Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

adarmo

New Members
  • Content Count

    1,571
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About adarmo

  • Rank
    HPC Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

1,669 profile views
  1. You're pathetic attempt at a put down? Well done on your level of argument. Addressed all the issues logically and in order with structure. 🤣 I'm glad i don't matter. You wouldn't waste your time if i did.
  2. If he didn't have a 'driving' licence to carry 5 people who weren't a family unit, but did have a licence to drive a family then I wouldn't care. See the distinction? We don't pay for medicine in the UK at the point of use, but if my doctor was licensed to perform medicine on a household unit, but not on 5 people who weren't a family unit then I wouldn't care. See the distinction? Well I half agree with your last point, but the issue is that really the tenants benefited before they were even made aware anything was wrong since the place was better than the previous and was cheaper (according to the article). I don't think the landlord should get to keep the proceeds but that they should belong to the state since it is the state's regs the LL breached. If the property had been rented to a single family unit then no rules would have been breached and the LL could have kept the money (but presumably a little less in total as family homes are less profitable). The issue is with the tenants getting all the money back. However, it has been pointed out by my learned fellow poster @Peter Hun that this is the POCA, and he's right on that.
  3. How are they different? Does a grown up family still living with their parents count as a family home or an HMO? Why would it be less risky and not require regulation simply because they're related, or not even but a confirmed family unit? In fact they just need to be defined as 1 'household' to avoid the regs. 1 Household can include all household staff, so you need to set up everyone as a cleaner, cook, au-pair, butler etc and you're set! Fricking joke. Yes, I'm not saying it shouldn't have been registered. I'm saying ALL RENTALS SHOULD BE REGULATED TO THE SAME STANDARD. Apologies for caps but sometimes when you've said things about three or more times one must make the point stand out. Well, they have no legal right to let it as an HMO but could let it as a family home. They could have let it to one of the chaps there who in turn could have sublet on the sly. Plenty of that going on, possibly more of it to come given my earlier points about the fact that regulation depends on the number of registered occupants and not the number of bedrooms. Interesting point. Technically yes it is the proceeds of a crime, but then too is drug dealing. Did the tenants not also benefit from a cheap rent from a dodgy HMO? Have they not too been complicit in the crime? Didn't they check the LL has the right certificates? Have their lives been put at risk? Really? How dangerous was that place? Sounded a lot better than their old place (presumably registered) where the mice roamed free and the landlord used it as a travelodge. Under POCA 2002 there's the Civil Recovery mechanism that I think may have been used here. Interestingly there's no requirement to prove a criminal act. https://www.gov.uk/house-in-multiple-occupation-licence the penalty is an unlimited fine. Fines are not paid to victims they are paid to the authorities. I still cannot get my head around the ruling. Fair play to the tenants though, they've won thrice. Cheap rent from the off, better house and LL than last time, AND got their money back. Jager bombs all round!
  4. I think I'm a bit of an exception all round tbh. Might be on the spectrum a bit. I'm at odds with an awful lot of people in my peergroup and age group. Some peeps i used to work with (who bought a brand new build that the relief road taking traffic from my road will run behind.....ooops) described my life as the antithesis of what they want. But then buying a 20% overpriced modern semi detached next to a planned relief road that's overlooked from every angle isn't really for me. I call it the PCP estate since it's pretty much all fur and no knickers up there (or all p&l no balance sheet). My dad was always doing DIY and i think he got that from his grand father who was a Scandinavian immigrant (according to family legend...). All my brothers are pretty handy and both work in construction but i probably should have been a trade and moved to general builder (or project manager in the south east) rather than an accountant. Lots of transferable skills though especially organising, compliance, regulations and budgeting/ costing. Maybe... one day....
  5. I'm not saying it isn't the law and I'm not saying LLs don't need to comply. I'm saying that the law doesn't go far enough (again why need the hmo regs for three tenants but not if let to a family of eight) and the law of awarding money to people that haven't incurred a loss seems a bit odd given we are in the uk. What are your thoughts on that? You might argue that a tenant as paying for a service that wasnt ultimately provided. Maybe. But imho It's a penalty and should be awarded to the authorities to use to enforce regulations. Obviously I'm at odds with the law. My taxi driver broke the speed limit the other day. Do i get a free ride?
  6. Does the article state that? Yeah, maybe the property wasn't safe, but maybe it was. It certainly sounded like it was a lot cleaner and had a better landlord than the previous place these guys rented. Again though, the HMO rules are at odds with the renting to a family rules. You could have a fairly of 8 renting a place that's not an HMO but your get three individuals in there and suddenly it's unsafe. I'm not disagreeing with the idea of this other than to say it's not logical and it's inconsistent. Fully enough though it does give a lot more power to the tenant and that should be welcome.
  7. That would make sense (if it's indeed true) but this just looks to be really strange to award anything to a party that lost nothing. Fines for breaching the regulations should be administered but this is different. I see you point though, LAs are hard pressed these days so giving a tenant an incentive to shop the LL helps them out, but i you know your LL is dodgy don't you have an incentive to shop them only once you wish to move on so that you live a longer period rent free? Hell yes on your last point.
  8. Laws obviously apply to everyone. But this is not a fine. Fines are not paid to individuals. Fines are penalties and do not stand in contracts unless a genuine estimate of loss or real one can be demonstrated. Clearly the LL was saving a few quid and maybe the place wasnt up to the latest fire regs etc or perhaps wouldn't have been approved in that location but again my points stand. The tenants suffered no financial loss and even saw out their tenancy after being made aware so i don't think it could have been an obviously dangerous place. They were awarded a refund despite having the benefit of accommodation and despite all of that why do you need an hmo licence for a house with 3 or more individuals on separate contracts But not for a family of 8? I'm saying that all rental property should be regulated to the same standards and that fines should be paid to the authorities to police enforcement of those regulations. So glad the LL suffered the consequences but do not understand why the former tenants got the money. Maybe now tenants will seek out dodgy HMOs knowing they'll get the money back at some point?
  9. Finally we agree on something By all accounts the property and landlord were excellent, or at least decent and better than their other digs which were registered (presumably). Two things stand out here. 1. HMO and rental regulation in general are not at all up to scratch. 2. They suffered no financial loss for the landlord's deception but can sue for a non financial loss? Are we America? Are they arguing that they wouldn't have rented anywhere had they known it was unlicensed? There's an additional point now about the need for a licence to rent to five individuals but not a family of five, or six..... Death to btl of course but students have pretty much always rented.
  10. Yes - so that's why you make it your primary residence. That way you also benefit from full CGT relief.
  11. So that might explain the way things go and i agree it would be great to see younger people able to afford a home or to even take on a project. SD is lower now for houses under 800k than for a number of years... prices are flat but if you only make money on renovations in a rising market you're not in the business of renovations you're in the business of speculating. There are plenty like that and they're out of the game atm which is great if you're actually able to add value yourself.
  12. I'm not sure I quite follow. You;re saying they will sell pronto when the profit is no longer there? That doesn't make sense. I would counter that if you buy to live in and can do a lot of the work yourself it is not unproductive. I know several people who really enjoy doing the work themselves and get to enjoy the fruits of that work until they sell. My view is not about what it's worth but what that property could have been swapped for before and after the work has been done. As I said before the aim is to end up mortgage free in a house I've designed and built. I recall having a very long debate with Venger about how the ideal minimal impact solution to all this is mild inflation with flat or slowly falling prices. Maybe we're seeing it, maybe we're on an exponential downward shift but it's funny to see people who have been banging on a about a crash for so long start to get excited over asking prices when for years those same people have been stating 'yeah but asking prices aren't sold prices'. Incidentally (and off topic) I just walked through some new homes built a year or two ago. Cracks in the rendering already AND they're just starting the relief road that will go through the development.
  13. Likewise lol. Oooo It's deffo this year isn't it. I've a feelin in me bones.
  14. Perfect storm of what? Many are arguing we are already in it. The btl regulation is wonderful to see but it is finally possible to make money in renovations because the message has got through to Hattie (or her husband Henry) there's no money it so you're not being out bid by cretins with no clue. Did you see the whole renovation? Interesting? Anecdotal only I'm afraid. You've got there an example of someone owning a property and presumably trying to add value to it while the biggest recession in 80 years struck! Question though, relative to other properties did his project do better? I.e. could he buy that place, work on it and then swap it for something better? A rising tide lifts all ships and a falling one lowers them all, but over several projects and several years you'll be mortgage free if you're smart.... in any market.
  15. Did you think the same in 2018, and 2017, and 2016.....? Ad hom, counter with reason please. In this region the referendum result was like a switch being thrown.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.