10:47 AM, 25th July 2018, About 6 years ago 71
Text Size
Fergus Wilson, a Kent portfolio landlord has made the headlines recently for the wrong reasons. Mr Wilson has stated that he will start evicting tenants with children under 5. Horrible headlines indeed. Exactly the type of landlord that should not inhabit the PRS, or maybe not?
Mr Wilson has now explained that his Local Council has demanded, that where properties are rented to tenants whose children are under 5yrs old, boilers must be fixed within 24 hours. Excellent in theory, but what if a plumber is not available ? What if a plumber lets a landlord down? What if a part for a boiler is not available and must be ordered? What if a boiler fails and a new unit must be installed?
In these scenarios, a landlord may not be able to repair within 24 hours and thus he would be in breach of the onerous conditions foisted upon him by the Council zealots. The landlord then becomes a criminal, as per these horrific local authorities.
Mr Wilson, in order to avoid becoming a criminal, must regretfully evict his tenants, who by all accounts have been excellent tenants. The landlord loses rent, the tenant loses their home. What sheer stupidity, but who can blame Mr Wilson? I certainly would not, and lets call a spade a spade. This disgraceful episode is down to the council.
Moving on, the Government, as we know, has introduced min bedroom sizes. Meanwhile, there is the new phenomenon, especially in London, where working adults on the ‘minimum wage’ cannot afford housing. Surely it would be better to allow these smaller rooms to be let? Instead we have these potential tenants sleeping in shelters, if they are lucky, or on the streets if they are unlucky.
The zealots, however, feel it is preferable to take these badly needed rooms out of the market. It seems they think it is safer to sleep outside in the elements. The stupidity is mind blowing. Day by day the PRS is under attack.
Councils everywhere are on the bandwagon, sucking cash from landlords with their sham schemes, under the guise of improving the lot of tenants. Even the landlords ability to evict under Section 21 of the Housing Act is under threat!
Wake up landlords and smell the coffee!
If in doubt, issue your Section 21 notices now, and rid yourselves of high risk problems before your tenants acquire indefinite leave to remain in your property. If at all possible, cease taking benefit tenants. Hand these problems back to Government and Councils.
If you do sell up, consider investing your hard earned cash in foreign property or foreign equities. Do your research. Take your investment where it is appreciated.
Only when the PRS is smashed will the powers that be wake up. In the meantime, prepare for 3 year tenancies, and possibly rent controls. This will restrict mobility as accommodation will become scarce.
There seems to be an agenda here, and that is that the Government wants rid of small individual landlords in favour of portfolio landlords.
It is time to fight back!
No benefit tenants, argue every step of the way on licensing. We may not be able to stop it, but we can certainly make life difficult for Councils. Hold them to account on every detail. Film inspections, get tenants onside and give them hell. The alternative is to surrender and lose your business.
Go hard or go home.
Landlords, stop whinging and fight back!
Larry Sweeney
Previous Article
Property sales down 8.8% from last year
Larry Sweeney
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up0:09 AM, 26th July 2018, About 6 years ago
Sam, This is quite simple. It is a criminal offence for a landlord to breach a condition of his licence. That is the reality and as long as you deny this or prevaricate, you give succor to these councils.. Upon Conviction the unfortunate landlord then may be referred to as a "criminal landlord". Reverting to the Fergus Wilson case. If The council specify that a certain course of action must be pursued within 24 hours and the licence holder fails to do so, then this is a breach which can give rise to criminal proceedings. Let me give you another example, Durham Council managed to turn a law abiding lady in to a criminal because she happened to be late obtaining a reference for a tenant. Enough said.
Jon Sear
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up0:27 AM, 26th July 2018, About 6 years ago
As usual there is more to this than meets the eye. Fergus Wilson left a mother without heating or hot water for over a month until the council stepped in and fixed it for her http://www.kentonline.co.uk/ashford/news/property-moguls-lose-court-appeal-117741/. and now instead of putting better maintenance procedures in place he is evicting all his tenants with young children. When are we going to start advocating best practice instead of defending behaviour like this. What systems do you need in place when you have hundreds of properties to avoid messing up in the way that Mr Wilson did?
Anon
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up8:48 AM, 26th July 2018, About 6 years ago
To those of you would consider Council's would not unreasonably prosecute landlords I offer this analogy.
It is 4am on a Sunday morning. Yours is the only car on the road, there are no people around and weather conditions are perfect. You leave your house and get zapped by the speed camera doing 34 mph is a 30 area.
A few days later you receive the fine and decide to go to court to contest it on the grounds that you have put nobody at risk. What do you think the magistrates would say?
They have no choice other than to fine you and to add at least three points to your driving licence, which is also highly likely to affect your future insurance premiums. It may even result in you being banned from driving.
The problem with the 24 hour rule that Larry and Mr Wilson are contending is that the hands of the Courts are similarly tied. However, the consequences of the prosecution are significantly more punitive because the Council then have an opportunity to refuse to grant further licences to the now 'criminal landlord'.
In conclusion, I completely understand the business decision made by Mr Wilson and the assertions of Larry that it is the law that's an ass, not Mr Wilson for evicting single parents with young children.
Larry Sweeney
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:01 AM, 26th July 2018, About 6 years ago
Jon, Thank you for posting that link. Having said that the demands by the council insisting a boiler must be repaired within 24 hrs is completely unrealistic. I know from experience. We all know this. As regards the spurious argument that the nice council will understand and give one a break. Dont buy this pup. The reality is that after 24 hours one is in criminal landlord territory. I personally have become aware of a letting agent being prosecuted 6 months after he ceased to manage a property. The yard was clear at the time but the council have obtained a statement from a disgruntled tenant who denied accumulating rubbish . No more evidence than that. The tenants word against that of the agent. This is serious stuff. I urge all landlords if at all possible to desist from letting to benefit tenants. Dont worry about discrimination . Its your property . Perhaps ask benefit tenants for an employers reference plus a deposit etc. If we act in unison and suddenly councils have benefit tenants screaming that they cannot find accomodation, watch the change in attitude. No more lying down worrying about being confrontational . The more confrontational the better. Hammer councils with emails question them and everytime you get correspondence for another landlord which happens regularly go to the information comissioner. The fightback starts here on property 118
Luke P
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:01 AM, 26th July 2018, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Jon Sear at 26/07/2018 - 00:27
Jon, you have a total of ten comments to your name, three of which are in this thread.
You're not Shelter, are you?
If not, I suspect you don't have a big portfolio and/or any an area that could be considered anything other than near-perfect.
I have plenty of tradesmen, many working almost exclusively for me, but also have lots of repairs to wade through. There are many reasons why you could not fix a boiler in a day. I've even had one tenant give me hell on Facebook because I 'left her without heating'. It turned out that the main gas valve had been closed...not by some prankster from the street accessing the outside gas box, but by her/her family or guests because the main valve is INSIDE the property! Would the council check on such 'faults' first, or just take the tenants' word?
Jon Sear
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:07 AM, 26th July 2018, About 6 years ago
We're OK until we have to fit internet enabled boilers that report their down time directly to the council then. Seriously though, on the couple of occasions when I've had similar situations I've always found the council understanding and helpful. Surely leaving heating/hot water unfixed for over a month is in a different league and not something most of us would be OK with. Incidentally, I don't know where "fixed within 24 hours" came from, as the original report appears to say 4 days, and also the fines are civil not criminal. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tycoon-landlord-who-banned-coloured-12947733.
The speeding example is a bit different too because you can always get a drunk person stagger in front of you "from nowhere" at 4am on a Sunday morning. Prime time for that where I live in fact...
Gromit
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:19 AM, 26th July 2018, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Larry Sweeney at 26/07/2018 - 09:01
Shelter have come out with some research showing 55% of homeless people are in work.
Many LLs are now performing strict affordability checks in addition to referencing verified by Bank statements to prove incomes and sources therefrom. I've heard of rent coverage of 4-5 times after tax income as being a requirement.
Jon Sear
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:26 AM, 26th July 2018, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 26/07/2018 - 09:01
No, I'm not "Shelter", I just try not to get sucked into spending ages on the computer. However I've been feeling increasingly embarrassed by some of the attitudes on here to the point I felt I had to say something. I've got nine flats in a fairly challenging area - to give you an idea the last one I bought was £14,500 (and that's not a short lease or a typo). Also wondering how many more I could manage myself and still give the level of service that I would expect if I lived in a rented flat. I've been called out to "no gas" before by the way, only to find there was no credit on the meter. I think we just have to accept that these things do happen in high yielding areas - its one of the reasons the economics are as they are and part of earning the money. Anyway, I'm off to clear the rubbish out of a flat that the tenant left without notice 😉
TheMaluka
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:43 AM, 26th July 2018, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Jon Sear at 26/07/2018 - 09:26
Your business model sounds very much like mine but I have the advantage that I have no gas in any of my properties. Many a judge has challenged me to prove that there is no gas before issuing a section 21 eviction!
If you would like to swap experiences please contact me through 118.
Larry Sweeney
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:53 AM, 26th July 2018, About 6 years ago
Once again Jon let me illustrate to you what we are up against. These are far from pointless comments. This is the new harsh reality.
Sefton council have just introduced their revenue raising licence scam. To apply one must fill a form on line. One of the stipulations is that you must give addresses of properties owned outside of their area. Ie in other council areas
If they wanted to ask other councils about a particular landlord ,fair enough. This demanding addresses of properties which have nothing to do with them is blatant contravention of tbe DPA. Collating too much information without cause or explaining why. I have been rebuffed by Sefton so i have now made a formal complaint to the ICO as i did with Liverpool. Furthermore the act says information held by the council must be accurate and up to date. Therefore if a landlord aquires or disposes of properties in another part of the country Sefton council will again breach the DPA as their data will not be current unless they add a new licence condition forcing us to inform them every time we buy or sell. This is sheer lunacy from these idiots and I will update in due course when the ICO revert. In the meantime keep hammering the Councils ,Sefton now have a problem.