Jump to content

Carryon Regardless

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Carryon Regardless

  1. Most little people would be scared of attempting to use these antics. Fear of the unknown and all that.

    It (doesn't) amaze me how the socialists that would have pointed fingers accusing greed to those with money become those people when they find money.

    I do wonder how Uni graduates become socialists, when their Uni education is all about money.

    Then we see so many failed lawyers enter politics, not only as socialists granted. The very set up of of our legal systems is a massive disadvantage to the 'little' people'.  Legal Aid being the best answer still generates otherwise lost revenues for the advantaged at the tax payers expense.

    You got me going, it's your fault I'm going to have a bad day now.



  2. I agree with Mel, we would increase rents to compensate our additional expense. The tenants can then afford more, the LL's that don't increase will soon have rented properties full due to being cheap.

    While our rent increases are monitored, effectively, we could increase gradually, or of course in one hit for new tenancies.

    Where this will be a negative is that HB claimants get council tax relief. We would not. So less properties would be made available to claimants. They really would become a lower class than they already are, as they would ultimately be in lower cost housing (with lower associated whatever tax applicable), and still having to pay higher rent to compensate the LL.

    Another socialist agenda that removes the incentive for personal advancement.

    As RL there is more of this sh*t to come, and not just for LL's . Squeezing the masses for more dosh is not only for more tax local and central, but for increased corporate profits, that in turn should in theory mean more tax revenue.

  3. The above is correct, but it would seem only in England.

    Most don't have concern for Welsh rentals but for me it is of great relevance. I intend to confirm this but it looks like the Welsh aren't automatically included in English legislated attacks on us, they seemingly must create their own legislation.

    For me it has felt like the Welsh, and socialist, Gov't have been competing to go better than Westminster on more than the letting industry. And I read that Shelter Cymru are annoyed that the School Ass embly haven't gone far enough, and of course they want stronger and more imposing measures against us.

    If my understanding is correct I'm not a criminal. I can still have my £30 pm from those that treat me like a credit facility. But can I encase them within the property till they succumb to the Englishman's wishes?

    Edward No1 wasn't wrong.


  4. "My Lord, the truth of this case is that this unscrupulous, worse than a 2nd hand car sales person and slum keeper, merely used the lack of vaccination record as an excuse to reject these kind hearted, generous , clean living applicants who offered to provide valid medical reason for not taking the covid vaccine.

    The reason for rejection is clearly that these 2 ladies are of Afro Caribbean and Chinese decent respectively, who have chosen to commit to each other in the Hindu church, were not to  acceptable the landlords restricted values. I ask the court to recognise the unfair disadvantage demonstrated toward these Paralympic athletes."

  5. V true RL. But is the concern out of proportion?

    I guess we should be concerning ourselves with England, possibly Wales for me, and treating Scotland and N.I as outside of our sphere.

    But their figures do corrupt the overall UK figures a little on deaths (and presumably serious outcomes).

    Infection rates are running at a little over 11% of population. Most will feel little or no effect, as demonstrated by the death rate of the UK running at a shade over 0.2%

    Vaccination and future boosters would seem to reduce the possibility of infection and more so the more serious effects. So those not vaccinated are at a reduced risk of contracting it, of course they would seemingly have a greater risk of serious affects if they do. But as the 0.2% will be factoring in the earlier times, pre vaccination , the risks to the population overall is, to my mind, so low it needn't factor in to our business strategy.

    The  greater risk from covid was always the overload of health services and the breakdown of our infrastructure due to losing (maybe 10%) of the key workers. We are seeing this in lesser advanced countries that are seemingly unable to manage the pandemic, with that I include America, largely due to Trump.

    Now consider a possible advantage should unvaccinated tenants snuff it. They are a poor class of tenant anyway, they are less likely to manage their lives and our rents. We don't have to evict 'em, which is nigh on impossible during the pandemic.

    Personally I don't intend to factor in vaccination checks. Choosing intelligent tenants should cover that concern.


    As an aside. Russia have great vaccination hesitancy, they don't trust it. Coincidentally their infection rates are far higher than Europe in general.

  6. RL while I accept your business concerns I  have great issue around the privacy, and right to that.

    The idea that the unqualified being able to enquire into another's medication or lack of it abhors me.

    In truth I believe it should be our choice of which qualified persons should be allowed such, in normal non legal type situations.

    After all we wouldn't have thought of asking about other medical possibilities that may increase our risks.

    Thin edge and all that.


  7. Please correct me where I might be out of date.

    We cannot deny a tenancy on the grounds that the applicants are,

    of undesirable gender (any one of 57),   are of any particular heritage (unless English).

    I believe soon enough we will be unable to deny same for those with animals,  children (same thing really),   are in receipt of any benefit.

    To date I'm not aware that we can deny someone who is unable to demonstrate that they have 2 valid pricks, or would that be 3 as winter progresses?

    Come the time the Gov't may authorise doormen (or women, or indeed any other type of feasible gender) to request of me my medical status I may ask if they also wish to ensure themselves that my piles will not stain their upholstery. Showing 'em my arse would be appropriate.



  8. RL I agree that on the face of it investing in BTL still looks attractive to the naive, but positively scary to those with a little more knowledge of the criteria we must meet and the restrictions imposed come debt chasing time.

    To offset the possible evacuation of investors from this industry I expect, but not only me I see, that we will have greater CGT imposed on our sale profits. For many that would result in a less attractive revenue from a sale, or two.

    That will result in personal appraisements of the risk of keeping against the lesser revenue of selling. I, for example, during those times of massively depreciated equity (post 2008) could see that a sale would require me to top up the sale monies to clear the mortgages. So I concluded I should stay, fight the regular low life's, and take what profits did come from rental revenues.

    Now, later on, I feel or risks are far greater, although personally I feel I shall be scrapping scum bags less, but as tax increases I shall more likely remain until my net takeaway from selling is enough to draw down on for our future. 

    Starmer wasn't ever high in my estimation of leadership ability, with this he has dropped as low as Corbin. But at least Dabbot could see that removing the batteries from her calculator meant lots more police for very little money.

  9. Personally I see the point in serving notice, in case you are left in the lurch following excuse after excuse.

    An alternative may be to request the tenant serve notice for an agreed date. 

    Both of these can be used in with some form of flexibility.

    As you want to sell and they want to buy it seems reasonable that you can reach agreement in an amicable fashion.


    On a side note has anyone considered the possibility of a right to buy scheme for tenants? With current Gov't trends I can see how this could be an attractive strategy for them, but costly for us if long term tenants gain big advantage on price.

  10. A similar suggestion was made by insurance companies some years ago. If I remember it was to be an investment for our pension pots, and would receive advantage from the Chancellor. I've not read anything since.

    I would expect these larger invertors to only show interest in the upper end of the market, but perhaps not so much in London with the increased work from home trend and masses leaving the City. Since this trend will be emulated a fair bit in other Cities I'm surprised Lloyds would chance this now. But at 5k properties p.a. it 'aint a big gamble for them.

    Of course others seeing advantage and doing similar means more invertors / investments. So as  said it pushes on prices. I can't seeing this effecting me any though.

    But I agree that the Gov't is effectively training its sights on us. Until there is a mass exodus from the BTL and they might come under pressure to find accommodation that'll continue. But generally properties will be lived in by some one, so our leaving the industry doesn't reduce housing stock , it will only dampen property inflation.

    Attack and penalise the property LL - more votes,  a win.

    Create lesser expensive properties and encourage private ownership - more votes, a win.

    Cause remaining LL's to improve their stock - better social situations (discreetly), a win.

    Make repossession near impossible - more votes, less homeless, less anti social outcomes, a win.

    Less LL profit, more LL stress, some LL's becoming dependant on the state (but feasibly far less than those we might have hoofed) - well beside us who gives one?

  11. Nearly all true.

    * You are the registered owner of the property.

    *You receive a commercial return for it being let.

    *It may be an owner is negligent if he fails to ensure the property is a safe environment.

    *It may be an owner is responsible for the activities within their property. Is there anti social behaviour, are there illegal activities?

    *Did the owner ensure the 'Agency' dealing with the rental is competent?

    Owners often leave pretty much all dealing to a property Agent, not all are a competent as Grampa. If the property should have a HMO licence the Agent has no responsibility to the authorities. If the deposit isn't protected the owner will fall foul of the claim. This goes on.

    It would take some one with more legal knowledge, and even then lawyers get it wrong, to convince me that I am able to step to one side and others will be held responsible. Any final recompense would be a charge on the property in my view. Criminal responsibilities are a whole other ball game.

    A while back I asked opinions of if a licence to let would allow the 'managers' to just hoof bad tenants as was claimed by an organisation. No definitive response.  I concluded my thinking to be correct that ultimately when these 'managers' hoof a tenant I could be held accountable.

    I don't feel we are able to just pass responsibilities so easily, but as said more than happy to learn otherwise. If this were so and I could find an 'Agency' that would guarantee an income while I effectively naff off I would be so happy. I could live reasonably well on a reduced % of revenue anyway and could then concentrate on more pretty things in what's left of my time here.


  12. My point is around the legality.

    We would still be owners of the property, so a search by whichever dept of which ever local council will cause them to approach us, I've been there.

    Departments are well known for not communicating with each other. Then there is risk from changing policies that may result in the shoulder shrug when we attempt to cause 'them' to uphold their end oft he bargain.

    In the event that we might then sue for the broken contract we would have a legal department to go up against. Using our money against us is then our disadvantage.

    It was Wales but the police made strong requests for me to move on nuisance tenants. Later when I reported criminal damage, the event witnessed by 2, they had no interest. My problem.

    Denbighshire CC wrote to me to state that if I didn't remove fly tipped rubbish on the site they would at my cost, and a £1,000 fine. The 1st I was aware but only days to act. I am now no longer permitted to remove rubbish from any of my sites / properties in Wales I must use a registered waste disposal contractor, and keep records. Expect similar such measures in England here and there.

    I feel that what ever we believe is our agreement regarding such greater need tenants / tenancies the clip board warriors would still chase us for the issues.

    Happy to learn different as I want dosh like the rest of us.  I've 2 mt properties right now. One is close to being ready for market, t'other will need some updating pre next rental. CGT means sell just 1 this year. Anyway with Afghans being in need / greater need I have interest as to if this could be converted into significant revenue, but trusting the authorities I must deal with is a major issue.

    I've had case workers that promise to be there for issues, but invariably they've 'moved on' within a month. Their training and abilities were naff all anyway, just plucked from the unemployment queue as far as I could discern.

    Fools rush in where angels sell up.

  13. RL can you be sure?

    What with Selective Licencing and Rent Smart Wales, and with our legal responsibility still standing even though we are encouraged to use Agents, can we legally transfer responsibility?

    Local authorities certainly like to pursue the owner, with associated threats.

  14. I get a summary of costs.

    The lease states  that if I require the accounts to be audited then they should be. Regardless the freeholder has the accounts audited and then charges on for that.

    I argued in court that as I don't require the audit I should not be liable for the cost. My argument gained no sympathy.

    Due to my arguing that the overall charges were excessive, and trust me they were, I was given copies of all invoices. Their in house solicitor then charged his hourly rate for that 'service'.

    The eventual legal costs claimed against me far outweighed the original costs. There can become a point where the costs to defend might add to the claim being made so it becomes a gamble as to if paying for a professional is intelligent. We get the justice we can afford.

  15. By usual I guess we must be sure to include the latest leaflet or be prevented from a S21 repossession?

    Wouldn't it be nice if our Gov't could show us how to be compliant at any point in time?

    I feel we are presented with ongoing additional hurdles that are designed to trip us as they are placed in our path in hope don't see them.

    I also see these ongoing hazards as central Gov't and local Gov't (that to include the Welsh Retard Assembly) as LL harassment. Imagine the response if we had tried these tactics on our T's, when we had such powers as to create our own AST contracts.

  16. Any new equipment is ok for 12 months, so keeping the receipt should satisfy that one.

    Considering properties will have RCCB protection now it raises the question of the need for a PAT test. But I suppose the dog might have chewed the cable and left a live conductor exposed.

    Ting is, I don't supply toilet paper but I still expect T's to wipe their own ass when needed.

  17. Any electrical equipment needs to be PAT tested, more responsibility.

    My view is that the t's should maintain such, if they don't after written warning send in a contractor and charge 'em.

    The issue with ignoring is the cost may be greater than any deposit. Then the garden may be off putting to prospective T's.


  • Create New...