Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About moedo12

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. Too many amateurs involved in buy to let. I have a good friend involved in it who I think owns several properties. He insists I vote Tory as it's the party of 'hard working' people. Both him and his wife are hard working as they both work full time but it seems pretty indefensible to support a system which can bring in basically an extra full time working wage or two to a household for minimal effort, which is obvious if he and his wife are able to do it beside their full time day jobs. Of course if they were held to higher standards, they wouldn't find that quite so easy. It's almost like landlords (and some agencies for that matter) see complying with the law and regulations as an annoyance that gets in the way of them raking in this easy money.... How anyone can call that a 'profession' is beyond me.
  2. When the asylums closed and 'care in the community' was established, many of the mentally ill simply ended up on the streets.... A kind of makeshift asylum exists, with the severely mentally ill moving in and out of hostel accommodation and/or ridiculously expensive, squalid insecure private rented accommodation. many are not able to manage their finances properly so are very vulnerable to eviction, particularly given how flakey the DWP can be, a situation which will get even worse when Universal Credit comes in. As for the effect living in private rented accommodation has on peoples mental health generally, I think it has a very dramatic effect in both an acute sense (lack of security of tenure) and in a chronic sense (that it seems inescapable without inherited wealth or leaving the country). Of course a lot of this could be rectified it we just built more social housing. edit: apologies I forgot what the title of the thread was! I think my point is that rising house prices and buy to let are inextricably linked, a kind of perverse situation where you're being priced out of the market forever by the people providing your over priced accommodation, an inequity which is sure to build up a huge amount of resentment among those of us who rent.
  3. Cut the guy a bit of slack. He's probably one of the most economically literate people to have served in a shadow cabinet. That said, I don't rate his brand of economics particularly highly but he's well qualified to teach at Harvard as is pretty clear from his curriculum vitae. Now if George Osborne were to take up a post at Harvard, then that really would be funny! I'd say that's more true of politics than economics.
  4. Last year, a decision was made in a matter commonly referred to as the Superstrike case about a deposit that remained unprotected as the tenancy pre-dated the introduction of the legislation. When the fixed term ended, the tenancy became periodic and the deposit remained unprotected. During this time, a notice to quit was served by the landlord, which the court decided was unlawful, as the deposit had not been protected in an appropriate scheme and the relevant information provided to the tenant. This subsequently delayed the landlord’s ability to gain vacant possession. The Superstrike case confirms that when a fixed term expires, a periodic tenancy is regarded as a new agreement and the deposit paid originally is, therefore, subject to the mandatory rules governing protection. If you have any assured shorthold tenancy agreements that pre-date April 6 2007 and the fixed term has come to an end, you should ensure the deposit is protected and supply your tenant with information about the scheme you choose. Make sure you keep records that this has been done. If you want to serve a notice to quit, you should appreciate that the court may impose a financial penalty for late deposit protection. That said, without adhering to the rules, you will not be granted a possession order and you will be unable to remove the tenant in the timescale you require. Any deposit taken against an assured shorthold tenancy signed after April 6 2007 should already be protected in an approved scheme. If this has been overlooked, it should be rectified immediately to avoid future delays. There are three organisations providing deposit protection to landlords and letting agents – the Deposit Protection Service, Tenancy Deposit Scheme and MyDeposits. They are all supported by dedicated call centres and advocate alternative dispute resolution to help settle disagreements arising from the return of a bond and proposed deductions without issuing legal proceedings. Even if you embark on this process, both parties retain the right to go to court. There is speculation about the impact of the Superstrike decision on deposits taken against statutory periodic tenancies that were created when an assured shorthold agreement with a protected deposit expired. Likewise the status of protected deposits relating to the renewal of an assured shorthold tenancy is also in question. These issues were not addressed directly by the court and I would recommend contacting a solicitor for further guidance. http://www.tayloremmet.co.uk/blsblog/old-tenancies-can-still-be-subject-to-new-rules-april-2014/
  5. which doesn't absolve him of his legal failings to protect the deposit. Take him to court over it and get the compensation. Something changed in regards to this when the Deregulation Bill was passed but I can't remember what precisely. It would have been fine had he returned the deposit before the tenancy ended, however once it has he's pretty screwed and open to compensation claims, I believe this is true even if he protected the deposit but just failed to provide the prescribed information.
  6. I don't think a break-clause is a bullet proof term in a contract anyway although unlikely a landlord would challenge it as such if you tried to make use of one put into a contract.
  7. quote OFT guidance which says that such terms in tenancies are unreasonable. You only have to leave it in a similar state to you found it in and don't forget the landlord has a tax free 'wear and tear allowance', extra monies he keeps which theoretically he should use to keep the property in good order between tenants. Take detailed pictures before you leave and frankly if the inventory the landlord made up at the beginning is shite, frankly I think he/she's ******ed.
  8. but during this discussion, the last thing I would do would be to refer to people who identify as right wing as scum.
  9. Yes exactly. The question is where you put the magic money, do you invest it in housing an infrastructure or do you instead give most of it to the banks and your mates?
  10. "Take for example last week's Question Time on R4 where Michael Howard gave a very eloquent speech about how a welfare state can only function if it is underpinned by a strong economy and paid for by subsequent taxation. " This is very presumptuous of Michael Howard, it presumes that the left are fiscally irresponsible. Yet you could argue right wing governments are, especially as we haven't had a truly left wing government for bloody ages and look at the mess the country is in. We are borrowing 1.43 trillion quid, which is almost a doubling since the previous right wing government came into office. As for taxation, it's all very well saying you want a strong economy to pay for public services but if you are part of a party that is controlled by and paid for by people who avoid tax, then it's arguable whether a proper welfare state is even possible or desirable by the people in power. "Then, two leftists gave impassioned speeches about caring for the sick, the poor, the 'disadvantaged' etc and got huge applause. Those further to the right " The language you use is revealing. almost as though you're trying to be derogatory. Why not refer to those 'further to the right' as rightists? Does it not have the same ring to it?
  11. What are you basing this on? My experience tends to be the opposite to be honest. In fact I'm struggling to think of an example. But yes, statements like the above are not a great basis to begin a discussion, they're too presumptuous. Edit: A similar statement I could make is that forums like this tend to be populated largely by people on the right of the political spectrum, thus, expect the answers to be heavily slanted. It would have been better to ask the question on the UK politics forum as there's likely to be more of a balance of views there, in my opinion.
  12. That sounds pretty rare. Where do you live? In such arrangements, currently it's pretty clear where the power resides. As a tenant you are very expendable and it's been that way for a long time, both in terms of law and the state of the market. Government intervention is required, one way or another.
  13. I've seen a lot of private rented properties and very few meet what I'd call 'basic standards'. Just recently I visited a friend in a newly refurbished 'flat'.. The 'flat' in question was the size of the room I grew up in. The 'bathroom' was about two foot across, with the added convenience of being able to wash your hands as you take a shit, which is maybe a useful feature which justifies the 500 quid/month rent? The 'kitchen' consisted of a mini kitchen unit, similar to the one below. There were cupboards placed above this unit (very close) with space for a microwave. I believe this set up is effectively illegal as it's a fire hazard but I know this is not the only flat the landlord has kitted out this way this way, and he owns tonnes. Sadly the landlord couldn't be bothered to install a microwave, however constricted by the room dimensions, my friend placed the microwave on the rear hob. After all there's no worktop space and barely even space in the room to put a desk. Upon the microwave he placed a kettle and a toaster. This is a huge fire risk. If the room wasn't small enough, the landlord thought it appropriate to place a double bed in the room, anxious to ensure he can cash in on a couple in case my friend moves out. Moreover, there was no space for a warddrobe either and sadly the landlord delayed sorting out a dodgy smoke alarm in the room for over a week. Moreover, the landlord is require under the Housing Act, 2004 to have a fire safety order on the block to ensure it doesn't go up in smoke. So why then, was there no smoke alarm in the tiny corridor of this converted house? I may be wrong but I thought not only is a alarm system required but smoke alarms should be wired. The one in the room.. sorry... I mean flat... had a battery in it (which incidentally my friend had to buy himself from poundland). Now, clearly what's needed is a properly regulated private rented sector, with a strict landlord licencing scheme defined in primary legislation. A good quality system. Anyway, I met the landlord and he seemed like a nice guy so I'm sure he'd be more than happy to co-operate lol. He certainly drove a nice car anyway, so he likes good quality things. :-)
  • 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.