Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Neverwhere

Property118 Share Issues -- Merged Thread With Portal

Recommended Posts

Prospective owner occupiers need not apply?

http://www.property118.com/

How it all works

Buying or Selling A Tenanted Property?

Then you are in the right place!

No commission, No Memberships, No Buyers Premiums

It is FREE for landlords and agents to advertise buy to let property for sale here.

Property118 isn’t an estate agency and does not charge commission to either buyers or sellers.

Buyers can set up email alerts so they are notified when a property matching their purchasing criteria is listed.

A property with an established tenancy provides immediate cashflow to buyers.

1,000's of landlords visit this website every day, Property118 is one of the busiest landlord websites in the UK.

Premium listings and featured promotions are available as optional upgrades.

Why Property118 makes sense for selling tenanted property

When landlords consider selling a buy to let property via conventional means they are immediately faced with a list of dilemmas:

1. Will my tenant cooperate with viewings?

2. Will my tenant move out and leave me with a rental void and negative cashflow?

3. If the property is unoccupied what will happen to my insurance cover?

However, if/when a tenant learns that the property is only being marketed to other landlords the issue becomes far less of a threat and much less likely to lead to rental voids. Tenants do not even need to know the property is for sale until a potentially interested buyer is found. This is because we do not publish the property name/number in the advertisement, just the street, town and postcode. Details of the owner and the full property address will only be provided to serious enquirers.

Property118 is the ideal website for landlords and their agents to sell buy to let properties because it is one of THE 'go-to' websites for anybody operating in the Private Rented Sector. In other words, potential buyers are already here.

Why Property118 makes sense for Buy-to-Let Purchasers

The most obvious is mitigating rental voids which are inevitable following a purchase with vacant possession.

What investment property buyer would choose a vacant property over an identical one with tenants who have been in-situ for some time, have an unblemished track record of making their rental payments on time, and are taking good care of the property and respecting their neighbours?

Serious Enquiries Only

To help our advertisers to minimise the occurrence of spam enquiries we charge £1.18 pence to put you in touch with each other. Purchasers contact details will be sent to vendors and the vendors details will be sent to purchasers as soon as payment is made via PayPal.

Edited by Neverwhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice idea, if they can make it work.

If it can be established that there's a healthy landlord-to-landlord market in tenanted properties, it tears down the argument for Section 21 evictions and strengthens the case to abolish them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

love this quote

"However, if/when a tenant learns that the property is only being marketed to other landlords the issue becomes far less of a threat and much less likely to lead to rental voids. Tenants do not even need to know the property is for sale until a potentially interested buyer is found. This is because we do not publish the property name/number in the advertisement, just the street, town and postcode. Details of the owner and the full property address will only be provided to serious enquirers."

so - tenants will not know the property is for sale and not clock that strange people are being shown 'their home'

just pass the 'tenant' to a new landlord then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

love this quote

"However, if/when a tenant learns that the property is only being marketed to other landlords the issue becomes far less of a threat and much less likely to lead to rental voids. Tenants do not even need to know the property is for sale until a potentially interested buyer is found. This is because we do not publish the property name/number in the advertisement, just the street, town and postcode. Details of the owner and the full property address will only be provided to serious enquirers."

so - tenants will not know the property is for sale and not clock that strange people are being shown 'their home'

just pass the 'tenant' to a new landlord then.

I think the AST is voided on sale too. The contract is with the named landlord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

love this quote

"However, if/when a tenant learns that the property is only being marketed to other landlords the issue becomes far less of a threat and much less likely to lead to rental voids. Tenants do not even need to know the property is for sale until a potentially interested buyer is found. This is because we do not publish the property name/number in the advertisement, just the street, town and postcode. Details of the owner and the full property address will only be provided to serious enquirers."

so - tenants will not know the property is for sale and not clock that strange people are being shown 'their home'

just pass the 'tenant' to a new landlord then.

Treated like cattle.

People farming *****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd though that legislation was needed in the case of a bank possession, where now the tenant isnt suddenly surprised by bailiffs turning up.

That's a different case. The bank has rights under the mortgage terms. The tenant has rights under the tenancy. They only come into conflict where a landlord has acted fraudulently, entering into two contracts whose terms grant mutually incompatible rights.

The case you're thinking of is where the landlord lets out a property in contravention of the terms of an existing contract (mortgage). Because the existing contract takes precedence, that leaves the tenancy contract invalid in law, and the tenant is legally no more than a squatter. But similarly, where there's a valid tenancy agreement, that then binds any successor to the landlord (i.e. when one landlord takes the place of another, which could be a sale, an inheritance, a splitting of assets on divorce, or similar).

See my post above for why this is a Good Thing. Even if there are ignorant comments (like "tenant need never know") floating around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All

Whilst I am the front man for the new portal and the founder of the Property118 Google News Feed and Discussion Forum I am not the brainchild or the owner of the new portal. Nevertheless, I am here to answer your questions, but please do try to be a little more polite that some of the HousePriceCrash forum members here have been so far.

My wife is a 41 year old Chartered Management Accountant "CIMA". Yes she was Russian born and yes she is a very beautiful woman in many ways, not just her looks. She was educated in the UK and has a Masters Degree in International Business Finance and Economics from the University of East Anglia. Perhaps some of the comments about us were made as a result of jealousy - perhaps I will never know. However, if some of the personal comments made to date had been made to my face then somebody may well have received a punch on the nose. Nevertheless, I have to accept that people can be very brave sat behind a pseudonym, a screen and a keyboard. That's more of a reflection on them than my wife and I.

I would also point out that I am not a fully trained UK lawyer. I am a retired commercial finance broker who chose to invest into property for my pension. I do not hold myself out to be an expert in anything, that is for others to decide. I resent self proclaimed guru's and experts. An Ex is a "has been" and a "Spurt" is a drip under pressure. If you think that's a good way to describe me then your are entitled to your opinion and may refer to me as an "Expert" LOL.

Now moving on to some of the points raised.

One of the paragraphs on our website regarding advising tenants of the sale has clearly been misconstrued and subsequently ridiculed here. A tenant only needs to be advised of a sale when a potential buyer would like to view the property. When an enquiry is made by a potential purchaser the owner is provided with suggestions to make the process as smooth as possible. For example, advising the tenant that the property needs to be sold but the tenant does not need to move out or even to think about looking for somewhere else to live unless he/she particularly wants to, because Plan A is to sell it to another landlord. We also advise landlords to provide an incentive to tenants, e.g. "if you can help me to sell the property by conducting viewings and making sure the property is neat and tidy I will give you £X when the sale goes through". Where tenants are uncooperative then sadly the landlord will need to consider providing notice to the tenant and selling conventionally with vacant possession. This rarely suits anybody, the tenant has to fund his own costs of relocating and suffer the inconvenience of being up-rooted. Meanwhile the landlord has to suffer the potential of rental voids, a disgruntled tenant and agency fees associated with marketing the property via conventional means by appointing an agent to sell with vacant possession.

I am happy to return to answer more questions if they are polite.

Yours truly

Mark Alexander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All

. . .

Now moving on to some of the points raised.

One of the paragraphs on our website regarding advising tenants of the sale has clearly been misconstrued and subsequently ridiculed here. A tenant only needs to be advised of a sale when a potential buyer would like to view the property. When an enquiry is made by a potential purchaser the owner is provided with suggestions to make the process as smooth as possible. For example, advising the tenant that the property needs to be sold but the tenant does not need to move out or even to think about looking for somewhere else to live unless he/she particularly wants to, because Plan A is to sell it to another landlord. We also advise landlords to provide an incentive to tenants, e.g. "if you can help me to sell the property by conducting viewings and making sure the property is neat and tidy I will give you £X when the sale goes through". Where tenants are uncooperative then sadly the landlord will need to consider providing notice to the tenant and selling conventionally with vacant possession. This rarely suits anybody, the tenant has to fund his own costs of relocating and suffer the inconvenience of being up-rooted. Meanwhile the landlord has to suffer the potential of rental voids, a disgruntled tenant and agency fees associated with marketing the property via conventional means by appointing an agent to sell with vacant possession.

I am happy to return to answer more questions if they are polite.

Yours truly

Mark Alexander

Hi Mark

So would you support the abolition of Section 21 as per Porca's suggestion or would you campaign against it?

Thanks!

Nice idea, if they can make it work.

If it can be established that there's a healthy landlord-to-landlord market in tenanted properties, it tears down the argument for Section 21 evictions and strengthens the case to abolish them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, I agree with you say largely, but using a forum like this one for promotion makes you fair game.

Regarding your website, the idea has definitely got mileage and would be useful to investors. However, as an investor I would not pay to be put in touch with a seller or agent. There is simply not enough information about the properties to trigger an enquiry, so 90% of enquiries would be a waste of time and therefore money. I also think that buyers may feel that this should be a free service to them, and that if anyone is to pay it should be sellers/advertisers. However, until there is sufficient listings and traffic that is going to be problematic. Maybe, google ads can bridge the gap in the interim. A useful feature might to post an investment request, where investors state clear investment criteria so that sellers can approach them with suitable properties. Another very useful feature would be to encourage sellers to make financial data available. For example, if I can see what the income and expenses were for prior years it tells me vacancy periods, likely costs and what has been spent on the property. While some may be tempted to be economic with the truth, a copy of tax returns would suffice.

I hope this is useful and I wish you luck.

Thank you for your feedback and well wishes.

I'm not looking to use this forum for promotion, I was alerted to the thread by Google and didn't like what I was reading so felt compelled to reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mark

So would you support the abolition of Section 21 as per Porca's suggestion or would you campaign against it?

Thanks!

I don''t think it is as black or white as that Neverwhere.

If section 8 eviction procedures could become more effective (Court times, bailiff turnaround times etc.) then I doubt section 21 notices would be used anywhere near as much.

However, if I was a home-owner wanting to let my property for a year or so whilst working away/abroad I would be campaigning hard to retain section 21. Same goes for young couples renting a property whilst they try out living together.

As a professional landlord, in the business for the long term, I offer my tenants a Deed of Assurance. If you don't know what that is please Google it. The simple explanation is that the landlord retains the right to serve notice at any time but pays compensation if notice is given to a tenant who is not in breach of his/her tenancy. I started a campaign called "The Good Landlords Campaign" and I'm pleased to say that hundreds of like-minded landlords and agents have joined and now offer the Deed of Assurance. Once it becomes better known it will be a wonderful way for tenants who want to stay in a property for the long haul to have some peace of mind, at least in terms of covering their moving costs if they need to be moved on through no fault of their own. It is far better than Shelter were proposing in respect of their "Stable Rental Contracts" because it doesn't tie tenants into a long term contract that they may not wish to complete for a variety of reasons, e.g. financial, job related, relationships etc.

I'm all for ways to enable tenants to be able to distinguish professional landlords from amateurs, wannabes, rogues and the downright ignorant and clueless. Landlord Accreditation is making headway with this too and I was recently delighted to read that the NLA have now released a national register of accredited landlords. I haven't seen the need to complete Landlord Accreditation before now but that is changing.

I trust that answers your question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If section 8 eviction procedures could become more effective (Court times, bailiff turnaround times etc.) then I doubt section 21 notices would be used anywhere near as much.

Thanks for putting your head above the parapet. HPC can be a harsh place!

I have argued before (including probably here) that Section 21 should be scrapped altogether, and that as a quid pro quo Landlords' rights against delinquent tenants (Section 8) should be strengthened. But I'm afraid the reason for using Section 21 is often (usually) a whole lot more cynical: the landlord sets himself up as judge-and-jury. Not to mention no-fault eviction.

However, if I was a home-owner wanting to let my property for a year or so whilst working away/abroad I would be campaigning hard to retain section 21. Same goes for young couples renting a property whilst they try out living together.

That's a different case. There are separate provisions for owners to let out their own home and subsequently reclaim it. The landlord serves notice up-front that it's his/her home and he/she reserves the right to serve notice and secure repossession. If Section 21 were abolished, I expect those provisions would come (back) into use.

As a professional landlord, in the business for the long term, I offer my tenants a Deed of Assurance.

An excellent idea, as far as it goes. Alas, I've never encountered it. And if it were imposed on landlords, I expect many of them would rapidly figure out ways to induce tenants to leave, or to do something that the landlord could cite as reasons why it wasn't a no-fault eviction. So long as Section 21 exists, the landlord can appoint himself judge-and-jury at any time.

It is far better than Shelter were proposing in respect of their "Stable Rental Contracts" because it doesn't tie tenants into a long term contract that they may not wish to complete for a variety of reasons, e.g. financial, job related, relationships etc.

I agree entirely. Shelter seem to have become worse than useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a professional landlord, in the business for the long term, I offer my tenants a Deed of Assurance.

Never heard of it.

Is it your own invention? Has it ever been made to stand up in court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for putting your head above the parapet. HPC can be a harsh place!

I have argued before (including probably here) that Section 21 should be scrapped altogether, and that as a quid pro quo Landlords' rights against delinquent tenants (Section 8) should be strengthened. But I'm afraid the reason for using Section 21 is often (usually) a whole lot more cynical: the landlord sets himself up as judge-and-jury. Not to mention no-fault eviction.

That's a different case. There are separate provisions for owners to let out their own home and subsequently reclaim it. The landlord serves notice up-front that it's his/her home and he/she reserves the right to serve notice and secure repossession. If Section 21 were abolished, I expect those provisions would come (back) into use.

An excellent idea, as far as it goes. Alas, I've never encountered it. And if it were imposed on landlords, I expect many of them would rapidly figure out ways to induce tenants to leave, or to do something that the landlord could cite as reasons why it wasn't a no-fault eviction. So long as Section 21 exists, the landlord can appoint himself judge-and-jury at any time.

I agree entirely. Shelter seem to have become worse than useless.

I'm interested in what you have to say.

Please explain further how you see the notices given by homeowners working and on what basis it is different to section 21. What are the provisions that you think would "come back"? What act of former legislation are you referencing please?

I'm pleased you like the Deed of Assurance concept at least in principle. The beauty of it is that the landlord cannot be judge and jury. In the event of a dispute over whether compensation is due it would be settled by the Small Claims Courts, and as with Deposit Protection disputes the burden of proof rests with the landlord, i.e. proof that compensation is not payable on the basis of an eviction within the assured period being due to breach of tenancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard of it.

Is it your own invention? Has it ever been made to stand up in court?

I came up with the concept yes. Several of my tenants are elderly, disabled or have young children with special needs. Many of them had previously had bad experiences with amateur PRS landlords who promised them they could stay long term and then decided to sell up as soon as the initial 6 or 12 month fixed term AST came to an end. These poor people had barely unpacked and got settled only to learn they had to find new homes and fund the costs of moving through no fault of their own. I wanted to offer my tenants more than a verbal promise. I want nice long term tenants and I was prepared to put my money where my mouth is in terms of providing them with a home for as long as they want to be there. I got the contracts drawn up by a direct public access barrister. I'm not a lawyer but I have helped several solicitors and barristers in the past so I can call in favours of this nature where required.

Even Shelter couldn't find fault with the Deed of Assurance, their former Head of Policy (Robbie De Santos) even blogged about it. I doubt I can post links here due to being a Newbie otherwise I would link to that blog. However, if you search Google for "Shelter We need to talk solutions as well as problems with renting" the blog I'm referring to does come up at the top of search results. Sadly they didn't follow through and seem to have adopted a "not made here" approach and have continued to push their own inferior idea of "stable rental contract". It is such a shame because Shelter are so well funded and well connected, they really could make a difference if they were to work with the PRS as opposed to focussing only on demonising it and playing amateur politics by calling for ridiculous new anti-PRS legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don''t think it is as black or white as that Neverwhere.

If section 8 eviction procedures could become more effective (Court times, bailiff turnaround times etc.) then I doubt section 21 notices would be used anywhere near as much.

However, if I was a home-owner wanting to let my property for a year or so whilst working away/abroad I would be campaigning hard to retain section 21. Same goes for young couples renting a property whilst they try out living together.

As a professional landlord, in the business for the long term, I offer my tenants a Deed of Assurance. If you don't know what that is please Google it. The simple explanation is that the landlord retains the right to serve notice at any time but pays compensation if notice is given to a tenant who is not in breach of his/her tenancy. I started a campaign called "The Good Landlords Campaign" and I'm pleased to say that hundreds of like-minded landlords and agents have joined and now offer the Deed of Assurance. Once it becomes better known it will be a wonderful way for tenants who want to stay in a property for the long haul to have some peace of mind, at least in terms of covering their moving costs if they need to be moved on through no fault of their own. It is far better than Shelter were proposing in respect of their "Stable Rental Contracts" because it doesn't tie tenants into a long term contract that they may not wish to complete for a variety of reasons, e.g. financial, job related, relationships etc.

I'm all for ways to enable tenants to be able to distinguish professional landlords from amateurs, wannabes, rogues and the downright ignorant and clueless. Landlord Accreditation is making headway with this too and I was recently delighted to read that the NLA have now released a national register of accredited landlords. I haven't seen the need to complete Landlord Accreditation before now but that is changing.

I trust that answers your question?

Returning homeowners are covered under section 8 so they don't justify the retention of section 21, which also requires a court order to enforce unless that right is waived by the tenant.

Deeds of Assurance sound absolutely awful for anyone whose concerns over security of tenure are not purely monetary i.e. most normal people whose insecurity of tenure has associated negative impacts on their general quality of life, their children's schooling, their ability to engage in effective forward planning, etc.

You've also misrepresented Shelter's proposal which would allow tenants' to have five years of secure tenure whilst retaining the right to give two months notice. Generally speaking, although I can see why a landlord would want to head this one off at the pass with a scheme of their own, claiming to have a better proposal than Shelter is to damn oneself with very faint praise indeed. You can imagine what it then looks like when said proposal does not, it turns out, even meet those low standards.

The NLA is a pro-landlord lobbying organisation, it is not registered with UKAS as an accredited certification body so it cannot issue any accredited qualifications. Calling it's unaccredited, online, paid subscription-based course "Landlord Accreditation" is purely a PR exercise, designed to prevent government regulation for the benefit of tenants:

"The NLA promotes and provides accreditation because we believe it is the best way for us to prove, as landlords, that we can self regulate. If we are aware of legislation and our responsibilities and have a way of demonstrating this (NLA Accreditation) we can prove that we do not require further legislation. To demonstrate your accredited status you can use the NLA Accredited Logo."

Porca's point remains interesting, if your current venture does take off then it might well provide the necessary ammunition for other groups to successfully abolish section 21 evictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol:

Hello All

Whilst I am the front man for the new portal and the founder of the Property118 Google News Feed and Discussion Forum I am not the brainchild or the owner of the new portal. Nevertheless, I am here to answer your questions, but please do try to be a little more polite that some of the HousePriceCrash forum members here have been so far.

My wife is a 41 year old Chartered Management Accountant "CIMA". Yes she was Russian born and yes she is a very beautiful woman in many ways, not just her looks. She was educated in the UK and has a Masters Degree in International Business Finance and Economics from the University of East Anglia. Perhaps some of the comments about us were made as a result of jealousy - perhaps I will never know. However, if some of the personal comments made to date had been made to my face then somebody may well have received a punch on the nose. Nevertheless, I have to accept that people can be very brave sat behind a pseudonym, a screen and a keyboard. That's more of a reflection on them than my wife and I.

I would also point out that I am not a fully trained UK lawyer. I am a retired commercial finance broker who chose to invest into property for my pension. I do not hold myself out to be an expert in anything, that is for others to decide. I resent self proclaimed guru's and experts. An Ex is a "has been" and a "Spurt" is a drip under pressure. If you think that's a good way to describe me then your are entitled to your opinion and may refer to me as an "Expert" LOL.

Now moving on to some of the points raised.

One of the paragraphs on our website regarding advising tenants of the sale has clearly been misconstrued and subsequently ridiculed here. A tenant only needs to be advised of a sale when a potential buyer would like to view the property. When an enquiry is made by a potential purchaser the owner is provided with suggestions to make the process as smooth as possible. For example, advising the tenant that the property needs to be sold but the tenant does not need to move out or even to think about looking for somewhere else to live unless he/she particularly wants to, because Plan A is to sell it to another landlord. We also advise landlords to provide an incentive to tenants, e.g. "if you can help me to sell the property by conducting viewings and making sure the property is neat and tidy I will give you £X when the sale goes through". Where tenants are uncooperative then sadly the landlord will need to consider providing notice to the tenant and selling conventionally with vacant possession. This rarely suits anybody, the tenant has to fund his own costs of relocating and suffer the inconvenience of being up-rooted. Meanwhile the landlord has to suffer the potential of rental voids, a disgruntled tenant and agency fees associated with marketing the property via conventional means by appointing an agent to sell with vacant possession.

I am happy to return to answer more questions if they are polite.

Yours truly

Mark Alexander

You are "Chucknorris" and I claim my free tin of magnolia .... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Yours truly

Mark Alexander

Will your portal be available only to people who actually own houses, or will it also allow so called buy-to-let landlords to trade houses that they are renting from the bank whilst they wait for a correction in house prices to chew through their deposit?

I encourage you to allow these BTL clowns to take part. A great many of them will be discovering that BTL is a money pit and will be looking to pass their shit sandwich on to another gullible clown. Many will have realised by now that they can't all supplement their incomes with a trickle of income from crap landlord portals and the like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will your portal be available only to people who actually own houses, or will it also allow so called buy-to-let landlords to trade houses that they are renting from the bank whilst they wait for a correction in house prices to chew through their deposit?

I encourage you to allow these BTL clowns to take part. A great many of them will be discovering that BTL is a money pit and will be looking to pass their shit sandwich on to another gullible clown. Many will have realised by now that they can't all supplement their incomes with a trickle of income from crap landlord portals and the like.

Could even expand it into a game show for even more income, Pass the Buck-less or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Returning homeowners are covered under section 8 so they don't justify the retention of section 21, which also requires a court order to enforce unless that right is waived by the tenant.

Deeds of Assurance sound absolutely awful for anyone whose concerns over security of tenure are not purely monetary i.e. most normal people whose insecurity of tenure has associated negative impacts on their general quality of life, their children's schooling, their ability to engage in effective forward planning, etc.

You've also misrepresented Shelter's proposal which would allow tenants' to have five years of secure tenure whilst retaining the right to give two months notice. Generally speaking, although I can see why a landlord would want to head this one off at the pass with a scheme of their own, claiming to have a better proposal than Shelter is to damn oneself with very faint praise indeed. You can imagine what it then looks like when said proposal does not, it turns out, even meet those low standards.

The NLA is a pro-landlord lobbying organisation, it is not registered with UKAS as an accredited certification body so it cannot issue any accredited qualifications. Calling it's unaccredited, online, paid subscription-based course "Landlord Accreditation" is purely a PR exercise, designed to prevent government regulation for the benefit of tenants:

"The NLA promotes and provides accreditation because we believe it is the best way for us to prove, as landlords, that we can self regulate. If we are aware of legislation and our responsibilities and have a way of demonstrating this (NLA Accreditation) we can prove that we do not require further legislation. To demonstrate your accredited status you can use the NLA Accredited Logo."

Porca's point remains interesting, if your current venture does take off then it might well provide the necessary ammunition for other groups to successfully abolish section 21 evictions.

Thank you for sharing the counter-arguments, this thread is now transforming into a constructive debate.

I appreciate that I've wandered into the dragons den and to many HPC members my views are likely to be about a popular as a fart in a space suit. Nevertheless, I'm happy to ignore the ignorant and have a sensible debate with people like your good self.

Much like the NLA, I am pro-landlord, although I do disagree with the NLA on several issues. FWIW I am not an NLA member, I'm not even sure they'd have me, I'm too maverick for them!

There are several reasons that I have yet to raise in terms of why I don't like the stable rental contract but I can assure you that getting rid of good tenants isn't one of them. What everybody need to accept is that circumstances can and often do change for both landlords and tenants. I agree that money isn't everything but when it comes to resolving the most difficult of issues then it is they only thing that matters in many cases. Let me give you a few examples:-

1) Landlord falls into financial difficulty and needs to sell up

2) Landlord dies and mortgage company want their loan to be repaid (landlords should be forced to buy life insurance to protect their mortgages IMHO)

3) Landlords get divorced

4) Landlords get disillusioned

5) Landlords fall ill and need to sell up

Is it really right that a tenant should be able to remain in occupation for up to 5 years in these circumstances but can leave the property with just 2 months notice without reason?

Most things come down to monetary compensation when a contract is frustrated/broken and that is what the Deed of Assurance provides for. When more landlords start offering them and when the supply/demand ratio reverses it will be tenants who will be in the driving seat in terms of negotiations, i.e. length of assurance period and amount of compensation in the event of no fault displacement. For that to happen though the government (whoever they are) have either got to find a way control population growth and/or increase housing stock. Regulation is not the answer because all it will do is remove investment incentive from the most compliant of society and leave property in the hands of rogue operators. House prices are not the answer to the housing crisis either. Even if properties were all worth £1 each there still isn't enough of them to go around. Whilst supply of property remains below demand levels then the poorest in society will have little to no choices and be left with the very worst options in terms of hoping to find a decent place to live, either as an owner or a tenant. Nobody would choose to live in a mouldy unsafe property with an abusive landlord if they really had a choice would they? It's the lack of choice due to the lack of available property which is the problem. If everybody had choices nobody would choose a bad property. The likes of review websites such as Trip advisor would take care of that.

Getting back to the core of this thread though, I agree that if it can be established that a landlord to landlord market can exist then that may well provide ammunition to campaigners who want to get rid of section 21. The success of my wife's new business is highly dependent upon awareness. The plan is to raise £250,000 of crowd funding to kickstart a £500,000 a year ITV awareness campaign. This will buy around 8 million live views of a 10 second adverts every month. It's a simple proposition so 10 second adverts are enough "i.e. Looking to buy to sell a tenanted property? Free advertising, No Commission, see Property118.com. I wonder whether the anti s21 campaigners will buy the shares made available via the Crowd Funding platform when they are released? Somehow I doubt it but I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

I will read the links you've kindly provided in detail tomorrow but in the meantime my beautiful Russian bride has other plans for me, so its goodnight from me ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will your portal be available only to people who actually own houses, or will it also allow so called buy-to-let landlords to trade houses that they are renting from the bank whilst they wait for a correction in house prices to chew through their deposit?

I encourage you to allow these BTL clowns to take part. A great many of them will be discovering that BTL is a money pit and will be looking to pass their shit sandwich on to another gullible clown. Many will have realised by now that they can't all supplement their incomes with a trickle of income from crap landlord portals and the like.

I think it's more likely that those people you speak of will sell conventionally, i.e. to owner occupiers, with or without a correction in house prices.

Can anybody here provide me with some stats on how many properties were sold in the last 12 months as a split between BTL buyers and owner occupiers please?

My best guestimate is around two third of purchases were to owner occupiers and one third to landlords but that's based on anecdotal evidence as opposed to in depth research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just find it deeply objectionable that this 'trading' can result in families losing their homes, that it can cause instability and result in hefty costs to them. That you use this as a thinly veiled threat as to why they should be compliant. In short, you and your ilk disgust me.

Might get off with that in London and the SE but most of the rest of the country landlords grab good tenants with both hands....and hang on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All

Whilst I am the front man for the new portal and the founder of the Property118 Google News Feed and Discussion Forum I am not the brainchild or the owner of the new portal. Nevertheless, I am here to answer your questions, but please do try to be a little more polite that some of the HousePriceCrash forum members here have been so far.

My wife is a 41 year old Chartered Management Accountant "CIMA". Yes she was Russian born and yes she is a very beautiful woman in many ways, not just her looks. She was educated in the UK and has a Masters Degree in International Business Finance and Economics from the University of East Anglia. Perhaps some of the comments about us were made as a result of jealousy - perhaps I will never know. However, if some of the personal comments made to date had been made to my face then somebody may well have received a punch on the nose. Nevertheless, I have to accept that people can be very brave sat behind a pseudonym, a screen and a keyboard. That's more of a reflection on them than my wife and I.

I would also point out that I am not a fully trained UK lawyer. I am a retired commercial finance broker who chose to invest into property for my pension. I do not hold myself out to be an expert in anything, that is for others to decide. I resent self proclaimed guru's and experts. An Ex is a "has been" and a "Spurt" is a drip under pressure. If you think that's a good way to describe me then your are entitled to your opinion and may refer to me as an "Expert" LOL.

Now moving on to some of the points raised.

One of the paragraphs on our website regarding advising tenants of the sale has clearly been misconstrued and subsequently ridiculed here. A tenant only needs to be advised of a sale when a potential buyer would like to view the property. When an enquiry is made by a potential purchaser the owner is provided with suggestions to make the process as smooth as possible. For example, advising the tenant that the property needs to be sold but the tenant does not need to move out or even to think about looking for somewhere else to live unless he/she particularly wants to, because Plan A is to sell it to another landlord. We also advise landlords to provide an incentive to tenants, e.g. "if you can help me to sell the property by conducting viewings and making sure the property is neat and tidy I will give you £X when the sale goes through". Where tenants are uncooperative then sadly the landlord will need to consider providing notice to the tenant and selling conventionally with vacant possession. This rarely suits anybody, the tenant has to fund his own costs of relocating and suffer the inconvenience of being up-rooted. Meanwhile the landlord has to suffer the potential of rental voids, a disgruntled tenant and agency fees associated with marketing the property via conventional means by appointing an agent to sell with vacant possession.

I am happy to return to answer more questions if they are polite.

Yours truly

Mark Alexander

I was wrong about the cattle comment. I should have said performing dogs that will sit up and beg for treats.

Retaliatory eviction for having the temerity to exercise their statutory right to quiet enjoyment because landlords don't understand their social responsibility? Nice.

And they wonder why they have a bad name? I can't wait till the marks start going after their brokers rather than their lenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   94 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.