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

Barry's  Personal Profile View my company profile

icon
Barry James
3255  Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Barry's Recent Activity

Barry James
In this case of listed buildings, I expect energy efficiency improvements will only be a requirement where they do not alter or adversely affect the character of the building.

From: Barry James 28 February 2020 15:21 PM

Barry James
A fairly simple way to improve the energy efficiency of owner-occupied stock would be to require sellers to bring the EPC rating of their property up to a minimum level, say E, before sale can complete.

From: Barry James 28 February 2020 09:37 AM

Barry James
What were you expecting?

From: Barry James 13 February 2020 09:43 AM

Barry James
It's hard not to think that agents brought this upon themselves by charging exorbitant fees for simple admin tasks.

From: Barry James 06 February 2020 09:40 AM

Barry James
If landlords cannot bring the EPC rating up to an E rating within a £3,500 spend then they are able to apply for a "high cost exemption". This should be achievable in most cases, if not then sell the property. Nobody has to be a landlord.

From: Barry James 10 January 2020 14:46 PM

Barry James
I think the financial penalties above apply to commercial property. For residential property, the total fine for non-compliance is capped at £5000.

From: Barry James 09 January 2020 09:28 AM

Barry James
That's ridiculous.

From: Barry James 03 January 2020 15:54 PM

Barry James
As Martin says above, I'm pretty sure this would be a survey of HMOs tenants rather than single household lets. If all your tenant pays for is a room in shared house then it's reasonable to expect that issues concerning utilities and problems in common areas are handled by the landlord.

From: Barry James 13 December 2019 13:53 PM

Barry James
Good proposal, if we need to increase the energy efficiency of our homes (and quickly) the government should provide some incentive.

From: Barry James 04 December 2019 09:37 AM

Barry James
While the numbers of landlords in certain constituencies might be enough to swing a vote, that assumes every landlord votes for the same party, it won't happen. On top of that, none of the political parties are shouting about making things easier for landlords but instead making things better for tenants. That basically makes whether you're a landlord or not a fairly minor consideration in deciding how you're going to vote.

From: Barry James 03 December 2019 10:22 AM

Barry James
That's pretty much all the main political parties then!

From: Barry James 21 November 2019 11:01 AM

Barry James
The example given in this article isn't particularly helpful or representative of most renters circumstances. The average UK house price is around £230k, not £600k, and the average UK rent is around £900-£1000 outside of London, even in London average rent is closer to £1700 a month. The average renter isn't paying £3900 a month and if they are it's more likely to be because it suits them n rather than out of necessity.

From: Barry James 13 November 2019 10:24 AM

Barry James
This seems to be something a lot of people aren't thinking about or are choosing to ignore. I would bet a good proportion of people in the private rented sector are going to become unstuck once they reach retirement age and no longer have an income that can pay the rent and other bills. I don't doubt some renters are happy with their living situation but come retirement I'd far sooner be a homeowner.

From: Barry James 23 October 2019 10:58 AM

Barry James
Renters in Germany have far greater protections than those in the UK. An example of that is the very well defined criteria for which landlords may evict tenants, there is no Section 21 equivalent in Germany. The prospect of losing Section 21 is something UK landlords are currently losing their mind over. On that basis comparing the German and the UK rented sector isn't really helpful.

From: Barry James 21 October 2019 09:32 AM

Barry James
It may ignore maintenance costs, building insurance etc but the truth is that rent is basically dead money, whereas mortgage payments are akin to savings. A home-owner can sell up if they should want their money from the house, and if they manage to pay off the mortgage they essentially have free housing and dramatically improved disposable income. You can't say the same of someone who's spent a life renting. I'm not trying to say that renting is the worse option but if you look at it on the basis I've set out I think it's obvious which one most people would prefer.

From: Barry James 18 October 2019 09:45 AM

Barry James
The problem started with Right to Buy which inevitably led a reduction in the availability of social housing. In turn that led to private landlords being able to make a business model out of letting to people in receipt of DSS/Housing Benefit. The problem being that people are suited to social tenants are often not ideally suited to the private rented sector. I don't know why none of the major political parties haven't recognized this, with Labour proposing to extend it even further! Scrap Right to Buy entirely, allow Council's to start building their own stock again, in massive scale, and you start to deal with the shortage of housing and over dependence on the private rented sector.

From: Barry James 01 October 2019 09:23 AM

Barry James
I think this a rather rose tinted view of what's actually happening and doubt many retirees actually choose to move into renting from home ownership. I suspect many of the retirees who have found themselves renting were already doing so and have no other option. If it's about freeing up cash why not downsize to a one bed flat or similar? I personally think renting in retirement is a somewhat unenviable position to be in.

From: Barry James 12 September 2019 09:52 AM

Barry James
VAT on renovation works on properties empty for 2 years plus can be reduced to 5%, not to be sniffed at!

From: Barry James 11 September 2019 15:05 PM

Barry James
The Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 apply because 4 unrelated sharers would constitute the property being an HMO.

From: Barry James 10 September 2019 15:08 PM

Barry James
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. An HMO is dwelling occupied by 3 or more persons forming 2 or more households where there is sharing of facilities. So with your 4 unrelated sharers you have an HMO, the type and amount of tenancies is irrelevant. In terms of operating an HMO there isn't really much difference between having less than 5 or more than 5 unrelated occupiers apart from the requirement to have an HMO licence, either way the landlord still needs to comply with local HMO standards, Management Regs, and fire safety requirements. As I mentioned previously, the HMO Management Regs apply even if mandatory HMO licencing does not. These Regs place a duty on the manager to keep the property well maintained and in good repair. This is where the requirement for additional fire safety measures stems from. All HMOs are different as is the the level of risk from fire in each, but generally speaking a standard two storey house let by the room, would be required to have a mains-wired interlinked system, thumb turn locks on bedroom and final exit doors etc. See the Lacors National Fire Safety Guidance. A two bed flat on one level is obviously different to a 2 storey 4 bedroom house in terms of fire risk so this is maybe why you've not had to upgrade anything so far. That's not to say it wouldn't be recommended though, battery operated smoke alarms are far more prone to tampering/technical failure than mains wired systems with battery back-up. Going back to your "bog standard 4 bed house", if you're converting it from family house to let by the room/HMO, it most definitely will require certain improvement/upgrades. With regard to Council Tax if you can get 4 unrelated sharer's on one AST then perhaps you can get them to pay Council Tax, but if you have people coming and going on individual contracts then typically the landlord is liable.

From: Barry James 10 September 2019 15:04 PM

Barry James
I'd suggest it's a bit more complex than you've suggested. The HMO Management Regulations would apply even if mandatory HMO licencing does not. Operating a house even as a small HMO would require mains a wired interlinked smoke alarm system be installed among carrying out other fire safety measures. In addition Local Authorities could enforce their local HMO standards which apply minimum room sizes, sharing ratios etc. Local Authority Building Control departments may also stipulate improvements be made in terms of noise insulation if rooms are let individually rather than the property as a whole. All the above of course depends on Local Authority actually becoming aware of the property being let by the room and that might not happen, but why take a chance?

From: Barry James 10 September 2019 13:59 PM

Barry James
In fairness ownership is better than renting for the vast majority. For arguments sake, say you lived in a house you rented for 30 years and decided to live somewhere else after that point, you're basically starting over with nothing to show for it. On the other hand if you lived a property you owned for 30 years, hopefully you've paid off the mortgage, saved the disposable income after having paid off the mortgage, and also benefited from rising value in the property. You're significantly more comfortable in retirement and can always downsize to unlock some cash if that's what you want. I can't see that there's an argument for renting unless it's because you don't have any other options or that you need the flexibility to move at short notice.

From: Barry James 29 July 2019 15:50 PM

Barry James
Saying Cooper was the best based on the amount of houses built during her tenure is nonsense. The amount of houses built will depend on planning policy, state of the economy, and countless other things the Housing Minster at the time will have no to little control over. The economy from 2005-2008 was relatively strong right up until the collapse. If anything the amount of houses built during a certain Housing Ministers tenure is probably more attributable to those who were in post before them years before them.

From: Barry James 11 July 2019 10:22 AM

Barry James
What's quite funny in this is that Berlin doesn't want to end up like London, who in turn doesn't want to end up like Berlin. To what extent the Berlin property market is in "meltdown" is yet to be seen. The rent freeze was approved yesterday so I think using words like meltdown is sensationalizing the story. Germany have far stronger controls on the private rented sector and seemingly less problems, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

From: Barry James 19 June 2019 11:50 AM

Barry James
Tenant fee ban ‘clearly designed to shift the costs to landlords’. Unless I'm mistaken I thought that was entirely the point. I think the problem stemmed from a greedy minority of lettings agents who tried to make as much from tenant fees as they could, had they kept it things reasonable the fees ban probably wouldn't have been deemed necessary. The thing a lot of people seem to ignore is that lettings agents primarily work for landlords not tenants, on that basis it's understandable that they're fees should come out of the rent rather than the tenant in the form of fees.

From: Barry James 06 June 2019 09:43 AM

Barry James
It's a difficult one, the highest earners already pay higher levels of income tax so it'd be unfair to hit those people again with a local income tax, essentially taxing them twice. The actual cost of waste collection, policing, libraries etc is the same for each person so it'd be unfair to charge high earners more for local services, it could be argued they're the people less likely to use them as they're more likely to have private health care, educate their children privately etc. As it stands properties with higher bands are typically larger (usually more people living in them) hence they pay more than smaller properties like one bed flats, which seems fair enough. What does seem unfair to me though is that a Band D property in W8 (Kensington) is charged £1200 Council Tax despite on average being worth £3 million, whereas a Band D in Portland, Dorset DT5, worth on average £210k, is charged almost £2000. I'm aware my argument to some degree contradicts itself but it seems fairer to me to base charges on property worth rather than size, or its owners earnings. In any event it'll be a long time before things change, labour will never get in with Corbyn at the helm and the Tories won't risk overhauling the system for fear of further alienating their core voters.

From: Barry James 05 June 2019 10:23 AM

Barry James
Every measure introduced that leads to increased rents (Removal of 10% wear and tear allowance, Clause 24, Tenants fees ban etc,) will eventually lead to rent control. This in my opinion is almost inevitable now, it's just a case of when.

From: Barry James 30 May 2019 09:17 AM

Barry James
What about windturbines? The sooner we're able to wean ourselves off of energy/fuel imports , especially those coming from the middle east, the better!

From: Barry James 21 May 2019 10:19 AM

Barry James
From what I've seen equity release is usually terrible, the T&Cs pretty much guarantee there's nothing left after the property owner had died, so unless they aren't worried about leaving an inheritance it's probably best avoided. The upside of course is that they at least get to remain in their home. The idea of renting in retirement whilst may in financial terms make more sense than equity release, comes with the inherent lack of long term security. Who really want's to move more than once in retirement? Downsizing would seem in my mind at least to have the best of both, long term security in your own home whilst freeing up capital to do with as you please.

From: Barry James 21 May 2019 09:59 AM

Barry James
Hardly surprising given the rise in house prices when compared to wage growth. Whilst renting in old age isn't in itself a problem, I think the main problem will be that once those renting require care in old age they'll have little to nothing in savings to pay for it, which will inevitably mean it falls on the state to pick up the bill. Whereas those who own their home typically end up paying through charges placed on their home by the local authority adult social care. Once this becomes a big enough problem for the state, which it will, I believe we'll see much higher or new forms of taxation to cover old age care.

From: Barry James 17 May 2019 10:15 AM

Barry James
I think the point is that Letting Agents work for landlords so it follows that the fees for the letting agents work should land back with the landlord, rather than the tenant.

From: Barry James 13 May 2019 10:34 AM

Barry James
You're probably making a number of valid points no doubt based on years of experience as a landlord. Unfortunately though because you have a tendency to make each sentence a paragraph, it's actually quite difficult to read and follow your posts without quite quickly losing interest.

From: Barry James 29 April 2019 16:53 PM

Barry James
I think anyone willing to pay £1900 a month for a single room probably needs to get their head checked!

From: Barry James 16 April 2019 09:14 AM

Barry James
I think the main problem will be landlords who aren't suitably informed and who don't want to fall foul or right to rent rules will just stop renting to anyone who isn't English. This is happening to some degree already. Apart from that I think some of the other issues arising from Brexit is that eventually eastern Europeans will start returning home will which have some affect on rental demand. A knock on effect of that is that it may also become more difficult to find tradesmen (builders, decorators, plumbers, electricians etc). The pound has lost so much value since the referendum working in the UK simply isn't worth what it used to be, goodness knows how much further it'll fall after the UK actually leaves the EU altogether.

From: Barry James 08 April 2019 12:06 PM

Barry James
The idea that a third party should be able to arbitrarily set service charges so high as to actually make a a profit out of doing so is disgusting. The sooner leasehold is reformed the better.

From: Barry James 26 March 2019 09:32 AM

Barry James
Why earth is she renting? I'll never understand why someone with that degree of wealth wouldn't own their own home!

From: Barry James 11 March 2019 11:32 AM

Barry James
My guess is that everyone is perfectly aware that this will end up pushing up rents, for most renters though this is probably still easier and preferable than having to stump up hundreds of pounds worth of "fees" in one hit.

From: Barry James 29 January 2019 10:51 AM

Barry James
There seems to be a misconception that once a landlord sells a property, it vanishes completely. The reality is the Wilson's properties will either be bought by owner-occupiers or other landlords. Yes there may be some temporary disruption for any the tenants in these properties, but landlords (especially those like the Wilson's) exiting the market is hardly a tragedy.

From: Barry James 15 January 2019 09:33 AM

Barry James
I don't see how this this landlord can really complain if he's denied a licence, he's shown himself to be a nasty piece of work and really only has himself to blame for all this. In any event I'm sure he could find a letting agent/property manager to hold a licence on his behalf.

From: Barry James 14 January 2019 09:32 AM

Barry James
"Imagine if home owners suddenly had to pay tax on the interest on their mortgage? " Home-owners don't buy their property as investments or to operate as a business's though, comparing the two as like for like would be failing to understand why section 24 was introduced.

From: Barry James 31 December 2018 14:45 PM

Barry James
Sharing the festive spirit there Robert!

From: Barry James 18 December 2018 09:24 AM

Barry James
In terms of targeting the votes it makes sense and in that regard is unsurprising, there are more people renting than there are landlords and when it comes to votes you go for numbers. Most people care very little about landlords and probably think if you own more than one property you're probably doing OK. What is surprising however is that given the proportion of MPs who are themselves landlords, how far they've gone to make being a landlord less of an attractive investment.

From: Barry James 05 December 2018 09:35 AM

Barry James
The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and The Housing Act 2004 (HHSRS) would be two for a start though I would be there are more.

From: Barry James 26 November 2018 17:16 PM

Barry James
Deserved the fine but I'm not sure about £60k in costs, I'd be interested to see how that's broken down.

From: Barry James 23 October 2018 09:09 AM

Barry James
Just consider the state this house probably would have been in, 23 people using one kitchen and maybe only one bathroom, it'd be horrendous. I can't imagine anyone would live in such conditions unless it was their only option. Whether the Local Authority have to rehouse these people is irrelevant, the outcome of not doing so could have been far worse. The landlord here has been profiting from exploitation and flagrant disregard of the law, I'd suggest a fine of £7500 was still probably getting off lightly.

From: Barry James 18 October 2018 17:15 PM

Barry James
It's probably surprising how many people in private rented (students especially) do vote, I recall conservative seats being lost in university towns in the last election and that being attributed to student voters. As you've said though, if the government were able to ensure enough new homes were being built they probably wouldn't need to give landlords such as a hard time whilst keeping everyone else happy.

From: Barry James 11 October 2018 09:40 AM

Barry James
I think the this new landlords association are mostly the same guys that that crowdfunded a challenge of section 24 in court, and subsequently failed. I can't see how launching a new landlord association is really going to achieve anything. My bet is that landlords are simply going to have to tough out section 24 or sell up and be done with it. Only when there's a concrete and indisputable evidence that renters have been harmed will section 24 be reviewed, there's simply too much money in it for the government, and realistically most people don't worry too much about landlords financial woes. As for this new associations proposals, you've more chance of touching the moon than seeing five year council tax holidays for first time buyers paid for by "council efficiencies" being introduced. If this new landlord association wants to be taken seriously they'll have to come up with some credible proposals.

From: Barry James 09 October 2018 09:31 AM

Barry James
I'm minded to agree that this is more about winning votes and pandering to those that might have supported labour. All this will achieve is a change in tenure from private rented to owner occupied. It doesn't increase supply or make houses more affordable any more than help to buy did, all that achieved was probably to increase house prices and prop up the market. There needs to be a massive increase in house building, and a good deal of those new builds need to be Council and Housing Association properties. That might go some way toward easing demand (cost to rent & house prices) in the private rented sector and the open market.

From: Barry James 08 October 2018 15:07 PM

Barry James
I think it's inevitable that as houses become less and less affordable to young people leaving renting as the only realistic option, that legislation will become tougher on landlords and more protective of tenants. This is the way things are in Germany and other European countries where for the most part life long renting is fairly standard.

From: Barry James 03 September 2018 10:20 AM

Barry James
I don't necessarily think you need to have any specific electrical qualification to visually inspect a house. For the most part you'll be looking for anything untoward like cracks and scorch marks on the consumer unit, sockets, light fittings and switches.

From: Barry James 17 August 2018 15:42 PM

Barry James
In my opinion insurance schemes aren't likely to provide the same level of incentive to tenants to look after the properties they're renting. They'll never receive the money back and in any event the they'll consider that the landlord is covered by the insurance if they do neglect or willfully damage the property. Whereas if you've a significant sum of your own money at stake you're likely to do what it takes to ensure you get it back.

From: Barry James 14 August 2018 09:56 AM

Barry James
If a tenants has left belongings in a property I think you have to give them a reasonable amount of time to collect them and then advise what'll happen after that period has elapsed. What's reasonable is open to interpretation but 21 days is apparently a good starting point. Sounds to me like the landlord in this story got off light, letting yourself into a tenants home and burning their possessions is an appalling thing to do, arrears or not!

From: Barry James 09 August 2018 14:37 PM

Barry James
Bill Wood, I was actually referring to the headline (which has now been changed) that said drugs with a value of £60 million had been found, whereas the body of the text says £60,000.

From: Barry James 08 August 2018 14:04 PM

Barry James
Looks like this story slipped passed the proof reader!

From: Barry James 08 August 2018 09:05 AM

Barry James
I would have assumed the point of raising the allowance from £4500 to £7500 was to reflect an increase in rents. At a £4500 tax free allowance, most resident landlords would probably end up paying some tax if they let a spare room for 12 months of the year, and even having to pay a little might have be enough to deter some. That could have been considered counterproductive when at least one point of providing a tax free allowance was to free up unused spare rooms in peoples houses. I don't see that S.24 and the Rent A Room allowance are in way related or connected, S.24 being a separate matter entirely. In my opinion a resident landlord ought to be able to let a spare room in their home in any way they see fit, should their income from doing so exceed £7500 then they should pay tax on it, if not carry on as usual. All the government has achieved here is to over-complicate things and muddy the water.

From: Barry James 01 August 2018 16:18 PM

Barry James
I think you're right Fred, I thought this is how all the recent regulatory changes would play out. The much smaller and less resilient landlords would cash in their chips and call it a day, and the landlords with more purchasing power and capacity to weather the storm would remain and become larger players in private rented sector. As I've said before, houses don't cease to exist once a landlord decides to sell up. Those houses will either be bought by another landlord or by an owner occupier. No net loss or gain in housing stock, just a possible change in tenure.

From: Barry James 26 July 2018 17:31 PM

Barry James
Now there's a story in stark contrast to a lot of recent reports of landlords exiting the market and forcing tenants to compete for the remaining private rented stock!

From: Barry James 24 July 2018 11:17 AM

Barry James
Anyone heading up a department whether that be, housing, health, or anything else ought really to have a background and be an authority in it. Simply parachuting an MP who has no experience and isn't going to be there long enough to gain any isn't going to accomplish anything. Roles as important as these really need to be given to experts who're going to be there in long term so they're be able to see out medium term goals, rather than just make headline grabbing statements. In my opinion the only way this can be achieved is depoliticizing the issue, take it away from the MPs and appointing an expert, much in the same the Bank of England has a governor who's usually in post for 8 years, rather than a year or less.

From: Barry James 10 July 2018 09:33 AM

Barry James
Terry - Yes but in only in certain circumstances such as the borrower falling into arrears or selling the house, not just because the lender suddenly feels like calling in the loan.

From: Barry James 06 July 2018 10:01 AM

Barry James
I personally don't have a problem with this, if anything it seemed inevitable anyway. Imagine if your mortgage provider were allowed to terminate your contract at their discretion and ask you to leave, it's in the same vein. As Gary said above though, if S.21 is scrapped there'll have to be a new notice. In Germany the grounds for eviction are restricted to: breaking the contract, missing 2 months of rent, subletting without permission, and damage to the interior etc. Implementing something similar here would make sense to me.

From: Barry James 06 July 2018 09:21 AM

Barry James
With respect, I doubt the vast majority of landlords actually have buy to let properties in a condition or location people would want to holiday in.

From: Barry James 04 July 2018 16:13 PM

Barry James
I'll probably get shot down for this but there wouldn't have to be a minimum term if the government scrapped section 21 (no fault) evictions. Instead if they set out strict criteria for ending a tenancy (e.g. serious rent arrears, flagrant breach of contract, genuinely needing the property back to move into, selling the property etc) most tenancies would probably happily roll on until their natural end.

From: Barry James 02 July 2018 11:35 AM

Barry James
"The National Landlords Association (NLA) has criticised the government’s proposal for longer contracts, describing the plan as a “political move aimed at the renter vote” That's not criticism, that's stating the obvious!

From: Barry James 02 July 2018 09:21 AM

Barry James
Or there isn't enough demand in the midlands perhaps, put those houses in the South East and I'd bet they'd sell soon enough. There are more factors involved in buying a house than simply finding one that's affordable. I expect there are landlords who could buy entire terraces in the welsh valleys or parts of Liverpool, I doubt you'd be able to find many that'd want to though.

From: Barry James 26 June 2018 14:05 PM

Barry James
A £2600 fine seems pretty paltry for renting out a shed. The landlord probably made more than that from rent, hardly a deterrent!

From: Barry James 22 June 2018 09:25 AM

Barry James
If there's evidence to suggest selective licencing doesn't work then this obviously needs to be reviewed. Minimum bedroom sizes should however be enforced, otherwise there'll be a race to the bottom with unscrupulous landlords putting up partition walls wherever possible and trying to cram in as many tenants as they can. If you consider that most HMO tenants will have all their worldly belongings in their bedroom, an absolute minimum 6.5sq meters shouldn't be too much to ask.

From: Barry James 21 June 2018 11:31 AM

Barry James
Agreed, for some people, especially young professionals, home ownership isn't going to suit when a degree of flexibility is needed. I'd disagree that we're following the German model however. The German model offers far more protection to tenants by prescribing very strict criteria for ending a tenancy, there's no equivalent to S.21. Additionally, I believe there are rules concerning rent increases which link them to inflation. More people tend to rent in Germany because the protections offered to tenants have led to far more stable and secure tenancies which allow people to stay in the same place longer. To say that we're following German model because more people are renting is a bit misleading, I think the reality a lot of renters are essentially locked out of the market by high house prices. There'd be uproar from UK landlords if the government proposed to adopt the German model and give tenants here the same protection they have in Germany.

From: Barry James 20 June 2018 09:48 AM

Barry James
It'll be interesting to see how S.24 pans out. Whilst increasing rent to cover increasing costs is perfectly logical the reality is that a lot of renters are already at the limit of what they can afford. Of course landlords can find new tenants able to tolerate increased rents but my guess is this approach can only go so far, and that eventually the market rather than landlords will start dictating how far rent increases can go.

From: Barry James 07 June 2018 10:20 AM

Barry James
Isn't this stating the obvious. It's like saying insurance companies may have to pay out in the event of an accident. I think most people are perfectly aware what being a guarantor entails.

From: Barry James 07 June 2018 09:22 AM

Barry James
This is the first time I've heard of referencing companies, and to me it sounds like another money spinner. Why would anyone pay a third party to arrange referencing when they could provide their own credit check, proof of income, and references from previous landlords, letting agents, and employers?

From: Barry James 15 May 2018 11:33 AM

Barry James
It not always going to be that simple though. If you rent a room in shared house then you can probably moved out in a day without too much hassle if your landlord is a problem, on the other hand if you've been renting a house in the long term you may have your kids enrolled in the local school and you'll have made it you're home so upping sticks isn't going to be a simple matter. When your in the latter position if the landlord is too cheap or can't be arsed to fix a leaking bath or toilet, it's going to be cheaper to pay for this yourself rather than moving and paying all the associated fees that go with it.

From: Barry James 08 May 2018 11:43 AM

Barry James
I doubt S.24 will be seen as a scandal by anyone other than buy to let landlords. Even if the private rented sector does implode I can't see there being any great degree of sympathy for the landlords. The housing crisis and cost of living will get worse before it gets better but what the vast majority of people will blame first is a shortage of housing and house building, and open door immigration. No one is going to care for the plight of landlords, as you say this is a business, very few are actually doing it for the good of their tenants or wider altruistic motives.

From: Barry James 26 April 2018 16:40 PM

Barry James
The "what about Grenfell Tower?" comments that follow every report about measures to tackle rogue landlords are getting pretty tiresome and to be honest I think are way off of the mark. 99.9% of landlords won't ever have to worry about civil penalties and property confiscation, these measures are about targeting the worst of the worst, the landlords who were never in it to do things legally or safely. I don't why anyone should feel threatened by measures that target this type of landlord.

From: Barry James 23 April 2018 14:39 PM

Barry James
I'd agree that for people in their 20s renting probably is going to be the right way to go, as you say, your're not tied down anywhere for longer than a month and have the flexibilty required to move away to a new job if that's what you want/need. The problem is that high house prices will be affecting people well into their 30s when they've already had their fill of re-locating and now have the steady job, family etc that makes renting less desirable. I can't see that anyone would really want to be paying rent when they could probably be paying less for a mortgage on the same property.

From: Barry James 20 April 2018 13:53 PM

Barry James
My guess is that there weren't written tenancy agreements. That being said if the occupiers were paying a given amount, at a regular interval, for use of the property, then they can be defined as tenants.

From: Barry James 17 April 2018 11:19 AM

Barry James
Several of the newspaper reports about this state the property was occupied by two families which would make it a HMO. That being said, being caught operating an unlicensed HMO probably isn't going to be the landlords main cause of concern here. The property owner is reportedly a high flying solicitor though the property was apparently managed by her father, it'll be interesting to see who's found who the HSE and Local Authority end up prosecuting.

From: Barry James 12 April 2018 15:15 PM

Barry James
Agreed, whilst it's important that the worst landlords are prevented from letting/managing property, tenants who trash property and disappear thousands of pounds in arrears also need to be held to account. I very much doubt there'll be any government assistance in creating a bad tenant database, perhaps this is something the main landlords (RLA, NLA, etc.) bodies can pitch in and work on.

From: Barry James 06 April 2018 10:02 AM

Barry James
If the Tory party were really interested in alleviating the Housing crisis they could start with scrapping Right to Buy. Vast amounts of money are lost through the huge discounts given to right to buy owners, who often end up selling, which inevitably leaves their property let at a vastly higher rate in the private rented sector. We know right to buy properties aren't being replaced one for one, the whole policy has been a detriment to the country and can only have been about winning votes. The next thing would be actually make the legislative changes that enables house building to take off again. This bit is simple, if you need more houses, build more. As for offering tax incentives for landlords, that's nothing more than tinkering with the tenure of the existing stock. Houses aren't vanishing in puffs of white smoke once their landlord owners sell them anymore than they're appearing out of thin air as soon as landlords feel confident enough to sign their next buy to let mortgage agreement. This is nothing more than a typical Tory politicising a national crisis to pander to traditional voters.

From: Barry James 04 April 2018 09:57 AM

Barry James
It's pieces like this that make the "see how good renting is" articles sound so ridiculous. The truth is unless you own your home you're totally at the mercy of your landlord and the market. I can't imagine anyone really wants to be renting after they've retired unless its a planned downsize into a retirement type community.

From: Barry James 28 March 2018 16:36 PM

Barry James
There was a housing crisis before Clause 24. It may be convenient to try finding a causal link between the two but I doubt it's there. The obvious way to ease a shortage of housing would be to build more houses. Who owns the existing stock, landlords or owner occupiers, is really neither here nor there.

From: Barry James 21 March 2018 16:15 PM

Barry James
Not sure I agree with your analysis. I think if someone can afford the market rent on the property they live, they could probably afford the mortgage payments. The big barrier to getting on the ladder is usually getting the deposit together. Yes a mortgage is a lot of debt but provided a person has a good credit score, they should be no more or less of a risk than a landlord. No doubt there are a lot of people for who aren't suited to buying their own homes, those that live in Council housing (now social housing). The big mistake was introducing right to buy . Council/social tenants are the people that need it least (they already have a secure tenancy) and can least afford it. Perhaps that a different debate.

From: Barry James 20 March 2018 10:39 AM

Barry James
I very much doubt the Conservatives will reverse themselves on S.24 as it'll only be seen as giving a tax break to the well-off (whether that's the case or not). Doing so would play straight into Labor's hands who've probably got an even more aggressive stance toward landlords, rent control etc. My guess would be that the tax and regulatory regime toward landlords will become even more unforgiving in time to come.

From: Barry James 08 March 2018 17:11 PM

Barry James
3 or more persons forming two or more separate households would be a House in Multiple Occupation. If there are just 2 unrelated occupiers that are not in a relationship this would not be a HMO.

From: Barry James 02 March 2018 10:49 AM

Barry James
The only people that could possibly have a problem with the local authority be able to ban and prosecute criminal landlords i.e. those letting sub-standard and dangerous accommodation, are probably criminal landlords themselves.

From: Barry James 12 January 2018 15:39 PM

Barry James
The difference is though you can sell your property (or properties) and and get your money back from the bank should you want to. Once you've paid the rent its gone.

From: Barry James 11 January 2018 14:43 PM

Barry James
Referring to every new cost to landlords as a tax is getting not only predictable but rather tiresome now. There's no way anybody could reasonably construe the cost of improving a cold and substandard home as a tax, this is about making rental properties comfortable and affordable to live. I think the NLA have done a massive disservice to renters, landlords, and the country as a whole here, surely it costs what it costs to bring a property up to the required minimum standard in terms of energy efficiency. To start wetting themselves now about the potential improvement costs is frankly ridiculous given that we've known about this since the Energy Act 2011 was passed. The effect of having a £2500 cap is only going to keep sub standard properties in the rental market that no longer belong there, so long as the owner has made some token effort to improve it. No doubt the fact one third of MPs are landlords made it easier for the NLA to successfully lobby for a reduced cost cap, and turn what could have been something beneficial for the country into something rather quite feeble.

From: Barry James 21 December 2017 09:46 AM

Barry James
And that's why the majority of people generally don't care about the plight of landlords.

From: Barry James 19 December 2017 09:41 AM

Barry James
“Many young people simply do not want the commitment of a 25-30 year loan." I've seen this so many times in various iterations and never backed up by a reference. Whilst there are no doubt people that need the flexibility of renting, why people like this try to make it look like they're in property to provide hard up millennials with homes is beyond me? How about just admitting that you're in it for the money and recent tax changes are affecting the bottom.

From: Barry James 24 November 2017 09:43 AM

Barry James
I think most Local Authorities will apply a discount for the first 6 months empty, then standard rate between 6-24 months empty, then after that long term empty premium kicks in at 150% or soon to be 200%. In most cases a renovation only need take 6 months at most so most people shouldn't have a problem there. If its a more extensive renovation then there are major works exemptions for Council Tax. Empty for 2 years plus is frankly disgraceful, if you can't get a property occupied in that time you're probably in the wrong business.

From: Barry James 23 November 2017 16:05 PM

Barry James
The fact that you suggest properties offloaded by private landlords will be bought up big housing corps supports my original point, "They'll be bought by the next landlord who can afford it". Whether this is a private landlord who can buy with cash and doesn't need to highly leverage themselves or a big housing corps is irrelevant. As I said, houses don't disappear once they cease to be in private rented tenure. If what we're concerned with is increasing housing supply then we need build more houses. What the article seems to be about though is pointing out what a hard time landlords are having lately, and trying to suggest that giving them a tax break is somehow going to fix a shortage of housing. It's simply not, the housing crisis existed before Clause 24, before an extra 3% on second homes, and before 10% wear and tear allowance was taken away.

From: Barry James 21 November 2017 12:03 PM

Barry James
"The market needs to increase not decrease the supply of housing and the only way to do that is to offer incentives to landlords." This suggests that reducing the number of houses in the private rented sector is some how reducing the supply of houses, which is a total nonsense. If landlords decide to sell properties, these properties don't vanish in a puff of smoke, nor do they sit empty in perpetuity. They'll be bought by the next landlord who can afford it, or by an owner occupier. In actual fact, the only way to increase the supply of housing, it to build more houses. Incentivising landlords to buy more properties or even just hang on to the ones they have is no more than tinkering with the tenure types of the existing stock.

From: Barry James 21 November 2017 10:47 AM

Barry James
Well, £4000 per offence which is probably less than what one room would generate over the course of a year in a HMO. No doubt it hurt but I expect it could be afforded considering the income they're getting. I don't want to stick to closely to my original analogy but being caught without a licence while driving would probably mean a 12 month ban, rather than points and a fine. Now there's something to consider as punishment for running an unlicensed HMO!

From: Barry James 13 October 2017 16:52 PM

Barry James
Not really though is it? If you drive a car without a licence you're committing an offence and no doubt receive a fine, it's the same principle.

From: Barry James 13 October 2017 15:21 PM

Breaking News
MovePal MovePal MovePal