Carryon Regardless

Personal view.

If I were to inherit enough to buy so many properties, and there will be additional pre revenue costs, I would use it as a draw down fund.

The mind set that we should continually become a greater financial entity is upset more and more by the lack of reliability regarding our forecasting  of the future.

Our Gov't, and no doubt other Gov't's, make it more impossible to understand our responsibilities going forward. They increase our risks and reduce our rewards. The risks of being unable to shed our responsibilities while working for little or no reward becomes greater.

As said though, I can't see a better investment. But I have limited vision and restricted opportunity to look elsewhere.

V true RL, if they aren't in receipt of benefit a LL can't claim it.

My point is that a letter to HB just might gain a result. My letters to HB have been sent as a default, and I prefer not to waste my time on the phone to any benefit agencies and the like.

T's have often cited issues with their benefits as a reason for non payment. I've learned not to get involved. It's for them and the G'tors to resolve such, I still want the rent payments regardless. We accept payments on their behalf that doesn't make us responsible for resolving issues that the agency would be reluctant to talk to us about anyway.

I would take legal advice as to how to pass the effects of the claim to the Agent.

A similar situation with a local and larger LL than I defended the case that Shelter took on for his ex tenant. They won and there was a £16k bill for Shelters legal expenses also. A bit scary that it isn't just the claim that bites.

Other benefits I have no understanding of.

I may have missed it,

have you written to the local HB and stated, with a statement as evidence, that the T is more than 8 weeks in arrear?

You should request that future payments are directed to your bank account, provide details.

If nowt else HB should cease to the T while they investigate.

A couple of years ago I travelled to London on Virgin.

A reserved seat in a quite carriage. It got me there faster than driving, and as you say still with energy.

All for £45, so difficult to fault.

There is the journey to the departure station (Macclesfield),and parking,  and the onward arrangements from Euston, to consider. But I can appreciate how overall it can win.

Since the pandemic prices have gone silly, on pretty well everything not just rail travel. Step daughter can fly to Moscow from London easier and cheaper than taking the train up here. Even with fuel costs the drive is significantly cheaper.

If I were to use HS2 (some time in the 2030's) I have a 1 hour train journey to M/cr to add, and its cost.

I'm not against the progress it 'may' bring, but as usual I'm v cynical about the spin on it.

Nowt wrong with Dabbott in a cabinet. Doors closed and locked.

How they justify a HS2 leg to half an hour away from Nottingham beats me. But they haven't built that either yet.

There is an ongoing action to deter cars from the roads, for more obvious reasons than saving the planet or for cleaner city air. But how much will a HS2 ticket cost as an incentive?

Perhaps the concern is around fire safety?

HMO's have regulation on fire doors, non HMO don't have any as far as I'm aware. Just smoke detectors (mains or 10 year sealed in battery) on each level.

So just consider it from a safety point of view. As RL glass below (is it 1m?) needs to be toughened.

Aside from the fact we still aren't legislated to have earth on lighting cct's if the end devices are double insulated.

To ensure this on one flat I've replaced the screws with plastic, good enough.

Light fittings can be replaced with double insulated easy enough if needed.

Small point is that the majority of light switch back boxes don't have neutral in there, it touching a screw, or us wouldn't result in a shock  anyway unless there are other issues. Neutral has as close to the same potential as earth to have no effect on us.

Unless the cables are buried 50mm below the surface we now need earth fault protection. 50mm 'aint realistic so in other words we do.

But if you were a 20 a day chap you would have passed the cost of ciggy's by the 2nd bottle.

Please, please, contradict my views.

Forward opinions and assumptions.

I'm in the process of strategizing our future but because so much is difficult to forecast and so much has become complex with continual changes it is difficult.

I had developed a 5 year plan but I'm not sure it applies now.

At some point I must choose to follow the plan or amend, others views can be more than useful.

Maybe, I can see that he is unable to apply that sort of tax by stealth but other measures 'against us' can be and have been.

Individually the changes to our operating what used to be our business, but is increasingly not, looks reasonable. As a whole they are drastic and there are now so many tripping hazards that a tenant, with Shelter style assistance, is likely to always beat us in a court room. Then there are the legal expenses that are not only our own to be afraid of.

No change to CGT ignores that we used to have an attractive CG set up that encouraged investment. The main and very obvious change already is that we can not roll over our profits into another investment. The effective result is that if we gain a capital profit then at sale it's far more likely we are not going to invest that into another venture. The country suffers because of that as in my case, and others I suspect, that is the time to naff off to more attractive locations, Thailand might well be that place.

I suspect that Sunak has no issues with causing an exodus of landlords,but it needs to be in a measured way.

The article suggests that a rise in CG would cause a mass (fast) exodus. That assumes that the CG change would be with ample warning to dispose of our properties and beat 'a' deadline. If there were a mass exodus than values fall, there becomes a glut of properties competing for sale. The deadline then looks to be passed by many.

The greater issue might well be that most would attempt to sell empty properties. The 'fast' loading on local authorities would be a serious backlash. Of course the courts are well behind so our actually being able to legally repossess is more difficult these days anyway. The overburden on that so called charity Shelter would be a pleasure to witness.

Yes pretend opposition parties will pretend to oppose anything. We forget they exist if they don't.

But I'm trying to get my head around what feels like a new of money isn't a problem culture that seems to have developed through the pandemic. There are grants and monies being thrown around like sweeties and it will be the less off that will take the hit of having to repay it all through taxes.

"Here's £6k toward a new EV,"

"street charging will be made available at convenience,"

The lesser well off are being squeezed off the road while those with funds are being treated.

The result of the hike in minimum wage will be interesting. Is this progressive? Will the businesses having to pay this just claw it back through increased pricing? Will it result in less jobs?

Is Sunak intelligent or merely creating future issues for another? 

Oo er,

back in 2004 I converted lots of £ into Baht after seeing land available on Samui. It looked across at the big Buddah.

The idea of forming a co operative to allow a handful of Thai's to own my property was a bit of a worry.

We've enjoyed Bangkok a few times on the way in and out.

On the + side when I converted the Baht back I made a good few quids.

I wonder if life would have been better had I had the guts.

I'm assuming you've adopted a warmer European state, as is more common.

Well, I'm led to believe that Spain has a fairly stringent comparable MOT.

Don't know about France but assume it to be similar. And with German advanced efficiency I would 'guess' worse.

There is the likes of Albania, Macedonia, but they aren't common relocation destinations.

Although foreign Scotland is colder.

Bulgaria? But there 2 Hp means 2 horses.

5 minutes ago, kanrent said:

In my adopted country as an expat I pay = to £25 Road tax a year, no mot for a 2.5 litre diesel pick up gushing out black smoke

I can only try and guess,

Greece?

The road tax being insignificant would depend on the age of the vehicle (it's value) and therefor the depreciation.

MOT's have become a new stealth tax. 000,s of cars are failing on emissions. While some might think that's good for the planet I would say that all the replacement parts used to restore a vehicle to it's more stringent emissions level means more pollution by many ways.

A personal example. My mpv Viano failed at .39 thingies. It was winter and the engine is overly complicated with emissions cr*p so I deferred getting stuck into it. I bought an E class estate, about as close to van capability as is available, to get me by. Being older it passed the MOT the day before at 1.49 oojah's. A lovely mo mo that served me for 9 months till I could remove Viano engine and replace all sorts of components to achieve .01 whatsits.

I don't believe my improved emissions will ever compensate the pollution of making, transporting and testing the new components, while I ran a car at nearly 4x the thingamajigs.

Anyway my take on the continual BTL onslaught. Mr little legs wants more of our money because he has spent so much. We are going to be hit harder and harder.

I believe there is a strategy to cause more LL's to depart this industry, that will effectively cause more home ownership. The theory of that is that it creates greater social responsibility and with it less anti social situations. So to hit our CG would contradict that. 

I've seen a suggestion that for the 1st time there may be a gentle introduction of a tax of sorts on all home sales. Easy to recognise that when that becomes phsycologically acceptable as a normal it can be increased over the years.

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.

Ask them if they would prefer to surrender the tenancy prior to the works, and apply for the tenancy post works.

In truth I would rather see such T's gone.

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.

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.

"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."

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.

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.

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.

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.