Btl Scum Regrouping And On The Offensive. -- Merged

[Lavalas]

2 hours ago, hi5lo5 said:

Negative equity with No Consent to Let. Intresting

https://www.property118.com/birmingham-midshires-consent-let-negative-equity/93717/

I'm looking forward to any replies from Yousam, the 'accidental' landlord without consent to Let from Birmingham Midshires.

[Venger]

Thanks lastlaugh.  It did tie in a little with the outline of your own work and lifestyle; my reason for bringing it to your attention. 

I understand the conclusions you are making as well.  

Also can't help but cast a longing eye over the rental situation as you have outlined it in Spain, together with schools and healthcare, with you paying your taxes in Spain - beyond all the 'scare' headlines we sometimes get about Spain being down-and-out.

Nevertheless, strikes me as something being very very wrong with UK (house price situation) - productive workers living in other countries to fly in, do some work, fly back out to their home in lower cost country.  

And carers as well.  Expat carers to London (flying in and out on 2 week shifts), with apparently fair money on offer and not being able to find anyone local to take up the opportunity - despite all the whines abut uncontrolled immigration into the UK?

Either London/UK in a real lasting superboom, or something wrong.  

My view is the labour market has been adapting, but has been adapting for a malfunctioning economy.  To service unearned HPI+ mad-gainz/speculative and rentier wealth.  Not got to to try and explain my concerns very well - and it is complicated.   

Although great if it suits your lifestyle.  For others I would prefer them to be able to work and afford homes in the UK/job areas.  Think I would prefer to see more selling of homes and elderly retiring to care to Spain / warm climate.  (Not sure what the numbers are there, but as concerns about Spain/£-€/Brexit are in play, probably some effects where fewer retiring to Spain?). 

5 hours ago, lastlaugh said:

You might be interested to learn that I'm not taxed on the payroll anymore.  (Google "PAYE Section 690" if you want to know more about the process)  The Double Tax Treaty ensures I pay no UK tax because I pay Spanish tax instead. (Although a quirk of the system means I pay UK NI)  I'm very happy to pay Spanish taxes because the system provides a good choice of quality rental accommodation, with long term secure tenancies, a right to change the kitchen, never mind paint the walls, even a right to buy.  And good schools and healthcare for my kids.

I'm a middle manager in a UK logistics firm, a job that supposedly cannot be outsourced.  But, if you think about it, I've outsourced myself.  I pay my taxes and spend my money almose entirely in another country.  My lifestyle choice is an extra chocolate chip in the UK trade deficit and balance of payment problem cookie.

One might say, "so what, you still can't outsource unskilled work like social care.  The elderly will still need looking after.  Carers will need somewhere to live.  They're not building land anymore.  HPI forever, etc."

Which kind of brings me to Venger's post:

Thanks for posting that, Venger.  You've reminded me of a lady I met last year on a language course.  A Czech lady, living in Spain, but working as a carer in London.  She works 2-weeks on, 2-weeks off, and it's a live-in arrangement in London, which obviously reduces her costs to next to nothing.  I don't know how much she gets paid, but presumably enough to live a pleasant lifestyle a few blocks from the Med.  

I must admit to being a bit surprised that she could make that kind of job work, but reading that article it is obviously much more widespread than I imagined.  But now I think about it, then why not?  There are loads of jobs which require an "offshore" lifestyle. Working solidly for a days or weeks at a time, before returning home to a more relaxed home environment.  Why shouldn't the London service sector evolve into this style of working.

I'm doing it, social carers are doing it.  There are alternatives to sky high rents, the labour market will find a way.  And if Busta can find a way out of paying his taxes he still needs Rental Price Increase forever, to get HPI forever.

 

[spyguy]

Spains great if you have an income. Its getting an income thats aproblem for the young Spanish.

Im not sure the communting care home tallies. Care pay is pretty low.

Its possible that they could be nurses, staying in a privare house 24/7. A friends mum had round clock careers.All werenurses. Very expensive.

I agree with attitude - if you want me to wotk in Lonfon than you have to pay me £££££££.

The sooner HB is capped at low levels, the better.

[Bland Unsight]

I go on a bit, so much so that in response to on OP back in 2014 a top-notch poster, JustYield, couldn't contain their amusement and quoted the whole thing just because the length of it amused them (though much to their credit they later tweaked their post to stop other people getting RSI scrolling past the damn thing for a second time.)

My post was (I now discover) just shy of 1,200 words. Obviously, people in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones, but even I was laughing out loud when I saw that one of the PovertyLater chaps just sent this bad boy to Danny Dorling. You won't be surprised to discover that apparently the letter writer's gearing is low, and he'll hardly be affected. They are a selfless bunch these PovertyLater chaps, all completely unaffected, one way or another, yet all tirelessly trying to get the law changed. You have to admire them. (Diligent readers of the thread will recognise the fine prose stylings that had Amazon critics cooing over his motor bike book; the writing style "reminded me of secondary school comprehension for those of us of a similar age. still managed to finish it!")

 

Quote

Professor Dorling

My friend has been kind enough to forward the emails that you and she have been exchanging.  I must say that I am somewhere between shocked and amazed at what I’ve read.

Let me start by saying that I would normally read anything I send to a stranger several times over to ensure that I am not saying something that could be taken as offensive.  However on this occasion I shall not invest that time as it is clear that you are unable to answer any points or arguments that my firend makes, and unfortunately your responses to her leave much to be desired in plain etiquette.  So, whilst it is not my intention to insult, I will speak my mind and you may make of it what you will.

Your ability to completely ignore anything my friend says that doesn’t fit with your ideology reminds me of a piece of the film ‘The Sentinel’.  Kiefer Sutherland plays a character called David Breckinridge and  arrives at the scene of his murdered FBI colleague.  He meets an aggressive ‘know-it-all’ homicide detective who seconds before had been mouthing off as to how the FBI weren’t any good at solving this sort of crime.  The detective tells Breckinridge that the FBI agent was shot in a robbery and he knows this to be true because after so many years in the force he has a gut feeling about it.  Breckinridge replies that the problem with gut feelings is that you only notice the evidence that supports that gut feeling.  He then very rapidly talks through the evidence, mostly unnoticed by the detective, and explains why the death was clearly an assassination.  In the film the detective has no choice but to accept the facts that have been laid out in front of him, but that is where things differ from the situation we have with you.  You simply choose to ignore anything that doesn’t fit with your distorted view of things.  How do you mentally deal with this Professor Dorling?  Do you have some sort of delete button in your head that removes anything you care not to consider?

I am a landlord with many years of experience under my belt, and there is my first point.  I work in housing people.  I do not sit and read or hypothesise about it.  I do it!  Just like I couldn’t learn to drive from a book or perform intricate surgery either, without quality hands-on experience my understanding, thoughts and ideas are worthless.  As I understand it you have no such experience in housing, is this correct?

The comments you make are particularly irksome as they come from someone in upper education.  I have long felt that such individuals are a drain on society as they demand such enormous wages for working only half the year.  I assume that you are a higher rate taxpayer, would I be correct?  I do wonder how you justify such an income for such little output.  And when you make snide comments about what a landlord makes it is somewhat hypocritical isn’t it?

As a full time landlord with many tenants I am currently in the lower rate band, but more on that later.

So moving on, one of the points that my friend has so ably made, but you dispute, is that of the considerable addition to housing stock that landlords have made.  I’ll give you a few examples of my own and I’ll start with my 5 HMOs.  Before I bought these houses there were a total of 8 people living in the large under-utilised properties.  Now there are 26 which represents a  225% increase.  Before you jump to conclusions about over-crowding and squalid conditions I can tell you that exactly half of those rooms are fully en-suite and a further 3 have part en-suite facilities.  6 of them are equipped with costly stand-alone kitchenettes.  These are good-sized high quality rooms at low cost, which is probably why I have had one tenant stay in his room for as much as nearly 9 years to date.  I have several others that are very long term too.  One of these individuals actually sold his own house as it was too expensive to run and now lives on a very low budget in one of my houses.

There are literally thousands of HMOs around the country that therefore house multiples of thousands of people.  Think of the demand on starter homes if the landlords hadn’t bought and converted these houses!  The prices of such homes would have shot through the roof and therefore forced up the price of all other homes.  Landlords have helped to keep house prices down and not forced them up as you would seem to believe.  Can you really not see that???

Incidentally I spent over £100k on converting the last two HMO properties I bought.  Why should I not see a return on this money?

Then there are the numerous houses I purchased that had been long-term empty.  I’ll give you just a couple of examples or I’ll be here all day.

One of these places had been unloved and unoccupied for over 14 years!  Now it’s a home to a young family of 4, who couldn’t possibly hope to buy a place in the town they live in on the wages they get paid.  Their rent is low but may now well increase due to a taxation policy you support.  The house was in a terrible state when I took it on.  There had been a burst pipe in the roof some years previously and the mould in the property was everywhere.  When I had finished the renovation it was beautiful.

For good measure I’ll mention that I have never competed with a first time buyer (FTB) on any property, indeed come to think of it I have rarely competed with anyone.  The properties I generally purchase need lots of work and have been long-term empty.  I have brought them back into use after lavishing cash on them.  The only property I would even consider being a FTB type is a smallish 3 bed terraced place with garage attached.  This house is on an estate that was terrorised by travellers, but that’s a long story.  Most houses there were boarded up and a couple had been burned out.  Local estate agents would not even venture on to the area in case the gypsies vandalised their cars or even threatened them physically.  I took an enormous risk in buying the place and spending money on it, knowing that I might have to defend it, and myself against the travellers, or that I wouldn’t get a tenant, but I took that risk.  One by one the houses have been bought up and the estate is on the up, but it’s been a very slow process.  I bought my house and have improved it with new doors, windows, fascias, soffits and a complete refit inside.  The house next door was bought by an owner-occupier and hasn’t had a penny spent on it.  It’s an eyesore.

However you take the view that this property should be expropriated, when the Council wanted absolutely nothing to do with the estate and the gypsy problem.  What a strange view you have on things.  I have bought a house back into use and by doing so have helped a whole estate to go the same direction.  If it were not for me and others that took risks the estate would have fallen further into the ghetto that it was.

My own home had also been long term empty before I purchased it.  It was near derelict and is without a doubt the biggest project I’ve taken on to date.  I’ve bought this property back into use, but better still is that when it is finished, we will  also have converted the adjoining barns.  The property will be far too large for us and at some point we will move, but it will make a perfect home for a family who need a granny annexe.  Therefore I will also have freed up another property and perhaps given someone an opportunity to care for ageing parents too.  You for some reason think this is a terrible thing.

These are just a few examples and I could give you many more.  I like many other landlords have taken a great deal of pressure off of the housing market.  Tell me Professor Dorling, with your high salary and loads of free time, what have you done to alleviate the housing issues?

Now here’s another point.  You seem to think that landlords provide sub-standard accommodation but that is just a stupid and ill-informed view.  Can you tell me Professor Dorling that you do an annual gas safety check on your house?  Do you carry out regular tests on fire alarm systems in your home as well as maintenance for them?  Do you do periodic inspections on the electrical installation of the property?  Do you perform PAT tests on the appliances?  I’m guessing that a truthful answer to each of these questions would be NO.  You see landlords do all this sort of testing (depending on the property) and therefore provide the safest housing in the land.  Have you taken that into account at any point???

I’ll give you another example of people that I’ve helped as a landlord.  In the days that we were allowed to do Sale & Rent Back I bought a few properties in such a fashion.  Every one that I bought still has the original owner/vendor/tenant.  In each case they’d got into significant financial difficulty and were at serious risk of having their home repossessed.  I bought the houses and rent back to them at a low rent and every one of the houses has been improved considerably.  I’ve helped them to maintain their lives and that is a good thing.  Have you ever done anything that comes close to that Professor Dorling?  It was my intention to never increase rents on these tenants, and one of them (an elderly married couple) pays only about 60% of market rate.  Now I am forced to increase what I charge or evict.  If I evict this couple it would likely kill them and that is no exaggeration.  They are frail and in ill health, but that is of little consequence to you.  You want the tax change that may well force others in a similar situation to lose their home.  Do you understand the impact that can have?

Ok, one thing I haven’t done is purchase off-plan because to me the risks are too great, though I know plenty of landlords that have.  They’ve put down deposits that have provide the builders the finance they need to continue with their developments.  When a new-build property is bought it instantly loses value, much like a new car leaving the showroom.  Therefore the landlord is at an immediate disadvantage, but he has still provided the necessary cash for the house to be built, and perhaps others on the development too.  Have you ever given a builder an interest free loan Professor Dorling?  I suspect that you wouldn’t dream of doing such a thing.

Then of course there are landlord friends that I know that convert old commercial buildings into residential property.  Some of them did a fantastic conversion of a very dilapidated Edwardian office building near me and made it into 5 extremely high-spec one-bed apartments.  The building is listed so it presented some interesting challenges, but they did such a good job they now specialise in similar conversions in various locations across the country.  They have plenty of competition from other landlord developers doing just the same, yet you dismiss their efforts saying landlords do nothing to add to the housing stock. Just what have you done yourself to add to the stock Professor Dorling, please tell me?

I know 4 landlords that at this moment are building various numbers of houses.  It couldn’t be much clearer that they are adding to the housing stock could it?  Have you ever built a house Professor Dorling?  I’d bet money that you haven’t, yet you criticise those that are.  Why do you think this is OK?

Let me tell you about another couple of landlords that will I think put you to shame.  One not only supports a charity that homes the likes of ex-prisoners, drug addicts and so forth, but they also have a charity of their own that homes other vulnerable people.  And of course there’s another close friend of mine with a handful of HMOs that are only used to home vulnerable and troublesome youngsters.  It is a sector of the market that is fraught with problems causing most landlords to steer clear but he’s taken it on.  Yes he makes a small profit.  He has to live, but he and his wife live modestly and she has a good job.  Anyway, whatever profit he makes is irrelevant.  What he does is immensely more useful to society than marking a few essays now and then isn’t it?

Now largely due to S24, a tax measure you support, this man is quitting and moving away.  Yes somebody else may buy the places and operate in a similar way, but it is very unlikely because it is so difficult.  So well done Professor Dorling in supporting this tax change.  What do you think will happen to these youngsters now?

When S24 was announced I was extremely worried because I thought I was going to have to evict several families.  Now 18 months on, I can advise that I’ve taken measures to ensure that the impact on me will be minimal.  Unfortunately one of those measures was to scrap a policy I’ve had in place since I started in this business, and that was never to increase rents on a sitting tenant no matter how long they’ve been with me.  So now I’ve issued rent rises between 5 and 12.5% and I’ll continue to raise rents year by year to offset the tax.  You see my gearing is low and so are my rents, so it really isn’t a problem for me.

I’d even go as far as to say that in the long term S24 will be good for my business because it will drive out competition and drive up rents.  However I’d scrap the tax change tomorrow if I had the power, because of the terrible effects that it will have on the poorest in society and people that have invested their life savings into buying a property to let out.

Right now in one of the areas I operate (Peterborough) landlords are pulling out of the housing benefit market.  The Council have been told by many of us that it’s because of the punishing concoction of Universal Credit, Benefit Caps and the forthcoming S24.  As a result we have a truly bizarre situation where a corporate landlord (who will not suffer the S24 tax change) has seen an opportunity and is evicting 74 families so that their homes can be used as hostels for the homeless!  Can you believe it???  Some of those tenants have been in their homes for 20 years. It’s a disgrace, but we’re going to see more and more situations like it.  Indeed the corporate landlord is doing something similar in Luton and it’s a direct result of S24.  In Peterborough the action will mean that the company is doubling the rents they charge but that is what corporates do, they squeeze and squeeze.  Like I said above I had never increased rents on a tenant in situ and that is the common policy for most full-time landlords.

When the Peterborough story hit the news, the City Council explained why they were taking up the offer of these hostels and why landlords were pulling out of the HB market.  Before I go any further let’s get one thing straight here…. They’re pulling out because they cannot afford to stay in.  S24 would bankrupt some.  The two MPs that cover the city were condemning in their comments, yet the Council is Conservative as are the MPs.  One of the two members of Parliament – Shailesh Vara – actually said that he didn’t believe that landlords were moving away from HB tenants.  I find this most surprising as he is my MP and I’ve written to him numerous times as well as having a meeting with him to explain the devastation that S24 will cause.  One landlord friend also wrote to him after he made his remark.  He told Mr Vara that as one of the biggest private landlord providers to the HB market in the area (which he most definitely is), these were exactly the reasons he was now no longer accepting HB.  S24 will raise his tax bill by £36k pa and he is now forced to upgrade his tenants.  Last time I spoke with him he hadn’t even had a response from Vara.  The two MPs wholeheartedly support the tax change it would seem and Mr Vara has admitted to me that it is nothing to do with helping people on to the housing ladder and it is completely about tax-take.

So Professor Dorling, you stand alongside these two Tory MPs with their endorsement of the most socially destructive tax that has been introduced in years.  How does that feel?  You claim to be some sort of socialist but you want people to be evicted and rents to rise, and both are happening right NOW!  Perhaps you should join the Conservative Party.

Elsewhere in the country we know of a council building a shanty town of portacabins to house the homeless and another private landlord in Hatfield has informed the council that she is quitting altogether because of S24.  She, like my friend, is one of the biggest providers to the social market so you can understand the impact that this will have.  Or can you?

In Cambridge the number of people that are sleeping rough has increased exponentially and I note that your own city of Oxford is closing shelters, thus exacerbating the problem further for the streets there.  With S24 looming you can bet things are going to get worse, yet you apparently support this.  So please tell me, as you support a tax change which by its very nature is going to hit hardest on the poorest of society, what are you personally going to do to help the homeless situation in your city?  Will you be taking them off the streets and into your house?  Will you be giving a large chunk of your hefty salary to homeless charities?  Will you perhaps go out and distribute food to the individuals?

When you are next walking the streets of Oxford and come across a homeless person, perhaps sleeping in a shop doorway, stop and look at their face.  Look at the hopeless expression in their eyes as I have done.  Think about how you personally may be partly responsible for putting them into this position.  Then go back to your nice home paid for by subsidies from the UK taxpayer via the University, and of course also from the students that will in many cases carry the debt of your home and lifestyle for the next 30 years.  And then think further about S24 and how the very organisation you work for is one of the richest land owners in the country.

And whilst on the subject of students think what S24 will do to their rents and how they will end up carrying greater debt out into the working world.  For some of course the prospect of the extra debt will mean they will not go on to further education.  That is what you wish for them it would seem.  Somewhat ironic for someone in your position isn’t it?

No doubt you will say that S24 will not increase homelessness because if a landlord sells up then an owner occupier can buy, but that’s just not the way things work is it?  It’s always the poorest in society that feel the pain as they are less able to deal with any financial pressures.  How does this fit with your socialist views and your support of S24 please?

I told you above that I am currently a lower rate taxpayer, but now I will be shifted into higher rate on fictitious income.  I’ve also told you that I’ve taken measures that minimise the impact on me but I know the impact on millions of tenants will be severe.  Frankly I don’t care one bit what you think of me or landlords in general, but you are apparently an intelligent and educated man.  That makes your views even more dangerous to society because people will listen to what you say.  Let’s hope for the sake of the lowest income individuals and families that they only listen with one ear Professor Dorling.  Every time you look at a homeless person in future, I want you to remember that you may well have helped to put them in that situation.  That is the plain truth of it.  Yet as always you will of course just ignore the facts because you couldn’t possibly have got it wrong could you?  You are an academic with a closed mind.  What a paradox.”

3,560 words, in case you were wondering.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Bland Unsight

[Pop321]

2 hours ago, willie said:

So many wasted words.  Thank God no trees were cut down to provide paper for it.

 

Great spot by BU. 

So many excellent points made by the BTL'er. Highlight was looking into the faces of the homeless. Really sad that this chap believes this and he can't see his own contradiction after contradiction. 

I wonder why his tenant can't afford a house (multi choice)

a) his tenant has an iphone

b] some people just don't have money 

c) his tenant does not earn a lot.

d) house prices exceed prices supported by local wages due to others buying houses using IO mortgages and hoping rates stay at a 3000 year low. 

At least this guy isn't effected - that's  good at least he won't need to put up rent. No wait, he does need to....but surely if he is effected... forget it, I can't pick holes all night. 

These posters and the rants letters they sell do more to support S24 than any campaign we could muster. 

Edited January 11, 2017 by Phil321

[spyguy]

8 hours ago, Bland Unsight said:

I go on a bit, so much so that in response to on OP back in 2014 a top-notch poster, JustYield, couldn't contain their amusement and quoted the whole thing just because the length of it amused them (though much to their credit they later tweaked their post to stop other people getting RSI scrolling past the damn thing for a second time.)

My post was (I now discover) just shy of 1,200 words. Obviously, people in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones, but even I was laughing out loud when I saw that one of the PovertyLater chaps just sent this bad boy to Danny Dorling. You won't be surprised to discover that apparently the letter writer's gearing is low, and he'll hardly be affected. They are a selfless bunch these PovertyLater chaps, all completely unaffected, one way or another, yet all tirelessly trying to get the law changed. You have to admire them. (Diligent readers of the thread will recognise the fine prose stylings that had Amazon critics cooing over his motor bike book; the writing style "reminded me of secondary school comprehension for those of us of a similar age. still managed to finish it!")

  Hide contents

3,560 words, in case you were wondering.

This bit:

'As a full time landlord with many tenants I am currently in the lower rate band, but more on that later.'

is going to be cancelled by this bit:

'So moving on, one of the points that my friend has so ably made, but you dispute, is that of the considerable addition to housing stock that landlords have made.  I’ll give you a few examples of my own and I’ll start with my 5 HMOs.  Before I bought these houses there were a total of 8 people living in the large under-utilised properties.  Now there are 26 which represents a  225% increase.'

I call BS on the low leverage too.

Despite his claims, as hes in Pboro areaId guess he's slumlording EEers working out on the fens.

 

[spyguy]

Flushing the turd.

https://www.ft.com/content/8371059a-d760-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e

Bids for the floaters of 2008. B+B mortgage book being bid for by PE + hedge funds. And Paragon, which the FT charitably describers as a bank, well its a bank wing of Paragon.

 

[spyguy]

'Concern is also mounting over upcoming regulation dubbed “Basel IV” and its potential to increase capital requirements for banks that hold mortgages.'

Too right.

Better late than never.

[Bland Unsight]

6 hours ago, Phil321 said:

Great spot by BU. 

A h/t to The Exile on the twitters for giving me a heads-up

[Bland Unsight]

24 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Flushing the turd.

https://www.ft.com/content/8371059a-d760-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e

Bids for the floaters of 2008. B+B mortgage book being bid for by PE + hedge funds. And Paragon, which the FT charitably describers as a bank, well its a bank wing of Paragon.

 

Anyone who is not an FT subscriber may need to google "Sale of Bradford & Bingley mortgages enters final stages" to see that.

The allusion to "low yields" suggests perhaps much of the £16bn portfolio is buy-to-let that was written as reverting to being a base rate tracker at 1.75% over base and for obvious reasons it is these borrowers who have not refinanced to other lenders since 2008 and therefore remain as customers as the run-off prior to sale by UKAR draws to a close.

Also I think there's a slight slip in the article as it says that there's £12.5bn which are not in arrears and are being repaid. As this is the BTL book it will presumably be overwhelmingly interest-only and is therefore being serviced but is not being repaid.

[spyguy]

1 minute ago, Bland Unsight said:

Anyone who is not an FT subscriber may need to google "Sale of Bradford & Bingley mortgages enters final stages" to see that.

The allusion to "low yields" suggests perhaps much of the £16bn portfolio is buy-to-let that was written as reverting to being a base rate tracker at 1.75% over base and for obvious reasons it is these borrowers who have not refinanced to other lenders since 2008 and therefore remain as customers as the run-off prior to sale by UKAR draws to a close.

Also I think there's a slight slip in the article as it says that there's £12.5bn which are not in arrears and are being repaid. As this is the BTL book it will presumably be overwhelmingly interest-only and is therefore being serviced but is not being repaid.

Well .. these are people who are either too stupid or have too stretched finances to move elsewhere.

There's still 3.5bln of non-performing loans left.

Whats that? A whole town the size of Ashford?

Id love to read up on the B+B from demute to bust.

8 fcking years to blow up a bank that had been around for decades.

 

 

[Dyson Fury]

Wow.

Quote

The comments you make are particularly irksome as they come from someone in upper education.  I have long felt that such individuals are a drain on society as they demand such enormous wages for working only half the year.

Ah, the old canard "Universities deliver undergraduate lectures for only half the year, therefore people employed in universities work for only half the year" (grading students' work? applying for research funding? conducting research and publishing the results? administering resit exams every August?  operating the student admissions processes?).  I don't think the author understands the basic concept of engaging with the viewpoint of his target audience.

In fact I can adapt his words quite easily in reply.

The comments you make are particularly irksome as they come from someone in B2BTL rentierism.  I have long felt that such individuals are a drain on society as they demand such enormous wages for working almost none of the year.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Dyson Fury

[BearlyBegun]

3 hours ago, Bland Unsight said:

Anyone who is not an FT subscriber may need to google "Sale of Bradford & Bingley mortgages enters final stages" to see that.

 

Thanks BU - I did try googling "Flushing the turd" as per spyguy suggestion, but didnt seem to get the expected results...

[Lavalas]

20 hours ago, Bland Unsight said:

I go on a bit, so much so that in response to on OP back in 2014 a top-notch poster, JustYield, couldn't contain their amusement and quoted the whole thing just because the length of it amused them (though much to their credit they later tweaked their post to stop other people getting RSI scrolling past the damn thing for a second time.)

My post was (I now discover) just shy of 1,200 words. Obviously, people in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones, but even I was laughing out loud when I saw that one of the PovertyLater chaps just sent this bad boy to Danny Dorling. You won't be surprised to discover that apparently the letter writer's gearing is low, and he'll hardly be affected. They are a selfless bunch these PovertyLater chaps, all completely unaffected, one way or another, yet all tirelessly trying to get the law changed. You have to admire them. (Diligent readers of the thread will recognise the fine prose stylings that had Amazon critics cooing over his motor bike book; the writing style "reminded me of secondary school comprehension for those of us of a similar age. still managed to finish it!")

  Reveal hidden contents

3,560 words, in case you were wondering.

That 118 thread is now fun. There's been a little bit of descent which Dr.Reck has tried to quell only to discover that there's a professor in their ranks. Now she's gonna go toe to toe over academic credentials. Which is amazing really, all things considered.

It's been dry on 118 lately but Busta must have got some new script writers in or something. Compelling stuff.

[Shea VanHaven]

Ten years almost to the day in rented- got my marching orders last Friday.  Builder Landlord retiring- says he cannot get another mortgage at 70.    The next day I heard of a work colleague of the missus had the same thing happen to her last week..

[Fully Detached]

16 hours ago, Lavalas said:

That 118 thread is now fun. There's been a little bit of descent which Dr.Reck has tried to quell only to discover that there's a professor in their ranks. Now she's gonna go toe to toe over academic credentials. Which is amazing really, all things considered.

It's been dry on 118 lately but Busta must have got some new script writers in or something. Compelling stuff.

I second this - haven't been over to P118 for months, but that thread was well worth a read. I thought the original email launching into an entire movie synopsis in paragraph two was a good enough start, but the opening salvos of Dr. Bos slugging it out with another intellectual heavyweight are just delightful.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

15 hours ago, Shea VanHaven said:

Ten years almost to the day in rented- got my marching orders last Friday.  Builder Landlord retiring- says he cannot get another mortgage at 70.    The next day I heard of a work colleague of the missus had the same thing happen to her last week..

Who the f**k makes their financial plannins based on getting a f**king 25 year debt at the age of 70 ?

 

Hope he looses his shirt

[london_thirtythree]

Looks like the Accountants are on the case in putting out the fear that HMRC is getting wise and targetting Landlords not declaring their income.

http://www.qdosvantage.com/let-property-campaign/ 

According to HMRC the Let Property Campaign gives the taxpayer, 'an opportunity to bring your tax affairs up to date and to get the best possible terms to pay the tax you owe.'

The use of HMRC’s Connect Data System is making the targeting of landlords a potentially easy option. It processes data, now being obtained through information requests under Schedule 36 FA 2008 from third parties, such as Land Registry, Estate/Managing Agents, DSS etc.

Indeed, we have identified increased HMRC activity through the claims currently being made under the fee protection polices for rental income and landlords. Not just on UK properties but also those overseas.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

7 minutes ago, london_thirtythree said:

Looks like the Accountants are on the case in putting out the fear that HMRC is getting wise and targetting Landlords not declaring their income.

http://www.qdosvantage.com/let-property-campaign/ 

According to HMRC the Let Property Campaign gives the taxpayer, 'an opportunity to bring your tax affairs up to date and to get the best possible terms to pay the tax you owe.'

The use of HMRC’s Connect Data System is making the targeting of landlords a potentially easy option. It processes data, now being obtained through information requests under Schedule 36 FA 2008 from third parties, such as Land Registry, Estate/Managing Agents, DSS etc.

Indeed, we have identified increased HMRC activity through the claims currently being made under the fee protection polices for rental income and landlords. Not just on UK properties but also those overseas.

BTLers are sitting ducks for the tax man, what a bunch of f**kwits they must be.

They have tangible unmovable assets, easily traceable, easily locatable, the tax man and the bankers are intertwined now and they will be able to see at the press of a switch what borrowings etc they've had.

Deserve everything that is coming to them

[SarahBell]

46 minutes ago, london_thirtythree said:

Looks like the Accountants are on the case in putting out the fear that HMRC is getting wise and targetting Landlords not declaring their income.

http://www.qdosvantage.com/let-property-campaign/ 

According to HMRC the Let Property Campaign gives the taxpayer, 'an opportunity to bring your tax affairs up to date and to get the best possible terms to pay the tax you owe.'

The use of HMRC’s Connect Data System is making the targeting of landlords a potentially easy option. It processes data, now being obtained through information requests under Schedule 36 FA 2008 from third parties, such as Land Registry, Estate/Managing Agents, DSS etc.

Indeed, we have identified increased HMRC activity through the claims currently being made under the fee protection polices for rental income and landlords. Not just on UK properties but also those overseas.

Fab. I hope they find lots! 

[Ah-so]

On 09/01/2017 at 11:52 AM, Patient London FTB said:

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Ah-so
Software issues

[Ah-so]

15 hours ago, SarahBell said:

Fab. I hope they find lots! 

"Penalties can be up to 100% of the tax liability.  However, for the Let Property Campaign, if landlords submit an accurate voluntary disclosure, the rates are 0%, 10%, 20% depending on the circumstances."

The phrase "prosecution" is missing, as ever. HMRC's appetite to prosecute tax evasion is appallingly low. This means that evasion is more of a financial gamble rather than a criminal matter. 

[Si1]

On 10/01/2017 at 9:24 PM, Bland Unsight said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

3,560 words, in case you were wondering.

 

[Si1]

14 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

"Penalties can be up to 100% of the tax liability.  However, for the Let Property Campaign, if landlords submit an accurate voluntary disclosure, the rates are 0%, 10%, 20% depending on the circumstances."

The phrase "prosecution" is missing, as ever. HMRC's appetite to prosecute tax evasion is appallingly low. This means that evasion is more of a financial gamble rather than a criminal matter. 

Except they're dealing with pussies here.

[Pop321]

On 11 January 2017 at 5:36 PM, Lavalas said:

That 118 thread is now fun. There's been a little bit of descent which Dr.Reck has tried to quell only to discover that there's a professor in their ranks. Now she's gonna go toe to toe over academic credentials. Which is amazing really, all things considered.

It's been dry on 118 lately but Busta must have got some new script writers in or something. Compelling stuff.

"New script writers" still chuckling at that comment 2 days after I read it. 

I am still imagining them round a desk like the writers of a US comedy, discussing characters believability and "plots for the new season". 

"No Mark......I am your father"