Richlist

Lawyer (Solicitor) = No.

CPA (Commercial Property Agent) = No.......but there are another 248 definitions for CPA  !😃

Property Manager (Lettings Agent) = No

That sounds like an awful lot of effort with no guarantee of ending up with a model tenant.

I always recommended a landlord to pick /choose their tenants very carefully. There is nothing more important or that takes priority over picking a suitable tenant.

I can read the words but don't understand any of your questions.......

* What is a private sounding exercise ?

* Why do you need two estate agents ?

* What does de-instruct 'flexibly' mean ?

When I bought a few years back I remember my solicitor telling me I needed a couple of indemnity policies.........and I had to pay for those policies. I guess that when prices are rising sharply expectations of who pays the bills changes from seller to buyer.

At around the same time I bought a couple of leasehold flats and the buyers asked me to pay extra for the property because they had contributed to the reserve fund over the previous 5 years. The reserve fund had grown into a large sum of money to which they had contributed, wouldn't benefit from but I would as the new owner. I refused to pay but, asking for a contribution from buyers at the time was not unusual according to my solicitor.

Where are you located  ?

It's an interesting story.

Billybob has owned a property for over 20 years and he's now in the process of selling it, in fact he's very close to completion. However there's a hold up......the buyers solicitor has now decided there is a document missing. It's not held by the land registry or anyone else and he believes it is absolutely required.

* When  Billybob bought the property he had a solicitor do the legal work. Over the course of those 20+ years he's also had 3 mortgages on the property. The solicitors and the 3 lenders legal departments had all gone through the legal documents 'with a fine toothed comb' to ensure that the security for the loans was cast iron. None of them identified a missing document.

* Billybob also owned 3 other properties on the same development. The same properties with the same leases, built at the same time, by the same builder etc. When they were sold on there was no mention of any missing documents.

* As the property is over 35 years old there have been a number of previous owners whose purchase/sale didn't identify a missing document.

So, either the current buyers solicitor is one extremely clever dude who has identified something that nobody else has seen or he's  asking for something that isn't really needed. Either way, it needs resolving. Fortunately there is a remedy ......an indemnity policy......and either way Billybob has to pay for it.

Are you sure it's mediation and not medication ? Some landlords I know would definitely prefer the later !😄

The documentation for standard property letting is already complex. Once you add in any non standard features it's easier to make mistakes. Using a solicitor who specialises in property means if it goes wrong you usually have some recourse.

Non of that is readily available on an internet forum. We dont, as far as I know, have anyone who is a legal expert.

I suspect everyone will need to jump thru hoops to get any benefit out of this so.....

I'm thinking of importing hoops from China. It looks like there is more of an opportunity selling hoops than letting property.

Surely you are employing a solicitor to handle the conveyancing of your purchase ? Presumably you will have explained at the outset what you are purchasing and the details surrounding it and would have ensured that the legal work is being handled by someone competent to handle what would be described as non standard ?

If the answer is yes why then do you need the opinion of persons unknown on an internet forum ?

Consultation underway Re forcing landlords to allow gigabits broadband upgrades.

https://theregister.com/2021/06/09/dcms_landlord_gigabit_consultation/

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.

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 sometimes about give and take......usually the landlord gives and the tenant takes.😉

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 drive.

* their landlord is not entitled to know the registered owner.

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.

No apparently not.

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. 

The cynic in me says there are gonna be a lot of tenants who suddenly say they have covid symptoms or are self isolating.

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. 

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.

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.

£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.

1 hour ago, Grampa said:

 

Quote

Just remember the law doesn't force landlords and agents to house tenant's in receipt of benefits but to only consider their application along side any other application. Which is a bit of a nonsense really.

 

 

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 mortgage lender's rules or that a far better quality tenant will be along shortly. 

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 loopholes......they would find it very difficult to close them all off.

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.