Carryon Regardless

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58516799 Likely using Dabbot maths, it would be funny if not so dangerous. Just saying.

1 month isn't set in stone, you can both agree as you please.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

In an area that will attract low issue tenants that can actually afford the market rents, or the additional time and effort destroy any theoretical calculations. Tbh Kanrent I struggle to see the reward over risk advantage of btl these days.

I find that, while my cynicism is certainly no less, my apathy has increased. I've taken on a few battles, and ignoring the financial aspect (which is difficult), it's a part of life I'll not get back.

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.

I've been providing links to the info. But maybe I'm expected to drive the T's to an internet source and press the buttons as well.

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.

Thanks, I wonder what additional 'how to get your LL' info is added. The contradiction there is that if the tenants are treated to be so unable to research for themselves then they can't flippin' read the leaflet.

I sit corrected Grampa. I thought it became a legal requirement some years ago. Me confused again.

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.

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.

'If' the T's haven't already vacated you will need to organise for a locksmith to gain entry with Bailiff presence, and police if things look to be turning ugly. But the Bailiffs will consider police attendance. Nowt wrong with you using a key or drilling the lock yourself, but if you fail the Bailiffs might swan off requiring you to arrange another visit with them. While the High Court Sheriff is far more effective at confiscating goods and debt recovery I'm not sure they are any more effective at facilitating entry, happy to be corrected on that one. I would monitor the property, even consider reminding the T's of their imminent eviction. Most would be apprehensive of the Bailiffs arriving. If you can be 'reasonably' sure they have vacated then the property is back in your possession, gain entry as you please, but be aware of traps such as leaving belongings to demonstrate they're still in possession. Neighbours witnessing removal of belongings is good for you. Checking for council tax and utility account cessation also good. If on housing benefit check with the local authority if the T's are still in receipt, although double property payments can be allowed occasionally.

I also us Excel, with my own spreadsheets. Tbh though I'm feeling that automatic reminders for all the stuff we need to comply with would be an advantage. The financial isn't so complicated.

Lawyers huh, I knew the could be good purpose for the 2nd.

Or not. I'm seeing them but seemingly unchallenged. I imagine though that if the scooters for hire in London aren't used because people have their own then Grant Shapps will make sure the police act.

While I agree Grampa I've experienced a different response in different areas. Prestatyn is a wasted phone call, unless there are blood and guts. In Buxton I have experienced more pro active responses, but as you say one occasion I had to tell them where to find the perpetrator or it would have been shrugged off. Different occasion 2 years ago I called 999 as what I could hear over the gardens was an escalating intense and threatening situation. Walking on and the sirens were going t'other way, so already busy. The next day Plod called to ask if I had seen knives, of course I hadn't. But clearly prevention was required. So It seems like things got a lot worse. Our station is pretty much 9-5 convenience hours now. Later on bods will be taken up to 30 miles for 'interview'. Trying to get home when finished with is a bit difficult and expensive in rural parts, so teaches me that there is now an increased risk added to any involvement of trying to be a good citizen. The downward spiral into deterioration of our social environment is one we can't win. The police are seemingly not interested in break ins.If we find illegal occupants during a void it now seems we can't expect police assistance. We are expected I suppose to go through the legal processes, Bailiffs being the ultimate. What we get back, eventually, might well be business destroying, and soul destroying obviously. Our risks are continually increasing and our rewards being continually eroded. Sorry if I seem so negative, but am I the only one?

I'm sure it isn't the 1st time many of us have heard of this, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-dorset-57599056 The poor sods who fall for this are somewhat complicit as they mustn't have viewed prior to handing over dosh. But increasingly I'm seeing a trend to hand over lots of dosh for unseen merchandise, buying cars springs to mind on that one. From the selfish perspective does it increase our risks? It seems if 'occupiers' are in our properties the police are shrugging their shoulders. I thought that had been made criminal and such occupiers and those that had aided such an occupation were to be held to account. seems not.

🍺 🛐 🤡

Cynicism RL, that used to be reserved for LL's as I remember. Anyway welcome to the club, it used to be a lonely place but increasingly less so. Still not a happy club though. Just a thought but you may find the Chinese hoops are too small for fat Westerners. (But you might try selling them in France as compact self inflating life rings to the wannabe illegal migrants. Just add water.)

Thanks Grampa, has there been a consultation period on this? Of course if it is pushed through as covid legislation I guess there would be no need, but as you query what about after? With my usual cynicism I wonder what further wait period we might have to endure if post mediation (and agreement) the T fails to comply. I guess it's obvious who will need to pay up for further action. In my fantasy world for this to be balanced the court might monitor (perhaps even manage) agreed solutions with a view to a repossession becoming automatic where a T fails. Otherwise it's just another hurdle for us to deal with an abuser and recover the property we are responsible for.