Grampa

Garage is empty, a fairly recent replacement felt roof (2/3 years old) so no asbestos. Garage door needs some work but I budgeted for a new one anyway.

There is another garage to the left of that green car which is the neighbours and we have agreed to concrete the area between the two which is big enough for 2 cars+ and split the cost.

There is always an element of risk when purchasing property and a decision on weather to spend the best part of a grand on a full survey or make a decision based on your experience and level of risk you prepared to take. The roof leak was 2/3 tiles letting in water close to the soffit which wasn't noticeable from the road. The damp patch it had previously caused in the bedroom was bone dry appeared to be an old leak that had be repaired some time ago and unbeknown to me the previous owner had put a container in the loft to catch the drips which hid the leak & allowed the ceiling to dry out.. My contractor yesterday cut down the section of damaged plasterboard and ended up with a full bucket of rainwater on his head. A surveyor wouldn't have spotted it as the roof pitch was is so low restricting access in the loft and the container was hidden with insulation. The French doors I agree I should have looked a more closely and should have realised they were knackered. I have repaired/patched them up to functional level and fitted a new lock but I will only be revisiting the issue in 6-18 months if I don't replace now which was the plan in the long run anyway. However, on the plus side I have discovered the access road to the garage compound area which is at the rear of the property has an overgrown scrubby area next to my garage which I can cut back, fit a gate into my garden fence and have a extra parking space so potential could rent the garage separately. The garage compound area is overgrown not maintained and no one takes ownership of it (though I have right of access). As you can see the garage hasn't been used for some time.

I have seen this photoshopped picture before on a book cover. My first thought was why is it acceptable for Trumpy to used as a base picture but not Barack Obama when the narrative may not be race related?

I know, I'm so disapointed with my unprofessional behaviour I have already signed myself on crash course to become a gas safe heating engineer, quaified roofer and chimney flue inspector.😀

I know, and the government make it so easy for us with all the changes to legislation.😀

Well that answers that question. That link you posted is that for a toilet with a seperate toilet bowl that is attached by a pipe? (not a combined cistern and bowl?)

I dont have a preferance other than the most tax saving way . A chat to big sis the accountant maybe on the cards tommorow.

I have seen these type of toilets but not just the option of buying the cistern as in your link. My only concern was the soap residue from your hand washing clogging up the works inside the cistern after a period of time. Or does that water go directly into the toilet bowl bypassing the inner workings.?

Is there any advantage of one over the other. Being no expert regarding tax I'm assuming I can allocate the cost for one or the other.

Central heating is in good condition with fairly new ( under 12 months) worcester greenstar boiler. I have a dilemma regarding the downstairs toilet. It appears to have been added/fitted in to the downstairs cloakroom cupboard at a later date. Its perfectly functionable but small with out a basin or space to fit one. Do I keep it or rip out? I'm leaning towards keeping it but unsure.

Well I completed on my latest BTL acquisition 14 days ago which is a 3 bed terrace house. Bought for a little under market, value but not hugely. It is having new kitchen, bathroom, carpets, consumer unit, electric shower fitted above bath and some other elecy work. I will do all the decorating and ripping old units out but contractors for the rest which is all budgeted for. But you always know there will be some unexpected extra costs when doing a project like this and so far. 1. Repairs to a leak in the roof (UNEXPECTED) 2. Flat roof above porch replaced ( I was going to patch myself but as the roofer was here i bit the bullet and replaced) 3. Condemned lounge gas fire (I got a gas engineer in early to do a gas cert just in case which passed the boiler but fire is kaput) 4. Blocked flue which is in the wall cavity for the gas fire (UNEXPECTED. so replacing with electric fire, surround and hard wired in which is a lot cheaper option) 5. Sun room at the rear of the house needs replacement double doors as they are rotten as a pear. ( I knew these were a bit suspect but hoped I could get couple more years out of it but they are too bad) About 2.5-3k extra for the above SO FAR. I'm hoping there will be no further surprises.

I object M'lord. In fact it is the manufacturer of the hose who is at fault they must have reasonbly expected a household to have a dog and therefore should have made the hose dog proof and the hose wasnt fit for purpose. I really think I have far too much time on my hands.

The tenant is certainly liable for any loss you suffer and if you claim from the insurance the tenant is also liable for any excess limit. Do you have to re-house? No. If the the insurance covers for temporary accomodation fine but if not, no you do not. If the council get involved they might well say you have to but that is because they dont want the cost themselves. Ask them to provide the details within the housing act or any other statuet that puts the legal obligation on you. They wont be able to because there is no rule, act of Parliament or case law which provides in the event of a property rendered uninhabitable by some disaster that the landlord must start ringing round accommodation providers or hotels, arranging alternative accommodation but the local authority does have a duty to. Even though a landlord doesnt have an obligation to re-house they COULD have an obligation to pay the costs for temorary accomodation ONLY if the cause of the property being uninhabitablel was due to a failure of the landlords repairing obligations and failing to act on something he knew about or was reported.

The question that needs answering is whether the lock was faulty. If the locksmith can confirm the lock was faulty in writing you have a strong case for reimbursement. If the key snapped because the lock was just stiff and hadn't been lubricated and it had been stiff for some time that would be the tenants fault for not reporting it earlier and giving it a squirt of oil which is a normal job a tenant would be expected to do. After all you are not living in a hotel. Note: Just noticed this post is 3 years old

A pre-action plan should now be served on a tenant prior to serving a S21 and/or S8 otherwise the application could/would fail after waiting 6 months (for s21) before even applying for the court hearing There are 5 steps which must be followed before serving section 21 or section 8: Step 1: “The landlord should write to the tenants outlining the reasons possession is being sought.” (this is the easy one) If the reason is rent arrears steps 2-5 must be followed which are: 2. Landlords must declare if they know of any matters that should be taken into consideration, including if tenants, their dependants, or other occupiers have been affected by coronavirus and, if so, how this has impacted on their ability to pay rent. 3.Both parties should consider whether it is possible to resolve issues between them through discussion and negotiation, rather than formal legal proceedings (alternative dispute resolution). 4.The landlord should consider any representations received, and if proceeding with a claim, include any information that has been provided relating to the impact of coronavirus on the tenant’s ability to pay rent. 5.Landlords must keep copies of all documentation and a record of all correspondence or contact with the tenant, throughout the pre-action process, and provide the information to the court should proceedings be necessary. https://www.nrla.org.uk/resources/ending-your-tenancy/pre-action-plan-avoiding-possession-claims Isnt it fun being a landlord. I wonder how many eviction applications will be struck out due to the above not being followed. This is where it becomes more and more important to to use a good letting agent.

I am in the same position myself at the moment. So am in the process of buying a 2 bed ex-council flat (service s/charge £150 pa) generating £800pcm for 160k and a 3 bed terrace house for 215k which should achieve £1050 pcm and possibly the option of renting the garage out separately. Though the house will need about 8-10k work. The flat will be the first one I'm putting into a Ltd Co.

Scratch Cards 😀

Premium Bonds. 50K Each. No capital growth but you may get the big one and tax free.. A friend of mine had a chunk of money not knowing what to do with it. He got 50k of bonds each for his wife and himself and he said he used to win something nearly every month and get a a number of envelopes which was his kids job to open up which was a bit of excitement for them. Most were just the minimum prize but he said he got a few bigger ones

It is not a good idea to report any suspicions that he may be working and also claiming HB or UC if you are receiving the hb payment directly. He could be entitled hb even though he is working due to only earning a low wage. The council could claim back all they have paid you and you couldn't claim you didn't know which is a valid excuse. (as you reported them) He could be validly claiming benefits (which you are receiving) which would then be suspended while the council investigate your suspicions and stop payment to you. The tenant would have no incentive to answer the councils questions to clear up the enquiry because you are the one getting the payment. I would also check your property agents T&C's as I think its bad practise to just drop you as a client just because its getting a bit messy and time consuming for them. Request 1.a copy of their complaints proceedure and 2. which redress scheme they belong to.

I think you are overthinking this. Regarding "must' be done & by 'whom" is immaterial the question is, what you need to do to cover your arse if something goes pear shaped because the potential liability and claim against you could be huge if you get it wrong including prison. Your definition of competent may be vastly different to some clever dick barrister in a court. So why not put that responsibility on the heads of an appropriate company and you can sleep soundly.

I believe that is correct however I look at it with the view that if I instruct a suitable company to do the risk assessment and there is a incident and as long as I have complied with the assessment my liability (i like to think) is greatly mitigated.

If you have had a fire risk assessment done (which i assume you have) it should have some recommendations/guidance if not get one done. Not only do you have a duty of care to the occupiers you need to also cover yourself and any liability if there is a fire. If it was me I would instruct an approved company who do testing/servicing to initially service the system and take their advise on ongoing testing. But be clear with your questions to them about what is legally required and what is good practice. Then get a service plan in place with the company which may be 1, 2, or 4 visits per year which will be documented. Learn how to test the system yourself which isnt hard and the fire company will also show you how and you can add these test also to the log book.

These type of problems could occur in any type of tenancy and I would say you or or friends are not doing enough pre checks. The way to reduce the risk is to fully reference and vet the people you are allowing into your home. Having a guarantor and a detailed inventory signed in advance by the tenant is also a must. If lettings agents can make deductions from deposits quite successfully and legally after the tenancy has ended and they have all the problems and restrictions that surround deposit protection, the question to ask yourself is "what am I doing wrong"?

Yes but if you read further down the article it states: The lodger is likely to be an excluded occupier if: they live in the landlords’ home they share a kitchen, bathroom or living room with the landlord or any other household members In this case, the landlord only has to give the lodger reasonable notice to end the letting, known as a ‘notice to quit’ and they do not have to go to court to evict them. The ‘notice to quit’ does not have to be in writing, but it is recommended that landlords provide the lodger with a formal notice to quit stating when they must leave. This is to prevent the lodger claiming they were never asked to leave an eliminating any communication errors. The notice to quit is usually the length of the rental payment period – so, if the lodger pays rent on a weekly basis, the landlord must give the lodger one weeks’ notice to leave the property. After this period, the landlord can change the locks on the property, even if the lodger has left their belongings there. The landlord must give the belongings back to the lodger without giving the lodger access the property. For lodgers of this kind, the landlord does not need a court order to evict the lodger.