Carryon Regardless

Comptons are up to their now familiar tricks, in that they are taking me to Court again. This time 5 court claims. The ususl, CCOL, Court allocation, moved to another Court (Chesterfield), who have ordered that these be transferred to the First Tier Property Tribunal, Birmingham. I can see the sense in that, although it's a first for me. So now I wonder if legal representation is an expectation, intelligent (as clearly not cheap), or is this designed to be more informal and just possibly a first step that may be basic and not need great invovlement. I have believed for some time that the continual harrassment by Compton will need addressing in a formal Court invironment, in hope to reduce the time consuming and wasteful effort to deal with them and their abusinve ways. Anyone with experience on this?

The agency I refer to is a Yellow Pages type advertiser. Those that purport to supply best tradesmen, when in practce they just ring roud to get someone who is available or who may or may not be on their books. That agency then invoices the client as they see fit, and often that isn't relative to the actual tradesmans charge to them. Like Acura I could change the Euro Loock in a couple of minutes, I carry spares for abandonment situations, as minimum it causes the absconder to contact me if they want back in. Then of course it must be a lock that became faulty. As I would have to spend 3 1/2 hours on the road sometimes it's better to let a local get on with it anyway, 2 minute job or not.

Unless the lock was faulty, requiring extra force to try and open, and the key wasn't given in a fatigued state then it's their problem. The issue is that a locksmith may sympathise with the tenant and report that the lock was faulty, but even than you might argue that they should have referred to you prior to being excessive. I have refunded for a locksmith after the tenant had arranged it and chosen a silly route to get one (agency bumping up the total cost). I took a view that it was worth looking after a naive tenant.

As is often you write something flippin' obvious and believe you have educated the numpties. Of course capital growth varies, it's broadly down to demand. We can't manipulate it we can only follow those market forces. The rents we can charge are in comparrison to local market forces, again we follow as we aren't big anough to effect them. Try charging too much and we lose tenants to cheaper competition. The tax that we are entitled to avoid paying isn't over complicated and to suggest that if I complain less and comcentrate on improving tax efficiency, or any other efficiency, is just plain insulting, but usual for you. The comment has no value. I do not pay for rent guarantee insurance, for many reasons. For sure it is not efficient. I have neglected the improvements to my properties for a number of years, those that I used to enjoy doing until Big Brother took on the role of over legislating my business. Now it's time to address these neglects, which will reduce my tax bill, if the cash flow can handle the loading.

RL I'm not seeing the capital growth. Certainly my portfolio is only attractive for its revenue, and that is continually attacked. I have been more toward tory over the years, but more recently voted UKip pre referendum, but wouldn't now as they have become the racist thugs they were accused of being. In the eu election I went for the Brexit Party, but they only have one policy and I don't see them as being a force that can manage the country. Seeing the 'debate' on Tuesday caused me to realise that if that lot are all that can be put forward as leaders of the UK we are lost. Only Rory Stewart demonstrated enough proffessionalism to stay out of the over shouting confusion of noise. And he the only one that came across as being any where near honest. But he fell at the second fence and was promoting a continuation of the Groundhog Days anyway. Labour offer no one as leadership quality, maybe Tom Watson one day, maybe. But I don't agree his policies and don't agree Labours style. Anyway Labour are in self destruct mode with antisemetism (dare I even mention that word w/o being hit by lightning?). Now Corbyn has fallen off his fence he seems to be adding to Labours self destruct attitude, no wonder the Tories don't have to try hard there's no competition. I see no one to lead us. In some ways the eu couldn't do worse, as much as I am a Leaver. Our choice now, stay and stuff democracy, Leave and be run by a total incompetant.

What ever, who ever, I'm sure the profits of our Lets will lessen and our responsibilities toward our tenants will increase. This until there is a problem with enough housing for the non buying masses. But if housing values are controlled by detering the likes of us from investing then these houses become available to those that wouldn't otherwise afford them. The more the likes of us are 'persuaded' to sell the more the housing market is 'controlled', and available to those that wouldn't otherwise afford them. If it all happened over night there would be serious issues, but over a time we become acclimatised to changes and the effect on market controls is less obvious. Are the bigger players still investing? Maybe RL knows that one, I genuinely don't.

The only experience I have of Shelter is to side with tenants at the landlords expence, wether just or not. I've not looked at the survey as it would take more independant information to convince me that any interaction with them can have a positive effect for the landlord. However, they should have relaised many years ago that there can be mutual benefits from tidying up the industry from poor landlords but from our perspective disgusting tenants. That should have started by removing another sheild of protection offered by them to the abusers.

I always consider it strange that a legal suit is taken out in the US for an event in the UK, more money possibilities over there I guess. I'm sure Cellotex, and even alluminium, will burn at the right, high, temperature. Last year my yacht had a fire when a starter cable chaffed to earth, the fumes from the engine insulation were choking and seemed to me to burn easily. I tested Cellotex with a blow torch as an alternative and 'I' considered that it performed well. It didn't want to burn and the fumes were no issue imo. But hey ho I'm sure the experts for the claims and the defence will enjoy their court room banter.

I agree with the above comments, aside from not promoting any violence even if it is understandable. Not saying anyone here has promoted it. The thought of Tommy Robinson and the like taking pleasure in gaining more footy style hooligans as supporters doesn't sit well, it will just make our streets less safe. Until the majority of 'our' Parliament accept that we need to leave the greater force to remain is there. Even some of the ERG Brexit campaigners reversed their own moral stance when opportunity of power presented itself, and that was only as a vague possibility. They lost what respect I had of them. As said the WA isn't leaving, and at least the majority of Parliament can see that even if our own patriot to the eu PM can't, or more likely can but sees this as the best way to appease the eu. I feel democracy has become more important than the Leave / Stay debate, as important as Leaving is in my view. Certainly the Brexit Party get my vote tomorrow and until I see another Party that is truly democratic I can't vote for another, it won't be UKIP again that's for sure, and no other Party beside the Brexit Party are democratic in my opinion. But they are young, they are possibly going to fall into disarray as did UKIP. I don't see them as being good for running the UK just hopefully getting us out of the eu properly. The future 'aint orange.

Apart from, today, the timing being coincidental of course, the eu are starting their efforts to control if not bring him down. As this will suit all parties but the Brexit Party I only see a coalition of force against him. I've forecast for a while that we won't leave the eu. The WA wasn't / isn't leaving as we remain tied to the eu. Now May offers a 2nd ref (if the WA is accepted), w/o any indication that I've heard as to what the choices will be. The choices possibly being the WA or Cancel. This is designed to reverse the 1st ref.

Where's me monkey gone? Is this an animal rights thing?

While the Gov't's are keen to pass the burden of social housing to us we will see incresed controls by legislation. The trend is very clear by now so it's either suck it up and get used to it or get out. Personal choice and that can be down to many factors. Then we have the Bof E keen to prevent housing bubbles that interfere with the ideal inflation target, so by what ever means thare will be efforts to control property price increases. That also suits the Gov't some as there is greater opportunity for those wishing to escape the rental trap, that we evil LL's are totally responsible for, nowt to do with market forces apparently. The future of the rental market is more and more down to revenue than capital growth. Demand will cause price increases but will be moderated by market controls from above. The increasing legislation that is definitley aimed at reduciing the LL's advantage will temper demand from us, one box ticked. Gov't incentives to make purchase more attractive to market newbies ticks another box. Increasing interest rates would be a deterant to all so taxing additional properties and reducing tax relief on them gets around that. Mr Carny has warned again recently to expect % rate rises, that'll see a few of us off in this weeding out process, so more properties returned to the market, along with some displacements as collateral damage. House prices in my experience haven't risen signifiacntly, like double, if at all in some cases since 2008. And while I have previously predicted a moderate bubble is due it 'aint happened and I now doubt the forces above will allow for it to happen easily. But ask any housewife and without doubt the value of our money has dropped very significantly. The stated inflation rates aren't borne out on the super market shelves. Just some more thoughts

Some of mine can still be exempt while empty for 6 months. Another increases the charge to 150%, after 12 months I think. Part of the attack on 2nd home owners if I remember. Local council websites should fore warn of their 'chosen' policy. But generally I find Labour run councils will us as fair game to provide them with additional revenue. Far be it from me to suggest another party takes residence before such as 150% is applied, on paper, for their records.

That's a lot of dosh. When does it rise to 150%? Councils have choice of discounts and periods nowadays, they vary considerably. Is that a Labour council by any chance?

I wouldn't hazard a guess at Scottish law. A few years ago a Welsh tenant contacted me with a nest problem. Since wasps can get in small holes it's easy for them to set up a nest in voids. On the principle that the nuisance wasn't there at the start of a tenancy veiwed that I had no liability, and certaily wouldn'r cobsider I would have liability or interest to satisfy an obnoxious neighbour who should go through my tenant anyway. The Welsh nest was late in the season and my research suggested that the grow through the season and upsetting the nest late on could cause them the become a greater nuisance. A nest caught early shouldn't be as big an issue, less risk. My understanding was that wasps don't return to the same nest in following years.

Each of us will have our own result from the appraisal of the effects of this. Mine is somewhat of a risk assessment. Many of my properties are in the higher risk sector where T's have very limited resources of income, some dependant on social welfare. This brings additional, to some, risk of T's (and G'tors) failing to meet financial needs, and some times look for ways to blame me. I am heavily mortgaged, an intentional strategy back in 07 / 08 when I saw lean times ahead so created a cushion in anticipation of a return to more bouyant times within 6 years. That still hasn't occured 11 years on. Interest rates are and have been unexpedely low supporting my portfolio profitability. Potential sale values are no where near an attractive value to make selling attractive. Each time the Gov't creates a new initiative T's, or more likely their agents (I refer to Shelter specifically) will look to aid the T, this can even mean an opportunity of compensation to the T. As Grampa, the legal system becomes more expensive to us. That system sympthises heavily toward the T (from my experience and others). Some of these initiatives actually incentivise T's to take on the LL. Our risks increase continually while our profits are diminished, and there are extra admin responsibilities and worse stresses can and do become significant. I gave up on the S8 route years ago. While some grounds don't allow a judge choice most do, 'asking' a judge to sympathise with me isn't intelligent so I prefer the S21 as when used correctly it is a mandatory repossession order. It may take longer than can be achieved but it's less of a gamble. As said it's early days but I believe the removal of our S21 tool is coming. Somehow Westminster will see that we like to repossess nice people and throw money away because we are immoral in our dealings. I think they are using the mirror too much. For all there will be a point where the risk for the reward is too great. As these initiatives arrive progressivley we are given time to get used to the previous before the new so we are acclimatised. It's only when a list like Grampa's is put up we see how the evolution has taken place. For myself I see a great danger that as T's realise that 'I' do not have choice to evict that they can become more abusive. I see a time where we will not expect the 1st eviction attempt to be successful but that a court will want to see a pattern of behaviour before we get any sympathy. This is comparable to the criminal system where the abusers are given several chances to change their ways, but here it is at our expense both cost and stress wise as the continued abuse effects us soley. With time I'll be looking at the figures to see if a strategy of disposal looks favourable. I do have T's that continually fail to meet thier financial responsibilities and imho would stop trying as they see and understand this advantage (it will be newsworthy to inform them), so they are top of the disposal list. So far the threat of S21 is a good management tool.

TBH I lost faith in the industry when the deposit protection came in. There is always some reason or other used to justify additional loading on the property landlord but the truth is the Gov't can't manage the housing needs and so pass the responsibility on to us in legislative forms. It is indirect taxation and more as it costs us extra and causes more effort with crazy threats of penalties for non compliance. The deposit protection is a very good example. It's said some LL's abused deposits but the courts are there to address these claims by T's. The holding system (I realise there are other options at extra cost and admin) aids the DPS as they hold £millions and unfairly redistribute following claims that are biased by design toward T's. I wonder how much remains unclaimed. The trend for many MP's to have a go at the dirty LL has been going on for a good while. Too many look for another way to protect the T in some fashion. Is our legal system so deficient that it fails them? I would have thought with Shelter, Citizens Advice and the internet there would be enough tools at their disposal, and that's beside going to a solicitor, ££££'s, as we are expected to do.

This is seriously making me consider how to plan my future. I do not trust the courts to make a balanced decision if and when I feel the need to get rid of a painful tenant. Already before I go through any eviction process I have suffered losses and stress, this means a person with no understanding of the situation with a direction from above to protect tenancy security will decide the fate of my business. The costs even if awarded against a tenant or guarantor, and I see that as a remote chance at best, won't be received, so it represents a further loss in an already lost situation. A judge will invariably find a way to aid the offending tenants to remain longer, no doubt with threats to them to improve, but will allow for further abuse. I've said previously that we are becoming social landlords this is clarification. We already have great difficulty in being allowed to run our own business this will take away the one tool we really need in an adverse situation. Since the Gov't's feel we are incapable and unworthy of running a rental business it's time they took it all over in an honest way.

Thanks for the check tool, as I hadn't considered any need for me to have involvement with the yet new regs I'm glad it confirms my "no need to register" belief. That of course 'ass'u'me's (but i believe it to be them) that I have read the multiple pages correctly and answered correctly. But in reality if I haven't I'll still wait for them to come and get me for something that, no doubt, I deserve to hung and drawn for.

As LL's we can't stop T's taking guests and realistically we can't prevent them sub letteing. We can only repossess when a tenancy is abused. "The two young couple has just moved in for a month (6 months contract)" sounds like you granting a tenancy? If not and the 2 guys have abused the 'written' agreement you have with them in that they are effectively sub letting then your serving a repossession notice ( a section 8 most likely) might satisy the council that you are addressing the situation?? In truth what you write above doesn't feel like the whole or accurate story. I suggest you seek more expert advice than I can give.

Like I said, beyond my area, but It sounds like, from your economic responses, that you have 2 tenacies running for your 1 flat. I wonder how house share situations are viewed. That is if you grant a tenancy to a person/s and allow them to sublet. Would this also be a HMO situation? That would mean a rearrangement of present situation, as I understand it.

I think you need to explain the status and use of the whole building before any one here can comprehensivley understand. HMO is intentionally beyong my area of knowledge anyway. My thoughts to help others gain a better understanding. How many tenanc'ies' are granted by you for your flat? Is there a shared access route to all flats in the property, or do they have independant access? Is it the local council that have caused you to seek HMO status? How long have you owned the flat?

Is there a conflict with the council requiring that you gain HMO status because of the use of the whole building? That is, is it beyond your choice as to if this becomes HMO or not?

I would exepect the letter from the mortgage company to give a contact, number and possibly the person handling this. Give them a call and discuss your options. Remaining as the original status of BTL and renting to 'a' family should mean there is no change. Withdraw the HMO application and I don't see why this doesn't just go away. While discussing ask what their conditions would be should you make the change at some time. Don't forget that HMO is more complicated with the planning requirements and the management anyway.

I've only made claim on a part deposit once. The T rolled and I received no problem, this was a couple of months after the T had departed and were pestering me for their deposit. I just said that I don't have it, true, and that it's with the DPS. It was then that I raised the claim with the DPS. I view that as the T's are given all the required paperwork and references at the start of tenancy (well within 14 days) and I include the references on all statements. As it's their money they wish returned it's their problem. I think we have done enough administrating of the deposit at the start and if they can't organise their paperwork and inform the DPS of updated contact info tough.