Fergus Wilson’s response to “Hero or Villain”

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 05/08/2018 - 09:29
"You've diverted a mature discussion about local authorities imposing made-up rules into a childish spat."

But where is the evidence for these made-up rules?

There is nothing about them on the Ashford web site, and Fergus has only provided
1. a report of a court case taken against him, which appears to be the council enforcing national legislation, and
2. a report of a meeting of landlords.

Ashford 's published processes say that they will normally start with informal action, as that proves effective for the majority of landlords, and will only skip this step if they believe it would be ineffective, eg because of past behaviour.

Perhaps it is past behaviour that is resulting in the 'straight to formal action' approach for this business?

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 05/08/2018 - 11:25
"You know he lowered rents by £50 at the last drop in rates"

Did he also lower rents by £50 for each 0.25% drop since the financial crash?
I ask because I do not know, but by my estimation that should have been a reduction of over £700 per property.
Unless, of course, he is raising to counteract the previous reduction, but the report suggested to me that he has a general policy of raising rents by £50pcm for each 0.25% rise in base rate.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 05/08/2018 - 11:25
Come on Luke - you can't be serious. Nobody, or very few reduce rents once a level has need established and never because a cost base has moved in their favour. You might do it if you are a charity and you might do it because it's a quiet period, or for some reason such as seasonal factors or because the landlord is Fergus Wilson and tenants are anxious to who they are signing up with ( had to get that in). It's basic economics. Rents are not infinitely elastic. A ceiling is tested with a following pullback only for a retest later based upon strength of demand, time, salaries......

If Mr Wilsons rents are based on his cost of borrowing then as other contributors have inferred he must be offering the cheapest accommodation in the country.

By the way -Quarter base rise = £50 = £240K borrowing. 70% LTV = asset value £350 k .
None of his assets in his estate I know of has a MV of circa £350k.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 05/08/2018 - 11:25
"You know he lowered rents by £50 at the last drop in rates" only on new tenancies... "When Base Rate dropped from 0.5% to 0.25% we did put the rent for new tenancies down by £50."

Reply to the comment left by Michael Barnes at 05/08/2018 - 12:21
If he did drop rents by £50 when they fell, from 0.50% to 0.25%, did he drop them by £450 when interest rates fell from about 5% to 0.5%?

Reply to the comment left by H B at 06/08/2018 - 06:50I wish there weren't more serious problems facing landlords than bitching about what rent other landlords charge.

Reply to the comment left by H B at 06/08/2018 - 06:50
I made the point purely to highlight that the media fail to draw any attention to a reduction in rent, but have a near-meltdown if they're raise, not as a point of lineal parity. You act as though you've cracked the enigma or something. He isn't locked in to a 0.25% = £50pcm based on a single increase decision. Many LLs absorb various costs for great lengths of time before the time comes that it cannot continue. We live in a free market economy and as such Mr Wilson and any other LL can do with the rents what they please...fail to understand that and you should not be in this (or any other) business industry. Not a single tenant of his was forced to live in one of his properties, nor are they forced to continue living in one of his properties. The nature of renting over purchasing is that there are less guarantees and certainties. Indeed, should Mr Wilson have the ability and desire to purchase every single property in all of Ashford, there is still no requirement that tenants rent from him. I don't like the fact that Ferraris are a few hundred grand, but it doesn't mean they're forced to sell them to me cheaper, rather I have to choose a manufacturer at a price I can afford.

Removing all emotion, if you do not agree with free market capitalist economics at what, you may describe, is the gritty end, then you cannot possibly agree with that system at all. Sure you could move the 'moral line' somewhere within the system, but who gets to decide where everyone's morality lies?

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 06/08/2018 - 08:44
Ha ha brilliant Chris.
Yes we seem to have forgot about Clause 24 and Selective Licensing.
Aah well maybe that was a good thing for a few moments.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 06/08/2018 - 08:48
I wish Lamborghini's were cheaper. But then they might not be as good.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 06/08/2018 - 08:51
Can't empty the remainder of a tenants belongings from an abandoned property into a Lamborghini...