlord computer based services supposedly designed to do everything for us. Then it turns out they don't do everything but have a big overlap with something else that does the missing bit. So it feels like a lot of duplication. Finding something that is right for our particular business seems to be the hard bit and is incredibly time consuming. What I'm not OK with is committing to paying a monthly fee, spending hours setting it up and then discovering it doesn't really work for my rental business. Whoever designs these things needs to remember a lot of landlords tend to be a bit older. We left school before computer studies was a subject. Our computer skills are largely self taught and some of us rely on Google and YouTube to teach us how to do things. So keep it relevant and provide clear instructions that cater for people with limited computer skills. And remember we are landlords not accountants.

From: Jo Westlake 21 February 2022 09:44 AM

So Councils that kept accurate records received just over 5 complaints each a week. How many of those complaints were found to have any real foundation and how many were deemed to be caused by the tenants lifestyle? How many were mold related due to tenants failing to heat or ventilate the property? How many were due to minor maintenance issues not being reported to the landlords in a timely fashion and then escalating? How many were damages caused by the tenant and not reported to the landlord? How many were caused by the tenant inviting extra people to move in and overcrowd the property? I'm sure there are some horrendous properties out there but do those tenants tend to report them to the Councils?

From: Jo Westlake 14 February 2022 10:22 AM

In order to be seen not to discriminate on racial grounds people often discriminate against the indigenous population. You only have to look at some employment decisions to see the problems with diversity box ticking. The Home Office online checking service is brilliant. Make it the way we check 100% of applicants from all countries including the UK.

From: Jo Westlake 14 February 2022 09:29 AM

Shouldn't standard of living and disposable income be a key part of leveling up? Money goes much, much further outside London. Someone on £25000 in the North will have a far higher standard of living than someone on £50000 in London.

From: Jo Westlake 12 February 2022 12:37 PM

I love the Right to Rent share code system. If that could be the standard system for all tenants of all nationalities (including British) we would eliminate so many potential pitfalls.

From: Jo Westlake 11 February 2022 21:50 PM

The biggest help to tenants would be to stop dreaming up more and more poorly thought through legislation that rarely gets enforced and stop over taxing good landlords. We provide homes for millions of people who don't qualify for social housing and don't want or can't afford to buy (yet). Very few of us evict good tenants who pay their rent and look after their homes. We need the government to have long term policies that don't get changed every couple of years. We only react to whatever the government throw at us.

From: Jo Westlake 10 February 2022 09:33 AM

Until the changes to the EPC regarding the way electric heating is scored (heat pumps, LOT 20, etc) are finalised none of us have a clue what we need to do. While I may be willing to improve roof insulation, install better heating controls (if the tenant is keen) and possibly solar panels (where appropriate) I am not enthusiastic about evicting tenants to do solid floor or internal wall insulation. Any type of wall insulation isn't a one size fits all solution. Internal reduces living space, cavity isn't always possible or appropriate for the weather conditions, external often can't be done if the wall adjoins someone else's land. If lenders want to send the right message they could try offering attractive product switch mortgages for existing customers with C or above EPCs. There needs to be far more clarity about exemptions where circumstances are beyond the landlords control. Leasehold properties where owner occupier leaseholders or the freeholders refuse to allow insulation work or Local Authorities refuse permission for external insulation, double glazing or solar panels for properties that are listed or in conservation areas. There also needs to be far more debate about the overall package tenants experience, not just the EPC score. Is the rent above or below LHA level? How often and by how much has the rent been increased since the tenant moved in? Is the property located close to all amenities or is a car or extensive use of public transport essential?

From: Jo Westlake 09 February 2022 12:00 PM

I currently include gas, electric, water, broadband and Council Tax in all of my HMOs. I have never increased rents for existing HMO tenants as long as they keep the same room. Some of my tenants have been asking if there will be rent increases due to the increased utility costs and one group have very sweetly said they would be willing to pay towards the utility price rises if I was struggling as they don't want to have to move house. Right now I'm adopting a wait and see approach for existing tenants but making sure they are aware how much the rent is for similar newly available rooms. In several cases my current tenants are paying around £50 a month less than the current market rent for their rooms would be. So in terms of what happens with the Council Tax rebate (which in my HMOs amounts to between 48p and 72p per person per week) not increasing the rent for the time being more than absorbs that. The £200 is a loan anyway. I should be OK with the above until next autumn but may need a change of policy if the October price cap is massive. Student houses are a different matter as we are working 18 months in advance. My crystal ball simply isn't that good. From September I'm only including gas in 2 of my student houses that are let on a joint tenancy agreement. Most student houses in this area haven't got any bills included. My reasoning is that I hate to think of tenants being cold, the house is less likely to get mouldy if it is properly heated and they might even open windows occasionally, if they try to use less water they automatically use less gas, broadband companies are a nightmare for me to deal with as they will only speak to the bill payer not the person who is experiencing the problem, electric is where the usage can be most unpredictable. I've seen too many fan heaters (because they can't be bothered to walk downstairs and boost the central heating), too many part loads of washing, the tumble drier used for just a couple of items, too many table or floor standing lamps with old fashion bulbs left on all day, etc. The thing that would be most useful at the moment would be for our credit balances from the previous utility providers to be refunded. I had some back quite quickly but haven't had the balances from PFP, Neon Reef or Green.

From: Jo Westlake 09 February 2022 08:40 AM

Interesting. So for less than £1000 and about a week of our time we could all get qualified as EPC assessors and play with the computer program to see exactly what the most cost effective way would be to get a C rating without having to evict our tenants. All these recommendations to insulate solid floors are a non starter but assessors don't seem to understand that. However tedious an idea that is it may save us from making some very expensive mistakes. If existing assessors won't give us a full list of options and the impact they would have perhaps we should train to do the job ourselves.

From: Jo Westlake 08 February 2022 11:35 AM

I'm a bit unclear how both the Council Tax rebate and £200 loan will work in practice for HMOs. If it's working tenants and Council Tax and utilities are included in the rent am I right in thinking both CT rebate and loan go to the landlord and may go a very small way to offset the additional utility costs we have been paying since loads of utility companies went bust last autumn, never mind the massive hike we are about to experience in April? The £200 loan won't happen until October (more than a year after our utility costs soared). We then have to repay the £200 loan at £40 a year added to our electric bill for the next 5 years? How is it going to work for student houses which are Council Tax exempt? How does the loan work when students pay their own utility bills? Is the loan to the bill payer or attached to the house? Will future occupiers of the house have to repay a loan they didn't benefit from? Why is the loan attached to the electric bill when people seem to be more concerned about heating? What happens if the landlord includes gas but not electric?

From: Jo Westlake 08 February 2022 07:41 AM

Realistically no landlord knows what EPC score their property would get if it was assessed tomorrow. They only know what it got last time it was assessed. The inconsistencies in the assessment process mean scores can be wildly different in either direction even if no work has been done between assessments. I had one property go from F25 to G14. Another from D57 to E47 and another from E48 to D67. How can we have any confidence in the system when 2 different assessors can be so far apart in their data inputting? The scoring is supposed to be changing again shortly so heat pumps don't lower the score as much as they currently do.

From: Jo Westlake 07 February 2022 08:18 AM

There's already tons of legislation. A great many landlords are already licensed and on HMO registers. Local Authorities are pretty aware of both the good properties and the bad ones. The compliant landlords and the ones who aren't. They have multiple enforcement options available many of which are self financing or even profit making due to the potential fines. So what improvement for tenants is yet another layer of registration going to make? If the current range of quite far reaching legislation isn't being used why would something else be any more likely to have a beneficial impact? Of course people should have safe homes but how have some homes become unsafe? Is it the actions of the tenant or lack of maintenance from the landlord? Has the tenant notified the landlord of any defects? Will the tenant allow access for tradespeople to carry out repairs and maintenance? Have the tenants moved extra people into the house that the landlord is unaware of? How many tenants aren't even aware of occupancy and overcrowding laws? Do tenants still think that if they abuse a property enough the Council will condemn it and give them a brand new Council House? Perhaps Local Authorities should clearly spell out what happens if someone becomes homeless (either intentionally due to their own behaviour or unintentionally). Where are they housed, for how long and at what cost, both to themselves and the tax payer. One thing that's certain is that good, long-term landlords are already selling up and more people will become homeless. Do the government really want to accelerate that process?

From: Jo Westlake 01 February 2022 09:45 AM

EPC assessors need to put far more thought into the list of recommendations they issue to improve our EPCs. The EPC states the improvements listed are cumulative. They assume the improvements have been installed in the order listed. That is a major problem when they put the most expensive, disruptive, impractical, least effective recommendations at the top of the list. One of my houses is a 2 bed terraced house in a flood zone about 300 meters from the sea. The kitchen is very narrow and has 3 external walls, one of which forms the neighbours garden wall, another adjoins a footpath. The recommendations are: 1 - internal or external wall insulation. It would have to be internal for at least 2 of the walls, which would make the kitchen too narrow to use. Estimated cost £4000 to £14000. Adds 5 points. Presumably that cost doesn't include the cost of the new kitchen and bathroom that would be required to fit the reduced space. The tenant would need to move out for the work to be done. 2 - floor insulation (suspended floor). In a flood zone is that really sensible? Costs £800 to £1200. Only adds 1 point. 3 - solar water heating. Costs £4000 to £6000. Adds 1 point 4 - solar photovoltaic panels. Costs £3500 to £5500. Adds 10 points. In a tenanted property with a South facing roof the solar photovoltaic panels seem like the way to go. Why isn't it the number one recommendation?

From: Jo Westlake 26 January 2022 07:18 AM

Michael, HMOs come in many different types and standards aimed at various different tenant profiles. Some will be let as a whole house to a group of friends in which case they may well be responsible for the utility bills. Others will be let on individual room tenancies. You could have prepayment meters all over the place and expect the tenants to pay for their own individual usage. You'd still have to pay for the communal areas though as landlord if the tenants each have individual tenancy agreements. I prefer to offer all inclusive rents so the houses are properly heated. My student HMOs are mainly on joint tenancy agreements, my professional ones are all individual tenancies. I aim for like minded tenants and encourage existing ones to be very much part of the selection process for newbies. As a result they tend to spend a lot of time in the communal lounge or kitchen together. Other landlords may go for the more traditional bedsit type HMOs where tenants rarely see or speak to eachother. Each to his own and there's pros and cons with each model. I agree that it's bizarre about the connected tenants being exempt from HMO regulations. How are we supposed to know if someone is really connected or not?

From: Jo Westlake 20 January 2022 11:09 AM

I guess it partly depends on what's included in the rent. If it's an HMO with bills included the rises will have to be substantial. We can only increase rents once a year for existing tenants and have no idea how much the utility bills will be over the next 12 months. Historically I've very rarely increased rents for existing tenants. Mainly they're in HMOs or student houses so people used to stay 2 or 3 years and I'd just increase the rent when they vacated. Now they're staying much longer I may need to revise that policy especially if the utility market doesn't settle down. For self contained units it also depends on when the last rent increase was. I'm just increasing one for the first time in 9 years. It's still £30 lower than the LHA rate and £100 less than anything on Rightmove. Had I simply increased the rent by £10 a month every year the tenant would have paid an extra £4300 over the last 9 years and the rent would be closer to LHA level. I don't imagine the tenant will see it quite that way though.

From: Jo Westlake 20 January 2022 09:53 AM

Theoretically it would be great if there was a sensible way in which tenants could buy their rental homes. It would allow people to have children at a biologically more advantageous stage in life, rent a suitable house, put down roots in the community and buy their home when promotions and pay rises allow. However, with the current tax situation for landlords it isn't going to happen. We would have to pay 28% CGT on the house we sold to them and then the extra 3% SDLT on top of the already eyewatering SDLT if we bought another house to replace the one we sold. Also there may be an early redemption penalty on the mortgage. If we are long-term landlords why would we want to lose a good rental property? There's lots of potential benefits for tenants to be able to buy their rental such as saving the cost of moving, saving the cost of potentially multiple surveys on properties that fail to complete, saving on the cost of getting new furniture to fit a new house, etc. There doesn't seem to be any incentive for the landlord to sell unless they were planning to scale down as a landlord. If the tax treatment was more favourable it's certainly something I would seriously consider. I already buy specific houses for specific tenants (who are unlikely to ever qualify for a mortgage) as long-term homes.

From: Jo Westlake 20 January 2022 08:11 AM

If landlord leaseholders are excluded could the work be carried out at all? Isn't it a similar situation to why landlord leaseholders can't have cavity wall or external insulation to meet EPC targets if the owner occupier leaseholders in the same building don't also agree to have it and pay their share? Surely the building has to be treated as a whole so all forms of ownership or occupation should be treated equally. What would happen in the case of someone who owns a percentage of their leasehold flat under a shared ownership scheme? Would that flat be included as part of its owner lives there or excluded because part of its owner is a landlord? If landlords are excluded the government is penalising tenants. If the landlord is bankrupted the tenant is homeless. If the landlord manages to pay for the work they are likely to increase the rent by as much as the market will stand so the tenant either faces a reduced standard of living or has the expense and inconvenience of moving somewhere cheaper.

From: Jo Westlake 19 January 2022 07:00 AM

If Section 21 is abolished how are landlords going to be able to evict their tenants so they can do the solid floor and internal wall insulation so many EPC assessors insist we need? If they can't evict them to do the work to bring the EPC up to the required standard how are they going to evict them when it becomes illegal to let a property with an insufficient EPC score?

From: Jo Westlake 18 January 2022 08:03 AM

Are rent controls really beneficial for tenants? Don't they just mean a guaranteed rent increase every year? How many of us tend to leave existing tenants on the same rent for considerably longer than a year? I have tenants who haven't had a rent increase in over 5 years. One of my properties is over £200 a month less than it would be if I had had inflation linked rent increases every year. Is this just a way of the government raking in even more tax? Convince tenants rent controls are beneficial to them so we Increase rents every year in line with the controls and then we pay more tax. Cunning but I can't see how it's good for tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 18 January 2022 07:53 AM

The first issue to address is the unequal treatment of standard BTL and holiday lets. Standard BTL is providing long term homes for people who for various reasons aren't ready or able to buy a suitable property and medium term homes for seasonal or temporary workers or students. Why are standard BTL tax rates so punitive when we are providing a basic necessity? Support for standard BTL landlords during the pandemic was pretty much non existent and the eviction ban drove countless landlords to sell or switch to holiday lets at the earliest opportunity. Holiday lets, which are a luxury not a necessity, are given far better tax treatment, could claim financial support during the pandemic and don't have any eviction issues. The whole situation has been created by a lack of joined up thinking at government level. The holiday industry is vital to certain parts of the country but in my opinion would largely be better in the hands of professional holiday companies or hotels with proper planning permission, safety standards and employment rights. Workers in the tourism industry are historically low paid and need access to affordable rental accommodation. That lack of accommodation caused considerable staffing difficulties for many tourism businesses last summer. It isn't simply a question of looking at the number of people on a housing list and the number of holiday lets in an area. What size is the housing compared to the housing need of the people on the list? Is it suitable for year round occupation? Is it located anywhere near schools, jobs or public transport? Is it's EPC good enough? Is Universal Credit going to be part of the equation? Is the LHA in any way realistic? Is the housing list up to date or even vaguely accurate? Some people could have died, left the area or bought a house and still be on the list.

From: Jo Westlake 17 January 2022 07:42 AM

Precisely. We need a full list of what can be done to improve an EPC rating, not just 3 or 4 things that are often not possible due to leasehold or conservation area restrictions. If an EPC makes an assumption such as the roof is uninsulated we need the list of improvements to include insulating the roof and how many extra points it will give us. Instead they all seem to recommend insulating the floor which is hugely expensive, can only realistically be done if we evict the tenants and only adds 1 or 2 points to the EPC score. Replacing an old night storage heater with a Dimplex Quantum improves the score but I have no idea by how many points. Replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump loses a load of points but again I have no idea how many. Putting solar panels on the roof improves the score usually by between 7 and 10 points regardless of if they are actually orientated correctly. Putting a thicker jacket on a hot water cylinder costs about £20 and adds 1 or 2 points. Some measures are hugely disruptive and could only be done to an unoccupied property, others such as solar panel installation or replacing an old night storage heater cause virtually no inconvenience to tenants. There needs to be recognition that a landlord may decide to carry out a different range of work to an owner occupier due to the level of disruption so the recommendations need to reflect that. Or even better don't recommend anything and just give us a full list to choose from.

From: Jo Westlake 12 January 2022 22:26 PM

Housing is only one form of energy usage. Transport is also a major use of energy. Older houses tend to be located close to city centres, village centres, schools, workplaces and other amenities so people living in older houses often need to use far less transport. Whichever way you look at it life costs. People have choices regarding how to spend their money. Some will prefer to live in a new house on a new build estate with low gas and electric bills but need to drive everywhere because the house is miles from shops or work. Others will prefer to live in an older house closer to amenities and maybe not need to own a car. The energy bills may be a bit higher but how much are they saving in transport costs? Which scenario is really more energy efficient?

From: Jo Westlake 12 January 2022 07:15 AM

An EPC score is total pot luck. Properties can gain or lose points for no apparent reason. One of mine was F25 in November 2018 when an estate agent listed it, then G14 in January 2020 when I got my regular assessor to advise how best to improve it. Nothing had changed in that time. It still had no insulation, single glazing, no heating, etc. Another one was E48 in January 2011 when an estate agent listed it, then D67 in January 2022. Very little has changed. It still has the same ancient night storage heater. The first assessor failed to spot the cavity wall insulation but that's about the only difference. Even though replacing the storage heater would bring it up to a C rating it isn't on the list of recommendations, whereas a gas central heating system at 5 times the cost is. The other recommendation was solid floor installation which could only be done if I evicted the tenant. Another one was D57 in December 2008, then E47 in December 2015 even though the roof had been insulated between those dates. So with such discrepancies in the assessment process and incomplete lists of recommendations how are we supposed to know what to do? Should we just have multiple assessments done until we get one we like? At the very least assessors need to give us a full list of improvements we could make and how many points each would gain. Some can only be done when the property is vacant, others don't inconvenience a tenant. We need the full range of options

From: Jo Westlake 11 January 2022 08:20 AM

Scottish Lad Roof insulation, not loft insulation. Lofts are easy to assess accurately as long as there is a loft hatch. Roofs are a whole different matter. Either flat roofs or top floor rooms with sloping ceilings. The insulation is completely sandwiched between plasterboard and roof covering with no access to it whatsoever. In the case of houses with large areas of flat roof if the choice was solid floor insulation or putting 120mm of Celotex and some EPDM on top of the existing roof to get the required score I think the roof would be the preferred option for most people. EPC assessors don't list both options, they only suggest ripping up the floor. As you say insulation can cause mould problems especially if breather membranes, vapour barriers and ventilation aren't correctly built in.

From: Jo Westlake 20 December 2021 09:48 AM

How many properties have an EPC below C because of assumptions used in the EPC assessments? How often are those assumptions wrong? Roof and subfloor insulation are two of the main problems with assumptions. It often exists but there is no documentary evidence to say exactly how much so the EPC assessor has to assume none. Even a Building Control certificate only says it complies with the standards in whatever year and won't be accepted as proof insulation exists even though the BC certificate wouldn't have been issued if it didn't. The general condition of the property or proof of energy consumption should at least allow a 'PROBABLY EXISTS' score. How many properties have had the improvements listed on the original EPC done and haven't reached the expected score because of changes to the algorithm and the fear assessors have of being audited and being found to have been too generous in their assumptions? If it has been assumed something exists on an EPC it should be illegal to change that assumption on future EPCs without absolute proof that the original assumption was wrong. Properties get bought and sold and paperwork gets lost. There has never been a 'PROOF HAS BEEN PROVIDED' option regarding the existence of insulation. The original EPCs used a balance of probability approach. New EPCs demand absolute proof. Taking core samples to prove the existence of insulation would compromise the integrity of the insulation and vapour barrier so isn't a desirable option. All forms of electric heating score really poorly. What was the point of Lot 20 if it isn't recognised in the EPC assessment? If good heating controls and programmers boost the score for properties heated with gas central heating why isn't the same true for similar electric heating controls? EPCs suggest a very limited number of improvements to increase the EPC score. We need a full list of potential improvements and how much they will improve the score by. Some work can be easily done with tenants in situ, such as roof insulation, water cylinder jackets, solar panels or double glazing. Other work such as solid floor insulation or internal wall insulation can only be done to empty properties so would involve evicting the tenant. Some of the suggested work couldn't be done to leasehold, listed or conservation area properties. If it is assumed the roof is uninsulated why isn't roof insulation suggested as a possible improvement? Solid floor insulation is the first thing listed on several of my EPCs but only raises the score by one or two points and would require me to evict the tenants. Solar panels cost about the same and increase the score by between 7 and 10 points. A jacket for the hot water cylinder also raises the score by between 1 and 7 points (depending which EPC report I look at) and costs less than £20. Same with low energy light bulbs. So give us a full list of options and allow us to pick the most realistic ones for our properties. Be very cautious about recommendations that require us to evict our tenants.

From: Jo Westlake 20 December 2021 09:01 AM

To illustrate how ridiculous the EPC scores are I have the following 2 houses. My home is a detached house, built in 2004 with solar panels and an EPC rating of B90 occupied by me and my husband. One of my rental properties is a detached house, built in 1951 with a flat roof and an EPC rating of D63 occupied by 3 young professionals. Bills are included in the rent. I found gas and electric bills for both properties from 6 years ago, took the readings and averaged the consumption of both houses for the 6 year period. That allows for tenant changes and different usage, etc so should be more indicative than a shorter time frame. My house averages 2930KW electric and 14300KW gas per year. The rental averages 2567KW electric and 11175KW gas per year. The EPC on the older rental property is so bad because the assessor assumed the flat roof is uninsulated. Apparently it doesn't matter that in reality it uses far less gas and electric than a property with a much better EPC score.

From: Jo Westlake 17 December 2021 21:30 PM

I don't think buying an extra piece of furniture and a few cushions can really be classed as decorating the landlords property.

From: Jo Westlake 14 December 2021 09:43 AM

Why are houses deemed to be unsafe or fail the standards for a decent home? Were they safe and complied with whatever the standards were when the tenant moved in? Is this problem partly due to the government moving the goalposts mid tenancy? Are some of the issues due to how the tenant chooses to live? For example overcrowding because the tenant hopes the Council will provide social housing if they have another baby. Or mould due to condensation because they refuse to heat or ventilate the property properly. Can these homes be brought up to today's required standards without evicting the tenant? How does carrying out substantial improvement works with a tenant in situ sit with the tenancy agreement condition of allowing quiet enjoyment of the property? If the tenant is evicted through no fault of their own doesn't the Local Authority have a duty to house them? Has the LA got access to safe, compliant housing in which to rehouse these people?

From: Jo Westlake 14 December 2021 09:33 AM

There may also be the rogue ones who terrorise their neighbourhood with anti social behaviour. I don't imagine many of their neighbours would support a winter eviction ban. As you say good tenants are at very little risk of being evicted.

From: Jo Westlake 13 December 2021 08:10 AM

When a deposit is protected I was under the impression the deposit company emails the tenant to tell them it has been protected. There is a way of tenants checking with the deposit companies to see if their deposit is still protected throughout their tenancy. When the landlord notifies the deposit company the tenancy is going into a Statutory Periodic the deposit company emails both landlord and tenant to tell them. In this era of paperless admin and lowering our carbon footprint is driving all over the place with bits of paper to sign, which are only duplicating all those emails really a good idea? I do it but it does seem incredibly environmentally unsound.

From: Jo Westlake 13 December 2021 08:02 AM

Over the last 10 years I have bought 4 properties for people who either were homeless or who had had a Section 21 served and were soon to become homeless. In one case I bought the 4 bedroom house they were already living in. For the others I bought one or two bed flats or houses close to where they work. Those 3 properties are all at or below Housing Benefit level rent. I'm very proud of the fact these people now have long term secure housing in locations they want to live in. I had hoped to do more of that type of letting but the eviction ban has put a stop to it. Although I have never needed to evict anyone it used to be nice to know I could. On rentals at that price point the margins are too small to be able to risk an eviction taking over a year.

From: Jo Westlake 09 December 2021 09:29 AM

It would be nice if Paragon also offered a product switch rate that reflects the green credentials of some of the properties already on their books. Some of us have been with Paragon for several years and already have houses with A, B or C EPCs. Others will be upgrading their properties to at least a C. A product switch rate that recognises that would go a long way towards proving their commitment to energy efficient housing.

From: Jo Westlake 08 December 2021 06:58 AM

In my experience even when we carry out the recommended improvements the EPC score doesn't improve. The algorithm for EPCs has been changed at some point and assessors are inconsistent with how they input data. With no work being carried out between EPCs one of my properties dropped 11 points. After replacing a roof and insulating it to 2014 standards another house dropped 10 points (because the Building Control certificate didn't specifically say what thickness of Celotex was used the assessor assumed no insulation). Another one had all the recommendations carried out which should have increased the score by 5 points. The score remained the same so it must have lost points elsewhere. Another one was supposed to be C if I replaced the boiler and although I've done exactly as recommended it is still D. Another one increased from E48 to D65. I had replaced the hot water cylinder but the main reason was because the first assessor hadn't spotted the cavity wall insulation. How can we have any confidence whatsoever in EPCs when there is no consistency in the assessment process? If we make the recommended improvements and still don't get the expected score what then? The recommendations are often insane anyway. The EPC will state it's assumed there's no roof insulation so the recommendation is to insulate the solid floor???? No mention of doing anything about the roof or how many points that would give. We are often powerless to carry out the recommendations if the property is leasehold, listed or in a conservation area. We need a complete list of how many points every single improvement would make to the score (not just the 4 or 5 things they currently list). Maybe a complete list of everything including those things we already get full marks for so we don't replace things unnecessarily. So if it is assumed the roof is uninsulated how many points would a new insulated roof give us, would new heating controls give us any extra or do we already have the maximum score, etc.l

From: Jo Westlake 04 December 2021 18:20 PM

I think we need a bit longer to see how things really look. September was hectic but that's not unusual. The rest of 2021 was patchy. At the start of the year it was really hard to let rooms. Rooms that normally go within a few days were empty for 2 or 3 months. The summer trundled along in an unspectacular fashion. September was insane. Very high number of enquiries but a very large number of them didn't seem to have read the advert. The last room I let was about 3 weeks ago and the level of enquiries didn't seem to be much different to normal.

From: Jo Westlake 02 December 2021 09:51 AM

Just think how much tax the government would rake in if they brought back taper relief or lowered CGT to something sensible like 5%. Firstly some CGT on all the sales that would actually happen instead of a notional 28% that most of us decide not to pay because we keep our houses instead of selling them. Then all the SDLT on all the extra property purchasing that a boosted supply would generate. Then VAT on all the estate agent and conveyancing fees. Then extra income tax and National Insurance on all the extra jobs created for tradespeople due to people wanting to make alterations to the houses they have just bought. Then even more extra income tax and NI on the extra jobs created to supply materials for these alterations.

From: Jo Westlake 02 December 2021 09:30 AM

We need a full menu of how many points each improvement will give us so we can work out what is possible or desirable. Some work is pretty much impossible in a tenanted property. Solid floor insulation or internal wall insulation would be a nightmare. Other work has approximately no inconvenience factor for tenants, such as solar photovoltaic panels or modern heating controls. The current way just a few measures are listed takes no account of what is legally possible. Leasehold properties can only have certain works done if the freeholder permits it. Listed or conservation area buildings can't have anything out of character.

From: Jo Westlake 02 December 2021 05:20 AM

It doesn't say why those people are homeless or about to be made homeless. My guess is that it's largely due to half baked government policies rather than the more traditional reasons. Landlords being prohibited from renting out properties that score F or G on the EPC would be one reason. The ludicrously low UC paid to single unemployed adults is another. No financial support for landlords during the pandemic while encouraging tenants to demand rent payment holidays. Far too many people excluded from furlough payments or any other financial support while the government had prohibited them from working. These were government failings. Collectively they have made being a landlord feel very precarious. Very few landlords evict good tenants unless they absolutely have to. Even landlords who have never evicted a tenant have found the total inability to be able to evict to be hugely stressful and has certainly stopped me from expanding my portfolio. I'm only one landlord but over the last 10 years I have bought 4 properties specifically for people who were homeless or had had Section 21 notices served on them because previous landlords wanted to sell. In one case I bought the house they were already living in. For the others I bought properties within walking distance to their work that could be viable at LHA level rent. Unfortunately 2 of those properties only score D on the EPC so it may be that at least one of those tenants will become homeless again purely because of a half baked government policy. I truly hope not.

From: Jo Westlake 30 November 2021 10:02 AM

Robert - Thank you for saying so. Doug - You're welcome to help yourself to any bits you want.

From: Jo Westlake 29 November 2021 15:56 PM

I'm not sure we need stimulus as such but we certainly need clarity, consistency and an end to the constantly moving goal posts. We need a fast effective way to evict tenants who breach their tenancy agreements. Anti social behaviour or persistent non payment of rent should entitle landlords to a rapid recovery of their property. As a long term landlord I have never needed to evict a tenant and hope I never will but the recent ban on evictions has been extremely concerning and has prevented me from buying any more rental properties. I would be perfectly happy to compensate a tenant who has fully adhered to their side of the tenancy agreement if I ever had to evict one purely because I decided I wanted to sell the property. The EPC situation needs sorting. The lack of consistency in the assessments is a major concern. Just because a property currently has a C rating doesn't mean it still will next time it is assessed. Two of my properties dropped 10 points from one assessment to the next. How is that even possible? Work is being recommended in EPCs that we have no legal right to carry out especially in leasehold, listed or conservation area properties. In recent years mortgage rates for portfolio landlords have become much higher than for inexperienced landlords. How is that in any way beneficial for tenants or lenders? A portfolio landlord is more likely to be aware of and comply with housing law and far less likely to suddenly decide being a landlord wasn't quite as easy as they thought and sell up thereby making their tenants homeless. If a landlord has one property and the tenant doesn't pay the lender has a problem. If a portfolio landlord has a tenant who doesn't pay they can usually cover the mortgage on that property from elsewhere in their portfolio. It makes no sense that we are being treated as high risk. Or is it just blatant profiteering by the lenders? The fact it is done on the number of mortgages not the overall level of borrowing or portfolio LTV makes no sense. We need a retirement exit route. A great many of us bought 20 years ago when taper relief existed with the intention of selling up when we wanted to retire. BTL was an alternative to a conventional pension without the benefit of tax relief. The abolition of taper relief has left us with a problem. If we sell we pay astronomical amounts of CGT, the remaining money goes into our estate and if we die too soon (before we have spent it or given it away) gets hit with IHT as well. If we don't sell we never get to retire. We have already paid huge amounts of SDLT when we buy, VAT on just about everything and income tax on our profit. As that profit is classed as unearned income we have been prevented from paying it into a pension and enjoying the tax relief people working in just about every other industry receive. A return of taper relief on the rate of CGT would probably be the best stimulus the industry could have while also providing long term stability for tenants. It would encourage younger landlords to buy and hold long term and allow older landlords to sell before infirmity or dementia kicks in thus creating huge amounts of SDLT and VAT on all the sales and transaction costs. Obviously we could have bought as a limited company and minimised the CGT issue but how many of us knew 20 years ago how the BTL thing was going to pan out? Most of us struggled to buy our first property, then managed to get a second one and then it snowballed. Every time we come up with a strategy the goal posts get moved.

From: Jo Westlake 29 November 2021 10:25 AM

No one actually knows how many properties are really in any EPC band. The EPC register only shows a report done on a specific day at some point in the last 10 years by an assessor who may or may not have been in any way competent. It is entirely possible that a different assessor would have come up with a score at least 10 points different. Three of my properties have had this situation. With no work being carried out between assessments one changed from F25 to G14. Another from D57 to E47 and another from E48 to D63. These discrepancies can only be because one or both assessor didn't do their job properly. Until there is consistency in the standard of assessment EPCs have very little credibility. While some landlords may be unwilling to make improvements other are more than happy to. Without consistency in the EPC scores or a full menu of improvements to choose from we're working completely blind. Also we are highly unlikely to pay for a new EPC until we absolutely have to so a great many properties showing as D or E will have already had sufficient improvements to put them at least one band higher.

From: Jo Westlake 25 November 2021 17:15 PM

All I can say is Bulb customers should consider themselves very, very fortunate. The rest of us have large credit balances still being held by other failed suppliers, have been dumped onto companies we wouldn't have chosen, had our tariff nearly doubled, have the new suppliers starting to demand payments and now find that as tax payers we are paying out to support Bulb customers enjoy a seamless transition to whatever the future energy market looks like. I include utilities for 8 HMOs and had supplies with PFP, Green, Avro, Symbio and Neon Reef. Not only have I got substantial credit balances on the accounts that were still live when the companies failed I also have credit balances and late payment fines on 4 accounts I shut several months ago. Plus an up front 3 month deposit that PFP were supposed to refund 6 months ago and for some reason never showed on my account, plus about £150 worth of referral bonus that Neon Reef never paid. So again I say lucky, lucky Bulb customers.

From: Jo Westlake 23 November 2021 07:21 AM

Until the EPC assessments are consistent landlords have no way of knowing what's best to do to improve their properties. Now most properties are on their second EPC the inconsistencies are very apparent. The first EPCs over 10 years ago made a list of recommendations to improve the EPC score. In a great many cases even if all those improvements have been carried out the EPC will still be several points lower than promised. Too many assumptions have been made. The original EPCs tended to assume insulation existed if the heating bills and general condition of the property indicated it probably did. The more recent assessments tend to assume it doesn't exist unless there is documentary or photographic evidence of it's existence. As much of it was installed several years before EPCs were invented by companies that no longer exist how are we supposed to provide the required evidence? Cutting inspection holes may be an option in some buildings but in others would be problematic especially if there is a suspicion asbestos may be present. It could also damage the performance of the insulation or the roof. The list of recommendations is often incomplete and totally bizarre. Several of mine recommend solid floor installation at a cost of £4000 to £6000 to increase the EPC by 1 point. They eventually get to solar photovoltaics at a cost of about £5000 which would increase the EPC by about 10 points. None of them suggest more loft insulation (even if they've said it only has 75mm) or installing a warm roof (when they've assumed the existing flat roof is uninsulated). We need a full menu of all options with exactly how many points each option is worth. Some of the recommended improvements can only be done if we evict our tenants, others cause minimal inconvenience such as a new roof or solar panels. We also need it to be illegal for assessors to change previously made assumptions without absolute proof that those assumptions were wrong. It shouldn't be down to us to spend thousands of pounds and potentially damage our properties to prove exactly how many millimetres of roof insulation exists just because the assessors have changed their minds.

From: Jo Westlake 22 November 2021 08:30 AM

Will money we have already spent on improving our EPCs be counted as part of the £10000 or will we have to spend another £10000 on top? For example I bought a flat last year with EPC G14 and have had double glazing, under floor insulation in part of it, low energy lighting and a Quantum night storage heater installed which has brought it up to a low D.

From: Jo Westlake 11 November 2021 13:58 PM

The goalposts keep moving. There is no consistency with EPC scores or the ability of assessors. The assessment algorithm has been changed hugely over the years. Even if you carry out all the recommendations on your original EPC it may not improve the score. One of mine was C73 in March 2011 when I bought it with potential to be C78 if it had low energy light bulbs, better heating controls and a new boiler. It now has all those things and the new EPC is still C73. Another one was D57 in December 2008 with potential to be C70 if I had cavity wall insulation, upgraded heating controls and a new boiler. In 2015 it was reassessed when I applied for subsidised cavity wall insulation and found to be E47. To get to C71 it's saying I need cavity wall insulation (done), floor insulation, new boiler (done), solar water heating and solar photovoltaic panels. Never mind the fact the roof is too small, overshadowed and oriented the wrong way for solar to be viable. It isn't suggesting far more practical measures such as upgraded heating controls or better dormer roof insulation even though it has assumed no roof or loft insulation whatsoever. It may be coincidence in my case but it seems to depend on who the assessor is linked to as to what improvements are recommended. Those who come via solar panel or subsidised insulation companies seem to recommend floor insulation and solar panels as the route to an improved EPC while more independent assessors seem to recommend replacing the boiler (unless it's only a couple of years old) or installing one if it's all electric. If gas boilers are going to be phased out the EPC needs to change on how it rates different types of electric heating. Why was Lot 20 brought in if the EPCs don't recognise it? There is a huge difference in a two bar electric fire with an on/ off switch and a modern electric heater with a timer, thermostat, 7 day programmer and app controls. Now this has become so important we need a full list of improvements to pick from and their impact on our EPC score. We need to be able to easily and freely contest the discrepancies between EPCs. We need a full explanation of why an EPC score has been downgraded including how many points each issue has dropped. Why in my first example after carrying out 5 points worth of improvements had my EPC not risen? What had caused it to lose 5 points elsewhere? Instead of assumptions regarding insulation we need alternatives such as how much the heating bills are. In an HMO where the landlord pays the bills and the tenants control the heating programmer it would be pretty safe to assume the roof is insulated if the bills aren't sky high.

From: Jo Westlake 10 November 2021 09:35 AM

The requirement of absolute proof needs to be changed. On the original EPCs around 13 years ago assessors tended to go with likely assumptions especially for roof insulation. Now because they are terrified of being audited they insist on unreasonable levels of proof. For example two of my houses have flat roofs. The original EPCs assumed they had some insulation. The most recent EPCs assume no insulation. One of them was replaced by the Council sometime in the 1980s so we have no idea how much insulation was put in then. We had the felt replaced in 2004 with EPDM and 25mm of Celotex was added on top of the old roof then. No idea why it was only 25mm but it was what the roofer recommended. I have vague memories of him taking up a small piece of the roof deck and checking what was under it but nothing was put in writing. The other one has 120mm of Celotex on it. I have photos of it being installed and a Building Control certificate saying it conforms to the required standards in 2014. Because BC didn't mention the thickness of Celotex, the invoice doesn't mention the thickness and the roofer wasn't holding a tape measure when he took the photos the EPC assumes the roof is uninsulated. Same problem with underfloor insulation and internal wall insulation. It often exists but we don't have written or photographic evidence of exactly how much or which products were used. Now EPC scores are so crucial should we be looking at suing assessors when they make incorrect assumptions? Previously it was just annoying, now their errors could cost us a fortune.

From: Jo Westlake 05 November 2021 08:11 AM

Until there is consistency in the EPC assessments it's all meaningless. I bought a renovation project a couple of years ago with an EPC of F25. I got my regular assessor to come round to advise on how best to improve the EPC and he started by carrying out his own assessment which came out to be G14. How is it even possible for the result to be so different? One of my HMOs was assessed in 2008 and deemed to be D57. The recommendations said if I installed cavity wall insulation, better heating controls and a new boiler it would be C70. I applied for subsidised cavity wall insulation in 2015. To get the subsidy they started by doing a new EPC which came out at E47. Again how is it possible for two assessors to disagree so much?The recommendations said to get to C71 I would need cavity wall insulation, insulation for the solid ground floor, a new boiler, solar water heating and solar photovoltaic panels. I have no idea how that property scores right now as it seems to be a complete waste of money paying for such inconsistent flawed assessments. To do the floor insulation would probably mean evicting or temporarily rehousing 6 tenants. I had it assessed for solar and was told the roof was too small, over shadowed and oriented the wrong way. It is still on the register as E47. However, since 2008 it has had cavity wall insulation, a new roof with up to date levels of insulation, a new boiler and new heating controls. Around the country there must be tens of thousands of properties that have had loads of improvements since the last EPC assessment was carried out but haven't had a new assessment done yet. Who is going to shell out another £50+ for a bit of paper saying they have done enough of the recommendations on their EPC when there is a risk a new assessment will knock a few more points off the score and recommend even more outlandish work is carried out?

From: Jo Westlake 04 November 2021 09:05 AM

If the EPC assessments were in any way accurate rather than being full of assumptions I would agree with the above comments. However, the reality is that assumptions are made and change from one EPC to the next. An ex Council House we own has a flat roof which the Council replaced at some point before my husband bought it. The EPC 10 years ago assumed it was insulated. The one this year assumes it's uninsulated. We don't know which assumption is correct and the Council don't seem to know either. If the roof is uninsulated the house is D. If it's insulated it's C. A thermal imaging drone should resolve that specific situation.

From: Jo Westlake 23 October 2021 12:46 PM

If EPCs were consistent and credible it would help. Ten years ago it was assumed the flat roof on one of my houses was insulated. This year it's assumed it isn't. I don't know for sure how much insulation is in it and it would be very invasion to find out. Another EPC said the cavity walls were uninsulated even though the drill holes were clearly visible. Another one was a renovation project with an EPC of F25. My regular assessor came round to advise on how best to improve it and started by carrying out his own assessment. He made it G14. How is such a big difference even possible?

From: Jo Westlake 22 October 2021 20:21 PM

The danger of this idea is that low income families with low paid dead end jobs (commonly known as essential workers) and UC top ups would work as little as possible or stop working to ensure that they were deemed to be poor enough to qualify for social housing. Once in their social housing they would do sufficiently little to ensure they stayed poor enough to retain the house. A better idea would be for social rents to be at least LHA level. The security of tenure alone means it's probably worth more than that and on new builds should be midway between LHA and market rent as the utility bills will be lower. Then social housing providers could afford to buy or build more housing. It wouldn't matter what someone's earnings were. There wouldn't be a disincentive to take promotions or apply for better jobs. People earning decent money shouldn't get subsidised rent but equally they shouldn't face eviction just because they work hard. The retirement market is a different ballgame and there is a desperate need for subsidised retirement social housing. That alone would free up significant amounts of family size social housing.

From: Jo Westlake 19 October 2021 11:51 AM

For new build properties I can see that heat pumps or district heating schemes at least theoretically make sense. For older properties the cost of retro fitting and upgrading floor and wall insulation sufficiently is huge. In leasehold properties it will often be impossible as the freeholder won't give consent. If the insulation has to be upgraded anyway wouldn't a combination of modern night storage heaters and highly controllable Lot 20 electric heaters plus a well insulated hot water cylinder make more sense as a retro fit for small to medium size properties? The installation costs would be a fraction of the cost of a heat pump installation. Used properly the running costs wouldn't be much higher than a gas system if all costs of a gas system are factored in (standing charge, gas boiler servicing and repairs, boiler replacement every 12 years). The historic problems with night storage heaters have largely been resolved. Originally people installed too many in the wrong rooms in uninsulated houses with massive single glazed windows. A Quantum night storage heater in the lounge and possibly one in the hallway plus timed thermostatically controlled heaters in other rooms and large low wattage towel radiators in the bathroom and kitchen would be a reasonable set up. I have similar set ups in 3 of my properties and as long as the night storage heaters are used properly the other heaters only come on for a few minutes now and then.

From: Jo Westlake 19 October 2021 11:20 AM

Using a credit card gives Section 75 protection against faulty goods or workmanship. It may also give loyalty points or cashback.

From: Jo Westlake 13 October 2021 11:19 AM

How are landlords supposed to know how much their tenants earn? We might know how much they earned before they moved in if we referenced them but that's likely to be distant history.

From: Jo Westlake 28 September 2021 10:46 AM

Arrears should have massively reduced. The LHA level was increased so it actually came close to fully covering some rents. Low paid essential workers worked as many hours as they wanted throughout the pandemic and in some cases had pay rises or bonuses to reflect their efforts. Anyone furloughed could both receive their furlough pay and go and get another job in a supermarket, warehouse, etc so be on double pay. Everything was shut so there were limited opportunities to waste money.

From: Jo Westlake 14 September 2021 09:59 AM

There is very little correlation between EPC ratings and energy bills. It's far more down to the willingness of the tenants to engage with understanding the heating controls and the importance of ventilation. A property I have with an EPC of E with a night storage heater in the hallway, an old gas fire in the lounge and electric (timed and thermostatic) heaters in bedrooms and bathrooms has far lower bills than some of my EPC B rated properties. That's purely because the tenants understand how best to use the various different heat sources to best effect.

From: Jo Westlake 03 September 2021 18:14 PM

The main things tenants are interested in are location and how much the rent is. Living in a house that is close to work, family and chosen leisure activities will do far more for their carbon footprint than a few extra points on an EPC. Learning how to use their heating programmer and the importance of ventilation would save them a noticeable amount of money.

From: Jo Westlake 02 September 2021 10:48 AM

It's hard enough to find properties where the rent can be sufficient to satisfy the lenders mortgage stress testing requirements. We often have to put in 40% or 50% deposits to make the numbers work for the lender.

From: Jo Westlake 02 September 2021 08:39 AM

Homeowners who install EPC friendly stuff in their own homes have a financial cost and suffer some inconvenience while the work is being done. How can it be done in tenanted properties with no installation inconvenience?

From: Jo Westlake 17 August 2021 13:34 PM

The EPC assessors are a huge problem. I bought a renovation property last year that had had an EPC so it could be sold. That assessor scored it as F24. My regular assessor came round to advise on how best to get it to an acceptable standard and started by doing an assessment. He made it G14. How is it even possible for that great a difference?

From: Jo Westlake 16 August 2021 21:14 PM

I'm always surprised by the tariffs tenants choose. Very few seem to change supplier or switch to a new deal when the original one runs out. Some refuse to use direct debits and often end up paying about £300 more than they could. The few who do change supplier often go with one they have used previously regardless of how much they charge.

From: Jo Westlake 28 June 2021 20:18 PM

Breaking News