Carryon Regardless

If you reach agreement with the tenant there is no need for a notice. The 1st payment of the increased rent confirms the tenants agreement. But I serve a less formal notice of increase annually. It has the requirements of the section 13 notice, w/o the title.

How could right to buy in the private sector work? It was said that it would be at below market value, that assumes that the private LL is sitting on equity. But some LL's will be in negative equity. It assumes that mortgages can be cleared with ease by the sale, not so for those in low equity situations, as there are always costs associated with a sale. Would Labour willingly bankrupt some LL's. Would Labour be able to justify the increased number of LL's that would then be w/o a pension, and due to such sales become state dependant? As usual Labour grab a sound bite and don't factor in real life effects. I am sure Labour will do as they can to attack the greedy abusive LL though. But let's not forget a fair few Labour MP's and supporters will be in the BTL game. I would dearly love to exit this industry, but for a reason or 2 I'm still trapped. In truth I've sold some, and would sell all but 2 of the rest with happiness, Wales being the best gone from my stresses. When we look at the loading on us from legislation, both already and forecast, which are the new rules that are heaviest. The 12 month to repossess (in likely reality) are only a concern where the tenants are abusive, and legislation supports them. Allowing the already smelly unclean cave dwellers to have dogs is bad, that will degrade many rental situations. Allowing them to carry out 'some' alterations is plain ridiculous, that's a real head up ass policy. I had to laugh when the Greens showed their attempt to jump on't bandwagon. "LL's can be forced by tenants to insulate their homes". Haven't they heard of the EPC's and the rating applied by yet another clipboard warrior? Sadly, aside from the industry of politics, I see nothing that is dependable for a future. So when out of this cr*p I am destined to walk doggy, sail where I am still allowed, and enjoy the hospitality of Mr Martin. Guinness was discounted to £2.99 last night so the world 'aint all bad. Meet Mishka, she's older now. And drinks Guinness (when I spill it).

I have a property where to improve the rating and save the tenant money I might install a wind turbine. It's a 2 up, 2 down, mid terrace property. It is possible that the assessor had a sense of humour.

Unless it's a 100% discount I can't think of any of my tenants that could afford it. Although it would be interesting to see how they could design that formula. If the property is mortgaged could a transfer be forced with a mortgage outstanding? With that in the wind I would cease paying mine.

I have been trying to understand the agenda for years. Feasibly it might give me / us a foresight of how far this will go. But all relevant parties are the same. The increase in our responsibilities is most apparent, as this let's the benefits system off the hook some. Then there is the increase in housing stability, I feel measures toward that have only just begun. For that to be effective we must come under greater controls. And it will be designed so as not to impact on social mobility for those requiring that. So that must be heavily loaded against us. The country is skint, and so taxation must be increased across the board. And so our returns are hit, additional to the financial burden of legislated responsibility, and losses while trying to recover a property from abusers. Do the civil service (as this is going to transfer to any new Gov't) have a master plan for the replacement of the BTL investors that are going to cash in? Should we care? Well 1st off in principle the cashing in should provide near instant tax revenues. Next, properties will be transferred, they don't become non homes for long, they will be lived in by someone. Us cashing in doesn't affect housing availability in the long term. They may in fact become more affordable to those in the rent trap. In a small way, wasteful as it 'may' be, it also generates work. Property renovations are v common with new owners, it may even be a ripping out of whatever the seller thought was a good idea done recently to promote the sale. Happy to be pointed out where I'm wrong, but our main value is for those requiring social mobility. Thus far we try to stay away from those as tenants, as ideally we want a family to live in our properties indefinitely. But for the good of social stability those families would be better as owners (in general).

When I read of LL's saying the state needs us I scoffed. As you hi lite RL it's about the return, those LL's were there for the financial benefit. When the benefit was attractive there would be investors getting involved, even if other LL's were pulling out. Now the risk for the diminishing return is too great for an increasing number, including me. There is a continual increasing demand on housing. There have been gov't initiatives/ incentives for people to buy. If honest I don't know what number took up these opportunities, but it would soak up some available properties. But as our properties come to market there will be a starvation of available rentals. But in time that should be offset, a fair bit at least, by those properties being bought by new home owners. A question for us is will property values fall while the market finds a new level, due to the influx of our properties coming to market. I sold my properties for less than local values, as I viewed the market was falling (it was). The comparable properties are still on the market. But as we know v many can't finance their own home, so the rental market is needed. So as we progress I would expect politicians, under advice, to pull back on their socialist, vote grabbing, agenda's. But when? One sign for me will be when we stop being bashed by the media, when courts stop expecting us to be ultimately responsible for so much. The growth of Housing Associations seems to have ceased. I guess new build estates might end up reserving a proportion of their stock for new style associations, but developers would fight that vigorously. More councils might be financed to buy more stock, central gov't creates money when it feels a need. But really I see the easiest way to cover the increasing shortfall in rentals is to get off our backs. But I'm ready to retire and leave that to the enthusiastic naive young 'uns.

Isn't England going to remove our S21 ability, and extend repossession notices to 6months? Sorry I get confused now with the ever evolving legislation, if feels like I need eyes in the back of my head to at least be aware that the hangman is coming to get me. Anyway Wales have done this with repossessions already. I served 2 S21's a few months ago, at the v last opportunity. I now need to research when my ability to use those runs out. But as for us selling up and escaping this onslaught, perhaps with some foresight, that has already been made far less attractive than was. Rollover relief long gone. Taper relief, anyone remember that? CGT thresholds drastically reduced, and reducing. There are calls for us to have to justify our reasons for selling our properties. In fact don't we already have restrictions to that in place, or is that just Wales? So it's easy to imagine that over the next thrilling instalments, we shall be told who we shall have as tenants (by removing our rights to refuse), we shall only be able to repossess if a judge approves our request (be sure 2nd and 3rd chances will be granted the abusive tenants). They should be allowed animals. They should be allowed kids, in numbers, as a business, stuff the wear and tearing and kicking of doors. We shall be repairing more as discerning tenant abuse is always difficult (for a judge). Rent increases look to be increasingly dictated. We have discussed this idea of a right to buy for tenants (that would have great difficulties mind). All of this with little to no chance of recovering losses from those with nowt, by a court that sympathises to them anyway. ###### I didn't realise things were going to be so bad till I wrote this. C'mon RL you used to tell me I was too negative, give me a slap and tell me I'm wrong.

I saw the title and thought it was an invitation to suggest some.

We will pay 3% 'extra' purchase tax should we invest in a 2nd property. Being one of the more 'progressive' systems that's 6% extra in Scotland. You might think that if it were the 1st property in Scotland you wouldn't be penalised the 6% ADS (Additional Dwelling Supplement), but no, if you own property anywhere in the world the 1st Scottish property would be a 2nd home. That's almost as if the Scots don't want anyone new there. I've heard that some councils are actively trying to gain more council tax from holiday lets. As there is a call from locals on many tourist attractive areas that local housing is pushed beyond their affordability, I see there will be more pressure on the holiday letting market. For many of these areas the replacement of tourists will be by refugees, let's see if they are happy with that outcome. We, not only UK but Europe wide, are going to see a greater influx of refugees over the coming years. Maybe interesting to some The UK in November 2022 is stated to have over 231,000 refugees, here's a comparison to other eu states, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.REFG?locations=EU

You've got to sympathise with the socialists trying to convince us of their argument. Right is wrong, and left is right. Is it any wonder Diane Abbott was confused when putting her shoes on.

I wonder how many Tory MP's / supporters are still in the rental game. They would feasibly have had an earlier insight into the planned changes ahead, and if they have got out 'earlier' then they no longer give a toss as to how we will be screwed over. If the Tories want to catch votes they might consider towing the barge at Portland back to France.

My suggestion would be to return all the deposit to the tenant, with an explanation that you as new agent don't hold transferred deposits as the transfer can be too complicated. Clearly the tenant isn't clued up on this anyway, and most find it too confusing to get their head around. This way they are more likely to enjoy the bonus w/o it raising any questions in their thinking, and then doing any research.

I can see one advantage to the Welsh 'Occupation Contract'. For years the Housing Act has been tinkered and amended. Now the confusion is more than ever due to nearly daily changes and possible new legislation. I view, hopefully not incorrectly, that the 42 pages of Welsh contract and guidance is as good as being the legislation that controls us, and in some parts them. So if the WRA have this thing sorted it should eliminate lots of confusion as (in Wales initially) the old should now be irrelevant, and with it the litigation that so often costs us a bl**dy fortune, in legal fees if nowt else. One issue there is the content and how, as expected, it favours the occupant massively. The other is that of course they 'aint finished messing with this. There will be scenarios that demonstrate failings in the new contract set up, thus meaning the tinkering starts all over again. But back to doggies. I now read Wales and England look to share the same 'Landlords cannot blanket ban pets'. We must now create a case for rejection within 28 days of a written request. This morning Mr Postman said "I have this for you to sign for". It was an A4 envelope, I don't get those often if at all. Stupid tenant warned me of it, so I rejected it. That gives some extra time for me to consider my response to what I assume to be the written request. There is a perverse satisfaction in he getting a small taste of what we often experience, a pointless runaround.

Some might find this interesting, especially as this might be seen as the forerunner of the English tenancy contract. Today was the last day for me to provide the new written contract to the Welsh tenants. I looked here and there for guidance, samples and such. The Welsh Gov't provide a model, with much explanation. There are key matters, set in stone. There are fundamental terms, again pretty much set in stone. Supplementary terms can be amended, with agreement of the contract holder (tenant to you and me), but only if there is no disadvantage or a greater advantage to the tenant. Omitted terms must appear but be struck through. Amended terms must be in capital letters. We can add additional terms, provided they don't conflict with other terms. So after consideration I used the model, with a score through, and additional terms to cover animals and vehicles (not included in the model). This is a mere 42 pages for each tenancy (I think I can still call it a tenancy, but maybe it's an occupation, Welsh style). Today I met 4 of the 5 occupants, The Welsh Accommodated Tenant/S, the acronym is suitable. There is provision for them to sign their agreement, but not required. With 42 pages it does take some digesting, and for me to wait for what comes out the other side isn't feasible. 3 did sign, 1 i took a smiley photo of him holding it. Anyway today is also the last opportunity to use the S21 repossession notice. I took 3 and used 2. 1 wasn't home so I posted it. T'other convinced me he is going to try harder, and beside I could serve using the new Welsh style for rent arrears later. The 3rd, well I've recently had some complaints, he is a poisonous individual, who spends more time understanding how to threaten someone (me) with Welsh legislation than getting off his lazy ass and being productive. Last year he wanted a comfort / support dog, he became angry when I rejected him, that restriction being in the old AST didn't matter as he had a reason. Today he asked if I had received his Whatsapp message, me driving had not seen it. Anyway he sees Welsh legislation causes me to create good reason for him to be refused a doggy now. He was going to send it recorded so I can't say I didn't see it, but me not signing sorts that little trick anyway. After that he fails to understand why the S21 is now desirable to me. If he 'aint there neither is any dog. With 3 houses sold I look forward to the day when I can ditch those 5 flats.

I considered a right to buy principle. Remember the days when an investor could buy a run down property, renovate it with a grant, and be in profit from the grant even before renting the property out. By 'eck 'ow things 'ave changed.

Are there many rogue landlords left? If there are it is the fault of local councils for not policing them. So a new raft of laws isn't going to change that, the only thing that would would be prosecutions of them. The Gov't are merely pandering to the socialist voters.

Labour think landlords have too much power over tenants, and have plans to reform the private sector even more. The Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Lisa Nandy, says: "For private renters we will tilt the balance of power back to you through a powerful new renters’ charter and a new decent homes standard – written into law." No surprise really, but; "balance of power back to you" is a handy but inaccurate sound bite. Renters have never had so much power over us, so if power is to be returned then it should be to us. Why does she think that legislation that is even more authoritarian 'to us' is going to help those that can't get on the property ladder, and so are in need of rental opportunities? For sure the local Gov't's aren't filling the housing gaps, affordable or otherwise. It has been clear for a decade or few that there is no easy answer to the housing issues of the country. The politician's and and media find it easy to demonise us greedy, abusers, for running such a business. I have said before that the houses are there and so some one will live in them, so houses aren't disappearing. The new crisis is temporary, and due to LL's having had enough of being attacked continually, and wanting out - me too. But I don't see a short term fix, the houses in some areas will become more affordable (although mortgage rates and lending criteria are big factors there). But I'm not really seeing a reduction in demand. True, some areas are stagnating, but as soon as the BofE relax their % increase strategy the markets will move again, so demand, and property inflation looks to continue before long. How to address the ex tenants homelessness in the short term, well w/o my being forced they 'aint having our spare rooms. So big corks for politicians big mouths is all I can suggest.

So insurance as well as taking some of our limited profits will need to be administrated to set up, and then continually administrated for iffy tenants. Come claim time we need administrate a claim and feasibly enter into a conflict. The additional risk of paying for legal representation to fight for a claim is likely to be too much of a risk for the potential award, imo. I've had many guarantors and the greatest value has been when one tells a wayward tenant they will get a slap for putting them in a detrimental position. The deterrent is their advantage, as is the possibility they will pay where a tenant has failed. The home owning bit does mean they have something to attack, but having been in court where a guarantor claimed, w/o demonstration, that they had a serious illness (that shouldn't have bearing imo) they received full sympathy from the judge. The hearing was manipulated with a finding in my favour that still meant I got nowt. I have a situation where the elderly and genuinely infirm guarantor has requested to resign as such, I didn't accept. I would be wasting more money and effort going to any court, it may be that he will agree a settlement. In short a court will perceive we can afford the loss, as we have carried it for many months prior to court anyway.

Call it a pre New Year and carry on as before. Any way The wokes are going to ban Christmas cards, as it is offensive to Muslims. You might get away with sending a Messiah card, depending who is depicted on the stamp

Well he's living better than some of my Tenants, but that's Wales for yer.

Grampa thanks. That's where I was coming from. My solicitor assured me that a licence was not a tenancy, but we've read of even judges screwing up in court due to confusions created by out ever evolving legislation/s. Like you I use Shelter often to confirm my position, but I feel they have recognised that we can use them to advantage and are somewhat more intelligent / discreet about how they provide information of late. In fact previously I've even printed off their info in preparation for a possible court claim, as in N Wales they are very active, and using their own sh*tty stick back at 'em would be a pleasure. Anyways they are helping once more, https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/renting/introduction_to_security_of_tenure/what_is_a_licence#:~:text=applies to England-,Definition of a licence,be fixed term or periodic. down to 'No Intention to Create a Tenancy', the last item would seemingly free me of the tenancy requirements. Of course being neither a tenancy or a licence could mean a revenue earner for the legal vultures in the event. The buyers are now keen to progress after their solicitor chucking spanners at the works. 'They' are now happy to go forward in the absence of local authority information that seemed so important. Likely their solicitor was giving chance for them to get their ducks in a row. It's only 5 weeks away till completion and I feel my advantage of an early contract is lost. I don't wish to be awkward, but now I'm in no rush to meet their desires.

Purchase negotiations were agreed 8th December last. I wanted completion in the new tax year. I was seeking exchange of contracts at the earliest so both parties would be confident of the transfer of ownership. At that time property prices were feasibly going to plummet, things haven't been that extreme. Mel the idea is that we exchange contracts prior to any other activity. My understanding, maybe naive, is that we are then both committed to the completion of purchase, both date and value. Their solicitor has been a pr*ck in my view, in expecting me to confirm things I wouldn't be expected to have knowledge of. Whilst seemingly a clever ass his questions were often too vague to have meaning. "Has any construction taken place over drainage systems"? My answer was that as all services of the estate are underground then yes, as all services will have been back filled after installation. Of course he wanted to be sure any extension wouldn't impact on any issue with sewers. My view is that if concerned get another bloody survey done. But an mt property serves no good for anyone. The buyers being able to decorate and fit carpets would be great advantage for them at completion. They being able to move furniture in would contradict those works some, but not my issue. I would be relieved of security, in theory. Council tax and utilities become their responsibility. Feasibly they would have had 3 months to take advantage of, if their solicitor wasn't so troublesome. And I do understand his need to be protective of his clients interests, he has failed. If I am at risk of possible renegotiation after exchange of contracts then it would be a no from me, but otherwise?

I'm selling another house in Prestatyn. It is empty. In principle I have no objection to the buyers making use of the empty property, following the exchange of contract. As an aside it feels like their solicitor fancies himself as a litigator. His demands on me to commit to assurances about things I would have no knowledge of have been rejected. I feel he is a typical legal vulture that would complicate for no good purpose. Anyway I have been offered a Licence to Occupy for the buyers, by the buyers solicitor, this pending their purchase on April 6th. If a licence to occupy can absolve us of all responsibilities, as is purported here, why the hell do we use AST's?

Some one is talking about me.

This might depend on restrictions within the AST, but to give the tenants chance to budget, and lessen the blow, you might increase each four months over the coming year.