tim123

Oh I'm sure that they "know" the law. They also know that most of their "opponents don't and will just roll over tim

Are these in the really shitty part of Stoke, or in the rest, only slighty shitty part, of Stoke? tim

Well done. You now need to worry about the deposit. This is not the bank's responsibility, it is the original LL's and if he hasn't any money it may be difficult getting it back. If it were me, once you have an acceptable leaving date, I would "forget" to pay the last month's rent. tim

Unless he lives somewhere that is really difficult to find an alternative I wouldn't muck about like this They are going to get it right sooner or later, so IMHO it would be better to use the time to find the ideal property to move into and give notice himself, if necessary.

with a perishable product, It's not about turnover. It's about avoiding waste tim

Here is the exact details. http://www.bytestart.co.uk/esc-c16-changes-2012.html tim

Having suffered a load of slimballs whose opening spiel was just targeted at pushing up the offer price I am now less keen than I was. But the last two that I dealt with were refreshingly honest about what the expected the property to sell for. Unfortunately, neither of the properties suited. tim

I agree with the PP. Get rid of the warehouse, it forms no part of your future life. It's just hassle and risk for a small reward. Difficult to advise on the house if it's not what you really want? tim

It's not that isolated. 15 miles from Newton Stewart, which has everyting that you might need - a supermarket and a hospital :-)

but how accessible is the area? Does it compare well with (e.g.) http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-29541583.html where I won't have to worry about how I am going to pay for my (increasing) medical care tim

And what things do you think that the government should stop spending money on to achieve this aim? And don't say waste. Whilst it might be a big headline figure, it is tiny in the overall scheme of things and if we got rid of it all (if we could [1]) would reduce the total tax take by a small fraction of 1% tim [1] and I can give you some examples to show that we can't, as much of it is made up from funny accounting.

People who work through service companies pay (more or less) exactly the same Income tax on the money that they extract from the company as someone paid the same salary on PAYE. So there is no saving here. What does happen to minimise their "tax" is: 1) They pay a lot less NI, which, as we all know, isn't a tax with a big T but is a tax with a little t. So they can claim that they "pay all of their Taxes", but they don't pay all of their taxes. 2) They can leave money in the company for next year to equalise their income from year to year and avoid paying too much higher rate tax. This helps if normally earn 50K and have only have one year when you earn 2 million, but is no use if you earn 2 million every year. 3) It used to be possible to leave the money sitting in the company for a few years and then wind it up taking the money as a capital gain which would be taxed at a lower rate. But the revenue closed this loophole by restricting the amount that could be withdrawn this way to relatively small amount (I forget the exact number). But the press report this ruse as if it still works - it doesn't. tim

I think that it's just "banks favour people with a 25% deposit". And there are many more BTLs with a 25% deposit than FTBs. tim

What do you mean by "claims back"? Using your numbers, it works as follows: A BTL investor buys a house with 100% mortgage costing 500pm interest only. A tenant pays 500 pm rent from which the investor is allowed to deduct that 500 pounds before working out how much *extra* tax he has to pay on his rental income. In this case it's zero. So the BTL investor has made no extra income, has an asset that is 100% mortgaged and hasn't paid off a penny of the loan. How has the BTL investor made anything here? The only "win" that I can see is that he leveraged the bank's money into buying an asset that (he thinks) is going to go up in value. There's nothing else in it for him on these numbers. tim

Hm, First one I checked: http://wales.bidonmyhouse.co.uk/property_info.php?search=true&id=793 Vendor wants the same price as he had it on with an EA and the buyer pays the agents fees. That's gonna work well - NOT! tim

No idea. It was just the rule that was explained to me when I got a job there and found it impossible to find anywhere to rent (except from people in HA property taking an extended holiday - which seems to be the norm there). tim

Got some reliable examples? All the stories that I have seen reported of people wanting to borrow to expand, is to do so to meet some fictional demand that they think is there if only they had the capacity to service it. And even where the demand is there, they will only be taking it at the expense of someone else who now won’t be able to service the bank loans that they had. If I were the bank I wouldn't be lending to these people and it is stupid to force them to do so tim

No let's not. A BTL LL doesn't get that either. He can only offset those costs against any rent received, he cannot "write it off on his tax return". I'm with the PP here. Being allowed to offset business expenses against business income is not a special privilege. tim

They have rent controls in Sweden and the supply of private rented accommodation is near to zero. The only way to get rented accom is via LA housing Associations where, fortunately, the only criteria for getting to the top of the list is "length of time on the list" (Oh, and having officially registered as a resident) which means that there is no social engineering caused by being able to jump the list. Getting to the top of the list for "any" property takes 6-18 months depending upon the town. Getting to the top of the list for a desirable property can take 20 years. However whilst you wait to get to the top of the list finding temporary accommodation is next to impossible. To the PP who said that rent contraols didn't clam up the market in Germany. I have lived in Germany too, and I have never seen rent controls there (except as a legacy from unification as rents in the East equalised those in the West), though I think there may be rule about how much the rent can go up once you have signed a contract - which is not at all unreasonable as the expectation of both parties is that this contract will be "for life" (not that this happens often nowadays)

I'm not arguing that these acts will have no bearing on the eventual decision in a civil case. I am arguing that they are not criminal acts and that, as part of your negotiating tactics, threatening to have them prosecuted for it is pointless

I don't agree. It's what normally happens, it's quite possible that a LL (perhaps not an agent) has ever experienced it any other way. You get the S21, you make arrangements with the agent/LL to hand back keys and have a chechout check on the final day. The costs of staying beyond the date on the S21 can be quite high so only in a small number of cases will a tenant want to incur that cost for the small increase in time that it will allow them to stay in the property. After all you get two months notice to find somewhere else to live, if you can't do it in that time how is making in three going to help? tim

Are you doing all of this yourself? What did the CAB say? Is there not a local "free" legal advisor who can help you? And if there isn't, have you investigated the costs of legal representation (and the likleyhood of recovery of that cost?), it could be money well spent

There is absolutely no chance that "incorrectly stating the law to a tenant wrt the status of the S21 notice" meets the test for a criminal act (either unlawful eviction or harassment). Tenants are expected to be adults who are capable of finding out the truth (or otherwise) of such statements for themselves. tim

About 99% do, because whilst you have a "right" to stay beyond that point up until you are physically removed from the building by the baliffs, all of the LL's costs doing this are reclaimable from the tenant, so "staying" is not the normal procedure. tim

All other things being equal, then option 3 (if you have the money) or 2 (if you don't) are the best because you don't have to put up with all the landlord "shit" of renting. But all things are not equal. House values go up and down and market condition sometimes make it impossible to sell a house in a reasonable time if you find that you neeed to move in a hurry. Only you can decide how much these factors impact on your decision. Do you think house values (in your locality) will be lower or higher in three years time? Do you think that selling a house within a week will return in three years time? For me the answers are: at best the same, perhaps lower and no. But I'm still prepared to buy if I find the right property because I'm pretty certain that it will be a 15 year purchase [1]. - But you're not! tim [1] unless I die before then.