CARIDON PROPERTY LTD -V- MONTY SHOOLTZ

Reply to the comment left by Freda Blogs at 10/08/2019 - 12:28
Luke's whole post is quoted from another forum, not his own views.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 10/08/2019 - 12:54Ah yes, I see that now, thanks. Flipping cheek whoever wrote it!

There is so much anti-landlord feeling everywhere, I don't even discuss that I'm a LL anymore when meeting new people as you don't know whether you'll be faced with hostility - although I'm actually proud of the quality of my properties and the service I provide.

Reply to the comment left by Freda Blogs at 10/08/2019 - 13:15
Unsympathetic to landlords as the comments quoted by Luke may be, they are a realistic reflection of commonly held views and it is perfectly true that government is looking for any and every opportunity to pay out less to house those who cannot afford to house themselves. In fact I have a sneaking suspicion that the abolition of Section 21 is not solely aimed at appeasing generation rent and the various housing lobbies but that the ministry officials are well aware that most S.21s are served for rent arrears and if S.8 has to be employed for such cases that will leave evicted tenants open to the accusation of intentional homelessness, thus relieving the local authority of responsibility to rehouse them. Win-win for the government until the public outcry at the explosion in visible homelessness. Of course that will be postponed because of the increased pressure on the courts. Perhaps I am just an old cynic with a very jaded view of politicians.

Reply to the comment left by Freda Blogs at 10/08/2019 - 13:15The person that wrote the comment I quoted is an active LL and regular forum user on another site. I think to a certain extent they were writing it as the Government see things.
Personally I think any tenant owing rent should be made to pay every single penny, the problem is that there are many serial offenders and they’d end up with next-to-nothing in benefit if past arrears were deducted. Tough luck, I say but we live in a country where the masters have decided we won’t have masses of people living in the gutters (even if it is of their own making), because MPs and Lords don’t want to see or step over these folk. And whilst they make the rules, they can just prevent deductions being a reality (even attachment of earnings come with an initial ‘protected amount’ before deductions are allowed).
I have just assisted a client with the evicting of two separate tenants owing a total of £14.5k in arrears. There’s no realistic prospect of seeing that money and even if there were, it would take years for them to repay it and be a millstone around their already poor neck. And seeing as it’s only you and me -‘hobby landlord’- missing out, who cares. Don’t let’s make them the Government’s responsibility to house once they’ve got complete rock-bottom!

I would say they should think of the tax HMRC are missing out on to arrears, but I’m pretty certain you’re supposed to pay tax on the due rent, even if you don’t actually collect it (though this is rarely enforced).

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 10/08/2019 - 15:48"but I’m pretty certain you’re supposed to pay tax on the due rent, even if you don’t actually collect it " - my understanding is that is true if you are using the traditional accruals basis for your accounts although you can write off "bad debts" as a tax loss after a reasonable time. However, HMRC have in the last couple of years said that for landlords with turnover below a certain level (£150,000?) the cash basis will be the default method, under which you only account for income received and payments made on the date that each transaction took place,so you are no longer taxed on rent due but not received. On the other hand, if you accept 6 months rent in advance you will be taxed on the whole lot as income for the tax year in which you received it.

Reply to the comment left by Annie Landlord at 09/08/2019 - 20:10
Serving GSC before tenant occupies the premises is only a requirement for tenancies that started after the Deregulation Act came into force; I think that is "after 30 September 2015"

I think it would be useful if the OP were to use accepted English spellings of the intended words, and not words with close spellings but different meanings from the intended words.

It is my understanding (from NearlyLegal site) that another case on the same issue is going to Appeal in January 2020.

Reply to the comment left by Michael Barnes at 11/08/2019 - 03:58
Do you mean ‘resurrect’ that I presume should be ‘rectify’?

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 11/08/2019 - 07:42
I thought Michael was probably referring to 'precedence' where precedent is intended, but Central London Country Court rather than County Court is another contender. (I discounted the obvious typo three instead of there.)