Carryon Regardless

WE know CGT is taxable on, sale value - purchase price - purchase costs - development costs (pre rental) - proportions of other expenses on occasion - sale costs. So a fair bit of record keeping to demonstrate the deductions. We should keep records of our revenue expenses for 6 years + a bit. What records did you chaps have to produce to demonstrate your costs? How far back (as very often a property will be kept for longer than 6 years)?

So, the WRA, (Welsh Assembly), I have been informed by the T dictator who told me I must do w/o £170 of his rent, has informed me of a tenant loan scheme. There are criteria to be met but T applies for a loan, I need assist in the application (so sounds less speedy than might be) if passed it gets paid directly to me. T is charged at 1%, I have absolutely no responsibility of the loan. I'm rather surprised as it is actually designed to prevent / remove eviction action and not screw the LL. This doesn't address arrears as at 1st March, just arrears developed after that if Covid related. It would seem that those HB T's that are just failing to pay their top up won't be eligible. Still I have anticipation of seeing a £Grand that wasn't looking good. I don't know how the ongoing shortfall of this particular T will work out regarding any loan set up.

https://www.gov.uk/capital-gains-tax/report-and-pay-capital-gains-tax Report 'and pay' it seems, if after April 20. Sorry Mel, but me is just da messinger. That would suggest that re investing in another venture to 'defer' CGT no longer applies. It used to be that we may sell and reinvest the gain, within a period I don't remember but think 2 years, and transfer the CGT payable to the new venture. If however we have paid the tax man that gain we don't have it to reinvest.

I think the question might be asking how long you might need to live in a former BTL to avoid any CGT. If so, sorry I used to know the answer but things have changed and I've not kept up to date. What might be reasonable though is to consider values and any CGT at such time as the property changes from a 'Let' to your own home. However CGT is supposed to be declared within 30 days, or later on there might be penalties.

Some years ago I took a G'tor to court, Rhyl. The result was worse than you could imagine. The Judge worked it so the g'tor had half the claim awarded against him, and to pay at £20 per month starting 3 months on. The court no longer pursues unpaid awards, so with my limited knowledge I would be caused to return each month to get anything. Costs were not considered. I got nowt and had to pay more cash not to get it. Being told off for not respecting the court on a hot day as I attempted to remove my jacket was totally uncalled for. The G'tor turned up dressed as a vagrant. And nowadays the non sympathy for the LL is truly a joke.

Thanks for the rant Grampa, my forecast is to expect more of this cr*p. Especially from the Welsh Retard Assembly. 4 of my tenancies went into arrears, 3 HB and 1 not. The 'not' cired a wage reduction of 10% and reduced his rent, w/o any negotatiation so tenant dictated, by over 25%. He and his G'tor don't understand why I find that unreasonable. So i should take rent as deemed appropriate by the tenant, and when he wishes to pay it. So would this G'tor result in a favourable result in CC? To find out I must put great effort into making claim, especially if defended. There is risk that the cost of claim will be a further insult to the rent arrears. A sympathetic judge, in my view, would do all possible to relieve both T & G'tor of the unreasonable stress I am applying. Btw the G'tor paid £750,000 cash for his successful B&B property in 2007, and has other business revenues. They don't see issue as they state there are support packages and payment holidays in place, how nice of them to attempt to organise my financial situation to suit their needs. Do I gamble? Better to apply pressure for some settlement before the debt becomes beyond reach of recovery by the T. I also foresee a situation where T debt is going to be written off by legislation. No Gov't wants the responsibility of so many potential homeless bods. And if so many look to be undesirable T's what would LL's as a whole do to fill their tenancies anyway. I'm doing as I can to get as much dosh in. Where I thought CC was a reasonable option I'm no longer sure of that. Eviction, no point. Shelter will get hold of this, when they're operating again, and in the end we will lose out. But I am happy to assist the genuine cases, where it is affordable.

Seeing where the sympathy lies for me it's easy to see where the consideration will go. But, there are mortgage holidays for LL's, but I think they can come with additional charges and even affect credit history. Happy to be put right on that as I haven't researched for my own mortgages. There are some loan possibilities but again I have little 1st hand knowledge.The 'Bounce Back' i think is payment free for 12 months then interest at 2.5%, that loan can be 25% of turnover, I think. A LL friend told me he obtained £50K from Santander on one of the Covid schemes. Which I don't know, and I'm not sure he was completely factual in his application. I did read this week that HMRC are aware that they paid out too much in many cases for the self employment assistance, that doesn't apply to LL's anyway, and they don't intend to try and get it back. So maybe stretched truth loans will be free from threat of fraud. I can't see any Gov't wanting to take on ,000's of homeless people, far better for them that LL's go under. That at least would buy time before the mortgage companies want their properties back for auction. Who knows, would that give Local Authorities opportunity to offer humanitarian assistance to the needy T's and take the properties cheap?

Hang around the doggies neck, like a necklace. a bit too long so the dog trips as it runs.

Here's your landlord update. Update on Evictions During Coronavirus New rules in England and Wales on how courts will engage with landlords and tenants during coronavirus are due to begin on 23rd August. The measures are intended to deal with the large backlog of possession cases that have built up since courts stayed possession hearings in March. Summary of New Rules: • Landlords will have to reactivate existing claims to get a hearing. • To pursue cases based on rent arrears, landlords will need to tell the court how much they think the tenant has been affected by coronavirus. • Even after reactivation, claims could take much longer than normal to be heard. Scotland’s measures to stop evictions have been extended until March 2021. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I would hope re activation of claims doesn't come with any additional fees. For the courts to find original paperwork might become a bit of a high expectation though. We are supposed to tell the courts how covid has affected tenants. I assume this means in financial terms. I can imagine some of the responses to what we say, an obvious response being "how would the landlord know". I wouldn't intend repossessing as I think the trawl to do so would be frustrating and likely pointless, and if / when successful what then, who next? My way is to attempt recovery of rents outstanding. So far I've recovered a little over 40%. There are 2 tenants with substantial arrears and I'm now of a mind that they are beyond recovery, although the g'tor of 1 is well heeled but defending my attempts to recover. I have used the CC threat but that g'tor has perceived it as a threat of eviction. Clearly he is behind the times on that one. Wait for the media stories of disgusting LL's taking the offensive offensive against the poor T with 6 kids, 3 dogs and no bloke to defend her. In her damp over crowded flat and pregnant by immaculate conception.

That can go 2 ways. You may be entertained and feel fortunate that it's me and not you, you may become depressed as it might be you at some point. Yep you should give opportunity for ex tenants to address problems. But then that would create a further period for the tenant to pay for as the property isn't yet available for re rent. A further inspection would then be required. Mine would be too lazy and tell me to get on with it. I gave up on check ins and out years ago. That saved dosh goes toward these situations. Damage = Wear and tear. Claims for replacements are proportioned to such a level that any award would make the claim worthless. Items such as battery and lamps (I plant bulbs) would be considered so petty you lose credibility, if as a landlord you have any in this 'ere country anyway. "They were checked and ok when we left, must've been the lightning storm", and how long should they last so how much of the 69p claimed should you get? For me being able to demonstrate unpaid rents is the easy way to make claim, more often that would exceed any deposit anyway. Tenants eh! Who'd 'ave 'em?

You are responsible for any pest that was present prior to the start of tenancy. I had the same issue some years back, the T and I researched and came to the same conclusion. It was latish in the summer and the nest would have grown to it's near enough full size to disturb them would likely have caused a greater problem. There would be many wasps unable to find their home and then be wandering aimlessly and feasibly annoyed. Actually getting to the nest, in our case in a roof void, would have been near impossible to effectively remove anyway. An issue will arise come September(ish) as they start to die, that's when they are more likely to sting. Wasps don't return to the same nest the following year, but 'may' be somewhere close. My view is that unless you get to it early it may be best to leave it, and be prepared with sprays come September. Before that and if you don't bother the wasp it'll not bother you. It's just that many have a fear.

I can understand the desire for a T to have stability, and soon enough we may have no choice anyway. Legislation (or perhaps only Shelter) seems to be pushing that way. But, I won't entertain it until I have to. If a T has employment issues the result is fairly obvious and in these times that risk is higher.

I've still to read further and gain some sort of definitive opinion. If a Sparky says it isn't up to standard, well which standard? The standard in place at the time of install or the current standard, the 18th Edition? A Sparky might say it's not up to him to research archive standards and he then decides his interpretation stands. The only defence of that is to request the specific regulation and challenge it. I am reading a general opinion that not all circuits require RCB protection. This is the view I took many years ago and would install split load consumers. Essentially the design was for the lights not to go out with the rest of the installation due to a faulty item being plugged in. RCBO's take care of that concern, so they are my new preference. That adds to the expense. A common view is that consumers of flammable material need be changed for non flammable. It's early days and all this seemingly (until I've read more) is open to interpretations. Assuming the installation is in good order the cheapest way to protect all is to have an RCCB installed either as a replacement for the main isolator, or in line to it. Even old rewireable fuses can be swapped out for cartridge fuses. If you are able to obtain the replacement carriers. Next to be cautious of is the inspecting Sparky using a 500 volt Mega to test the insulation. If there are electronic components in circuit it might fry them. An industrial Sparky may even use a 1,000 volt Mega. Low voltage Mega's are available. Mega being a generic term for insulation tester that applies voltage to a circuit to test the integrity.

Thanks for the heads up on the expected increase in cost of upgrade. I gave up trying to be up to date on electrical regs a few years ago, and it'll be interesting to learn what the upgrade requirement will be. It looks like I'll be spending a bit of time on electricians forums where there will be chat on this. An upgrade of the consumer unit (fuse board) is going to include RCCB protection (earth leakage), rewireable fuses will be history, although cartridge fuses do have advantage over breakers. The earth leakage ideally would be in the form of RCBO's that provide independent protection for each circuit, but that is more costly than the one RCCB that protects the whole installation. Of course an RCCB trip means everything goes black, so less convenient. Time for me to catch up. I've no problem swapping out the consumers myself, and a later inspection would certify my work. My overall inspection of the installation would be more involved than the sparkies anyway.

The update. 10am this morning the door chappies were on site. They have lowered the whole. Photo's from the council show the clearance to be approx 150mm. As the council are arranging for a re inspection, to my mind, if the inspector is happy with that then I have no issue. Should a future inspector measure and find the clearance unacceptable then there is a cause to return the problem to the council. With a application of a little common sense I would say a happy result, pending the gas inspection. 😉 Stay safe 😷 to avoid 🤧 and feel free to give one of these the clap tomorrow night👩‍⚕️

Tbh I haven't measured the clearance to the old door frame, but in 11 years it wasn't picked up on. Even from the 1st conversation there wasn't any challenge to my assertion that they had caused the issue. Of course that was site unseen or inspected by them.

As the flu is in contact with the box section there isn't the clearance of 300mm as required by the regs. The gas guy has written it up as dangerous and for the boiler not to be used. You can't argue with the infringement of the regs. What may or may not be debatable is the notice citing it as dangerous. No mater if this sort of goes away tomorrow it is relevant to us in understanding a bit more, as it could be a situation (or similar) we might encounter. RL, I missed your earlier post. Yes a promise of positive action. A promise of recompense. The councillor has emailed 2 relevant persons and replied to me twice. Sorry I don't use LOL or imogies much.

A good tradesman is worth looking after Mel. I'm not sure if the gas engineer might have exaggerated the danger on the 2nd cert to assist in my getting action. If that's so his intelligence is questionable. So back to the real matter here, where is the danger of the flu being in contact with the galvanised boxing below it? The flu has been sticking out of the wall for 11 years, now it has a steel plate below it. Not restricted, no fire hazard, and in truth a birdie could create a nest in any flu hence the inspection of it. Where is the danger, I'm not seeing it?

As said, the only winners. You assume the council will accept liability and not express a view that the 2nd cert is ott. Not my fault if so but my liability. Whenever we go to a solicitor we are tasked with providing the required information. Then we are tasked with responding to the response. If it escalates and the vultures seem to have incentive for this, there will be a need for witness statements, and responses. They all play a loverly game and congratulate themselves on the outcome. What do I get, the chance to spend more time giving them work. It seems my non urgent message got through to the original lass. She tells me their gas inspection lot have issue as I'm not on their system, as it's not a council property. Bit of a red tape jobsworth pointless response there methinks. So she has contacted the door company and told them if nowt else to remove the door, tomorrow. She didn't realise that she has confessed to only acting on this yesterday. Then I will need another inspection, the council will credit me, apparently. If the councillor is a bit busy I might well ask him why come next election. But he's Tory so would I want to discredit him publicly?

The email failed, I can't be sure but it maybe that it rejects outsiders?? Council offices are closed so no point in posting there. They have an internal reporting system for non urgent matters, so I've used it. So I've emailed the local councillor. Let's see if he can kick some butt.

Aye, it's the prospect of drawn out legal battles that don't appeal. No one wins but the vultures. I'm waiting for a return call from the gas engineer to understand if there is a danger I don't see as yet. A birds nest wouldn't be an immediate threat. The council rang responding to my earlier call, of course a different person. She needs to refer to her line manager, the lass I spoke to last week. But at least I have an email address to send my report / complaint to. I will be called and updated later. I was hoping to avoid this but have informed the tenants, and offered to research alternative accommodation. They are preferring for me to not enter the flat to disable the boiler and will use it sparingly and isolate each night. I have no right of access and the gas engineer didn't disable and post the notice the 2nd cert says had been done. While I'm attempting to resolve this my passing the responsibility where possible is difficult to deny. It is tempting to unbolt and remove the bl**dy door.

I'm fairly confident that 2 bends are ok. My concern was one of their contractors seeing the easy solution of adding another that might have been one too many. Yes the fault is theirs. Their contractor might be reasonably expected to not understand the gas regs as he installed the new door, but that is not my concern. It is wrong and they have cause it. This of course assume that my Gassafe engineer is correct, otherwise I might be threatening without good cause as I'm responsible for those I contract. Hence my wondering if the certificate creating condemning use of the boiler is ott. At inspection the engineer didn't condemn anything, but left to check later having already provided me with an effective pass cert. He posted a cert condemning the use and has actually lied about saying(on the cert) he had posted a notice, he hadn't. His certificate confusion doesn't change the fact it may be dangerous. It also doesn't let me off if something goes wrong, as unlikely as that seems to me, the unqualified. In the extreme I could relocate the T's to a hotel. Especially in these times they may decline such a kind offer. Then there is the recovery of costs. Against the council for their screw up. Or against the engineer for inappropriate action with a cert that may be ott. Neither prospect are appealing.

I own 1 flat in a council owned block. Very local, not Wales for a change. The boiler was installed maybe 2008/9, flu up out the top a few inches goes through its own wall at 90 degrees through into an internal bin store. It then turns 90 degrees and through the external wall of the bin store to a court yard of sorts. It was above wooden doors that would flap in the wind as no one would close them. The council at some time in the last 12 months have installed roller door that buts up to the flu. The flu is in contact with the galvanised box of the roller. A couple of weeks ago I met the Corgi chap for the gas inspection. concerned about the proximity to the flu he wanted to check the regs later. He left having provided me with a certificate that made mo mention of concerns, but had mentioned the possibility of bird nest type scenario. He posted a new certificate with his invoice. The new cert states the installation to be dangerous and that he had applied a 'Do not use, dangerous' notice on the boiler. Clearly attempting to cover his ass but while presenting me with a problem I would think this leaves him at risk as he had not. I've made contact with the Council 'compliance'. The lady, working from home assured me that this would be inspected and acted on, we agreed for her gas inspector to contact me , to meet,and facilitate access to the flat should flu redesign be appropriate. Being as the number of bends can be critical so inspector should see what is. There has been no communication from the council, or their agents. The T's aren't aware of any attention and none is apparent outside. In the event insurance is a concern, while arranged by the council they might not view a claim sympathetically considering the certificate. Then there is my responsibility, should the boiler be inhibited, which effectively would mean rehousing the good T's? While I consider risks to be minimal and the cert to be ott I'm not qualified so my risk assessment has no value. Time to go to print and record the situation with the council, but in the mean time what is the correct course of action? I have considered contacting the insurance, via the council, to enquire about their providing alternative accommodation till the situation is rectified.

Why I don't sell and leave 'em to it. In 2007 the valuation was £78K per flat. I remortgaged in anticipation of a few years of slump. The one flat I didn't own sold for £43K a few months ago. That has set the low value for some time yet, and that before Covid. I would need to fund any sale by around £25K per flat. So why sell anyway while there is still some revenue? The revenue, of course, is under continual attack. So anticipating a tipping point is reasonable. What is possibly more scary is the increased responsibility that gives increasing criminal responsibility threat against me for T activity. The Rent Smart Wales course to qualify for registration is flippin' scary with its many threats of fines and even custodial penalties. And remember ignorance is never an excuse. I have considered that Boris must be laughing his titties off at what the other nations are doing with the devolved power they can't handle. If they do anything successful he can adapt and adopt, they are experimenting, he waits for results. Where they F' up he points out how, and gains election advantage. Wait for the devolved nations to claim additional monies due to Covid. BJ must be considering his responses already.

Ah well, my experience is that the courts are socialist in result. Consider, I / we claim from the underdog /s (reasons irrelevant to Court), there is no real social advantage to awarding reasonable, if any, effective penalties against the T or G;tor. Although if the G'tor has a more healthy economic situation maybe, but try to demonstrate that w/o looking like an unreasonable type of claimant. We are considered to be enjoying easy extra monies from property, and must accept risk as apart of the business we are in. Our need is less. Penalise the T and he sees less reason to try for a future. We have gone so far w/o the funds and can even afford to find more to make claim. We have managed to reach that point so we should find it easier than the T to manage a future w/o the claimed monies. Clearly, even before Covid, there was a state direction to defer and even prevent repossessions. Such only gives greater problems for the state, repossession isn't an attractive result. LL's are blamed for the house prices escalating out of reach of the poor 1st time buyers. Causing the BTL market to be less attractive can be an advantage there. As a general the houses are still there, no matter how someone will live in them. If that isn't providing our greedy profits who will care? The comment on the long term outcome is relevant and clearly, imho, the retard, short sighted Welsh Assembly are going to cause their lower class areas to sink to lower levels. As they remove our incentive to invest they also remove those responsible for attempting to create and maintain attractive properties for the lesser able to live in, and I experience a good few of them. The English gave them a lot of castles, I don't recall they ever paid us for them. The tourist revenues should be claimed from the chippy sods.