Jump to content

Richlist

Members
  • Content Count

    3,515
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Richlist

  1. Consultation underway Re forcing landlords to allow gigabits broadband upgrades. https://theregister.com/2021/06/09/dcms_landlord_gigabit_consultation/
  2. I've done the survey but if you haven't already I'd suggest you post your message on other landlord web sites. I doubt wether this forum has 100 regular members so responses are going to be quite light.
  3. You are entitled to your opinion, we just take opposite views on what is needed. As I've said many times, the most important thing a landlord will ever do is to pick their tenants very, very carefully. You may find it unacceptable that an old car is parked on your the drive but they aren't breaking any rules. I accept you need to be able to sleep at night and if it bothers you that much your only option is to issue an S21 with all the potential cost & time that it might involve or go busy yourself with something far more important. Landlording is about compromise. It's also
  4. But that would apply to any parking area, anywhere in the country and is an over reaction. As I read the post, in this case, it's a parking area available to tenants for parking their cars...... the forum responses are OTT. What comes next ? the tenant moves in extra furniture and the landlord gets worried he'll have to dispose of it when they vacate ? It might be worth reminding forum members that a car parked on private land : * doesn't need to be insured, taxed, mot'd or working. * doesnt need to be newer than 18 years old. * the owner doesn't need to be able to dr
  5. Or you could just do nothing, mind your own business & don't give your tenant an excuse for reporting you for harrassment. I'm sure you can find something far more important to do than running around looking for ways to disrupt your tenants quiet enjoyment. If you think it's not SORN and you feel you want to be a good citizen report it to the authorities. I'm puzzled as to which aspect of this matter concerns you.......is it relevant that it's an 18 year old car or that it's not working or that you can't discover who the last owner was. These aspects have nothing to do with you.
  6. Alec, This going to sound harsh but, what has that car got to do with you ? It's not yours, it's not on the public roads, it belongs to your tenant, it isn't causing any problems to anyone. Your tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the property without their landlord sending them instruction on how to live their life. You've rented out the property, if you are receiving rents and the tenant is looking after it, let them get on with things without your involvement.
  7. The cynic in me says there are gonna be a lot of tenants who suddenly say they have covid symptoms or are self isolating.
  8. I don't believe so. I think you only get to claim the SDLT back if you sell the property within a specified time (2 years I believe). The HMRC web site has lots of info & guidance on what, who & when.
  9. Yes, but many of us don't enforce it. A calender months notice is usually OK for me......except if it's around the Christmas period.
  10. Are you sure it's not caused by condensation. ?.....e.g. Drying damp washing near heaters, not opening windows etc ? The worst areas for condensation are bathroom & kitchen. I've also seen it in bedrooms behind furniture where there is no air circulation.
  11. Richlist

    MS

    I have no knowledge or experience of 'Licence Agreements'. But I do know the police are correct in saying it's a civil matter and not something they will deal with. I'd suggest you get some professional advice and assistance. There are specialist companies who will handle the matter for you. Look up Landlord Action.....they have a web site and a price structure online or you can telephone them and discuss.
  12. £55 sounds like an absolute bargain to someone like me who has never paid to have his gutters cleaned. I certainly wouldn't want to do the job for such a small amount. It's tax deductible to you so make sure you claim the cost on your tax return. The real cost to you is £44 if you pay 20% tax or £33 if you are a 40% tax payer.
  13. But surely it has to be more than that in the eyes of the law. There has to be a more detailed description/definition of the term 'consideration' in the context of this issue......don't you think ? I could receive an expression of interest/ application from anyone in receipt of benefits, think about it for 10 seconds and tell them I won't be letting to them because they are in receipt of benefits. I can honestly say I've thought about (i.e. considered) their application and decided they are not suitable. I don't have to tell them they don't meet the criteria for rent guarantee or my mort
  14. What a dog's diner ? I still don't understand. * When I had BTL mortgages they all specified no benefits tenants in the t&c's......so advertising for no applicants on benefits means I complied with my mortgage lender requirements. Even if that has now changed for NEW loans, there will be existing loans where those t&c's apply. * I guess it would be acceptable to include in the advertising......'applicant must qualify for rent guarantee insurance'.......that would then automatically exclude those on benefits for most insurers. There are obviously going to be loophol
  15. I don't understand the problem. My letting agents & I have a policy of only accepting applications from tenants who meet the criteria for rent guarantee insurance. Applicants in receipt of housing benefits/UC get help by virtue of not having sufficient income to pay their rent so they don't qualify for the insurance. Am I missing something ? Am I over simplifying a problem that I don't think really affects landlords ? Then there is the restriction on some mortgage t&c's which don't allow letting to people in receipt of benefits.
  16. Provided all of the work involved like for like repairs & replacements then it's revenue. If there was any element of improvement e.g.....larger radiators, extra sockets, extra lights etc etc then it's capital expense and cannot be offset against rental income.
  17. Are you sure that all of your £6500 expenses are revenue expenses ie subject to income tax & not capital expenses and subject to CGT ?
  18. If there is a policy excess it would be paid by the person making the claim i.e. your neighbour in the flat below who has incurred the damage. If you had been negligent it would be your responsibility to reimburse your neighbour for the excess they have paid. So, any payment that's necessary on your part hinges on wether you have been negligent. Nothing in this thread suggest you are responsible so ask the management company to prove your negligence. As a side issue Im suggesting that someone checks the wording of the lease because it may be that the insurance excess should be refunded fr
  19. I don't see what this has to do with the original question. You haven't mentioned damage to your property only to the flat below. We can only comment on the information you provide. That insurance policy looks pretty standard to my inexperienced eye.
  20. You are only responsible if you have been negligent. A pipe falling off doesn't sound like thats you being negligent. You are innocent until proven guilty. It's up to them to prove your guilt not up to you to prove you're innocent. Of course they are going to try it on....... you need to fight your corner. Bag the issue back to them and ask them to prove negligence. Do you have a lettings agents dealing with the property for you ?
  21. One thing I learnt about leasehold buildings insurance is this...... The lease will contain an obligation for the service charges/ management company to arrange buildings insurance. Often, in order to keep the premiums as low as possible they agree to having an excess..... £500 excess is not unusual. However, the lease requires them to effect full buildings Insurance for the leaseholders. It does not permit them to effect partial buildings insurance where the leasehold has to pay a £500 excess. Therefore should a leaseholder need to claim on the b/insurance then the excess should be reimb
  22. Your liability depends entirely on wether you have been negligent. My understanding is that boiler condensation pipes leak a small amount of water normally......that's design intent. If the leak was greater than normal but you have had checks / adjustments carried out in line with recommended maintenance requirements and the leak was a result of a gradual, unforseen failure then you have not acted negligently. You are not responsible for gravity. Ask the management company to explain why they think you have been negligent. Respond to them with dates of maintenance and dispute
  23. The effort required to dig out your topsoil, barrow it, transport, unload and drop on new site is enormous. Most people wouldn't even consider doing it. Topsoil at £45 cu metre can be bought, delivered and dropped almost where it's needed. I know what I'd prefer. Your tenants actions appear completely irrational. Sounds like your tenant may need urgent psychiatric help.......if he doesn't pay up, at least get a laugh out of the situation. Tell him you've booked a doctor's appointment for him.
  24. Why is it that a landlord is virtually guaranteed to experience gross incompetence regardless of whom he chooses to supply his energy needs ? Almost every energy supplier I have ever dealt with offers the following ridiculously poor service. * No special process to facilitate the approx 4 million private landlords in the UK with reporting tenant movements/ meter readings. * No direct email address for landlords to report issues. * Web sites that can't handle a property that's unoccupied and using zero energy. I'm loosing the will to live.
×
×
  • Create New...