Carryon Regardless

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.

I have T's with an older car on the driveway, so similar. It isn't legal in any respect for road use. It will stand and deteriorate. Brakes will lock, they will use it to store 'things' just for a little while. I don't find that acceptable. They have said their son is going to renovate the thing for himself. Then he can do that at his own property (he doesn't live with my T's). For him to do these works at my property is equally unacceptable. 'Some time' down the non road it will be a rusty lump not worth the effort of renovation. There has been risk of my needing to hoof 'em anyway. In that scenario there is a likelihood of my being left with the disposal issue. I feel strongly that it is in my own interest to head off that situation. OTT not a bit. They shift it or I will shift them. There is already too much cr*p we are forced to accept with T's and the tenancies, and every time it isn't their fault for being less fortunate than I.

My AST does restrict size of vehicles and that they must be road legal, of course that only applies within the boundary of the properties. The risk with any belongings that will deteriorate is that the T naffs off leaving us with the disposal issue. W/o a clause in the agreement I'm not sure what can be done. But any of us that experience anything that might be considered junk and dumped would take action. Not road legal (in this case)= junk. If it really concerns you you might consider a S21, while you still can. If your T can't demonstrate ownership you might have it removed as abandoned. The posting of notices for god knows who might mean that's got risks though.

Am I confused or was it here I read of some one claiming that a licence to reside (rather than the AST) means the landlord can repossess w/o all cr*p we must endure? If memory serves the upshot was that we may call it what we like and ask a T to signa as such, but essentially if we have T's they have the rights as we understand. Anyway to the crux. Today I attended my M/cr property. Neighbours are complaining that residents in 2 house o the small street are bad news. Police visits regularly, rubbish cast over fences, anti social sorts generally. Stated to be rehabilitating druggies who don't aren't deserving of our precious air. As I conversed 2 police officers visit one property, a few minutes later 2 'managers' visit the other. The managers were bouncer / bailiff types. Capable of a style of communication but clearly ready to deal with an adverse situation. A neighbour I chatted with believes these houses are enjoying revenues of £3k pm, as the occupants are 'vulnerable', take it with a pinch of salt, but in case I left my number for the 'managers' to call me back. During the call the manager who rang stated that the occupants are under licence, their licence. They hoof 'em at will. The neighbour was aware that this was done for one bod last week, as he was threatening the others and stealing from them. Too good to be true? I've yet to view the contract I might have with the 'managers', but beyond that is this licence to hoof 'em even feasible? The managers sub let, so let from me, does this make them LL and so absolve me of the legal risks of illegal eviction?

S21's are to become history anyway. We are effectively to request permission to recover our properties from abusive T's. While I don't condone such is this type of outcome really a surprise? https://metro.co.uk/2021/05/17/landlord-fined-for-dumping-tenants-belongings-in-the-street-14597450/ The big surprise is that the penalty makes this worthwhile. Court costs and the wait for, eliminated. Lost rents reduced. Damage during an eviction process eliminated. Either route would have stresses. I have read of the big stick persuasion becoming used more. Like I said I don't condone such. I have been meaning to research where we stand these days on repossessions where we desire to sell a property.

Many are aware there were changes that came in during 2019 for new tenancies, relating to charges and penalties no longer allowed. Those changes became applicable to all existing changes by 1st June 2020. There are a few more than the true but sarcastic referred to change in the title. One that has caught me out is the penalty for late payment of rents. Each month if arrears are greater than £50 at 5 days after the due payment date I would apply a £30 penalty. As it was a term within the AST I thought it was ok. NOT, I have been wrong. The titled charge may be 'only' made if it is detailed within our AST. Also if detailed within our AST we may apply a charge at a rate of 3% above the BofE base rate for payments that are 14 days late, so 3.1% at the moment. This is pro rata. So if a T is 2 weeks late paying say £1,000 rent. At 3.1% /52(weeks) we may charge 60p per week. I am now at risk of a £5,000 fine for my charges (civil suite). As I have done this monthly on 3 tenancies, I guess, I am at risk of being a repeat offender and liable for £30,000 (now criminal). However just maybe I am innocent till proven so not yet an offender??? Years ago it was advisable to return unprotected deposits and hopefully head off any deposit claim of 3x (plus deposit return anyway). While I'm intending to return the £990 I've applied for late payments I've seen nothing to suggest that lets me off the hook. I don't think the Gov't likes us anymore.

Shelter have come up with a useful tool, https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/private_renting/how_to_end_a_fixed_term_tenancy_early Talking periodic here. Working through it, the result is for a tenancy to end on the last day of a tenancy period, or the 1st day of a tenancy period. Seems strange to me that the 1st day would be applicable but hey ho. It states that a tenancy period starts on say the 14th if the move in date was the 14th. This is where it is at odds with my set up but I still believe my set up to be applicable. My AST states tenancies will become periodic at the end of the initial fixed term. My periods of tenancy are all stated to commence on the 1st of each month, regardless of move in date. So the initial fixed term may be some days longer than 6 months but will always end on the last day of the applicable month. In this case their move in date was on a 24th, so they have already missed their opportunity to serve notice in time for that anyway, should the likes of Shelter wish to argue the point. They may become organised and shift all their 'stuff' efficiently, we'll see. That being the case they have already paid for June so no issue.