Btl Scum Regrouping And On The Offensive. -- Merged

[Neverwhere]

Tenant eviction register

Not sure how controversial this is but with all the changes to protect tenants which I don’t think is wrong, maybe there should be a tenants record in an aim to help protect landlords?

The idea is this would be kind of like a criminal record whereby any evictions and the reason for the eviction are kept on a record database that can be checked with permission from prospective tenants, any records would only show evictions where they had actually had to go to court (aka still haven’t moved out after the notice) and lost.

It could possibly contain information like how much the tenant was owed and for what they owe the monies (aka rent arrears or property damage). It could also contain information like if the tenant adhered to the court eviction or if a possession order was needed.

Any marks on the record would stay on for X number of years.

This would help reduce all this rubbish from Shelter saying “Stay in the house until the bailiffs kick you out”. For 99% of tenants that are good tenants they should have nothing to fear. I believe they have a system similar to this in some states in America, it would certainly make tenants think about just stopping paying rent or trashing the place…

What do you think?

Regards

Steve

Mark Alexander 13/11/2015 at 12:39

Hi Steve

If Court records could be searched for details of evictions, in much the same way as they can for CCJ’s, I think this would be extremely useful for landlords and would certainly be used by tenant referencing companies and RGI insurers..

There have been several websites set up to allow landlords to share details of former tenants (good and bad), however, the market penetration and general use of those websites within the PRS isn’t sufficient to justify their use in my opinion.

Steve P 13/11/2015 at 15:12

Yeah court records would kind of be the same thing, Not that its happened to me thankfully but I do think sometimes tenants can just stop paying and then if it take 4-6 months to get them actually out, if they dont have much money anyway its not worth chasing them so its too easy for them to get away with it.

Being able to see if a tenant has been evicted before would be extremely useful, I dont think it would totally stop landlords renting to them but it would make it more difficult for them to rent and landlords would want things like guarantors in place due to the poor renting record….

Gary Dully 13/11/2015 at 15:35

Tenants need to be licensed.

I was told recently that searches by trace agents are not allowed by people’s NI numbers.

I am sceptical about that, but it sure would help.

[Neverwhere]

You've got my blood boiling again. I've just completed the questionnaire /review of housing/renting legislation in Northern Ireland and I was uncompromising about who need to licensed and it sure wasn't tenants.

Sorry!

Try to hold onto the fact that this is just the nonsense they come up with on their own time, hence the thread title, whereas a lot of what is actually being put into practice at the moment is running in the other direction, hence the Budget changes and the HMRC crackdown on landlord tax evasion.

[Bland Unsight]

You've got my blood boiling again.

I know that it is somewhat galling that some of these monstrous people have the opportunity to disrupt the lives of others, and that it ain't over till it's over, but the fat lady sailed through all the parliamentary hurdles on her way to the stage and the high watermark of their campaign was the uninspiring sight of Richard Dyson trampling his reputation into the mud.

Meanwhile back in the real world at time of writing.

Source

Read it and weep, Gary.

Gary wants tenants licensed. The Revenue want their CGT. Both may come to pass, perhaps neither will. One is more likely that the other.

[Bland Unsight]

And don't forget that they've given the Revenue the Hit List. Just think of all the tax payer money saved by their decision to get that list together, free of charge. (Thus demonstrating the danger of allowing idiots* access to the internet - another sphere wherein the esteemed Gary might want to lobby for licencing.)

*Present company excluded, obviously . Part of being a pea-brained numbskull anarchist is banding together with the similarly afflicted on hpc!

[BorrowToLeech]

What kind of business wants its customers regulated?

Oh that's right, it's not a business, they aren't business-persons and there are no customers.

[Guest_growlers_*]

I know that it is somewhat galling that some of these monstrous people have the opportunity to disrupt the lives of others, and that it ain't over till it's over, but the fat lady sailed through all the parliamentary hurdles on her way to the stage and the high watermark of their campaign was the uninspiring sight of Richard Dyson trampling his reputation into the mud.

Meanwhile back in the real world at time of writing.

Source

Read it and weep, Gary.

Gary wants tenants licensed. The Revenue want their CGT. Both may come to pass, perhaps neither will. One is more likely that the other.

Think that was last year's.

15/16

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/finance.html

[MississippiJohnHurt]

Ros's desperation is palpable, but she still has time for humour . Calling Richard Dyson a "respected financial journalist", good one

[Bland Unsight]

Think that was last year's.

15/16

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/finance.html

Oops. You are correct.

[Pop321]

growlers, on 12 Nov 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

I don't get ros's letter.

She said a 3% increase in rates leads to £5k rental profit. So that's a £45k jump in mortgage cost = 3% so she has £1.5m outstanding as a mortgage?

But just earning £90k rent pa? At 4.5% rental yield that puts LTV at 75%.

I thought yields where higher than that in Cardiff?

Maybe her rental properties aren't in Cardiff itself?

Looks like a +4% interest rate rise would have her losing money on financing costs alone. She should take the opportunity to sell up before Basel III comes in in full.

I am lost here guys....you appear to be taking Ros' figures literally and then applying maths and logic to work out here position. It is these very numbers that made me realise when the 118 thread gathered pace that I was on the wrong side and began to read HPC - I could see just what a crazy, high risk strategy these guys had taken.

It's one thing to buy derelict properties at a bargain, to be an opportunist and make money ie sell (even do the odd let whilst staggered sales go through)....but to keep buying and leverage up to your eyeballs thinking it would all be okay is another. Rates will rise, prices will dip and some will pay.

To grasp the 118 numbers you quote here you need to do is apply the mathematical chaos theory - some evil and awful comparisons to real victims - some bitterness and misquotes - a disproportionate feeling of entitlement - and a green font - and then it will all be much clearer.

I love they keep mentioning wealthy landlords...118 really do not want to keep harping back to that because if the government apply some form of tax to hit all LLs - then the leveraged ones will be well and truly in trouble. That is not a principled point by me to protect 'the wealthy ones' it just is a fact. I am sure the government will do something - a nice little tweak would be payment of National Insurance on rent for example (just a random example...there are lots of methods).

Such a change would not remove the need to stop leveraging so of course Sec 24 would remain plus a little Basel for good measure....and then Ros' numbers would look even funnier.

[Blod]

I would put my money on many such landlords never really coming to terms with this, failing to sell up until they are forced to do so, and forever feeling hard done by about any reductions in the "value" of their portfolios when they do.

"Their" portfolio is owned by the banks, they "own" the debt. As the value decreases their debt expands wiping out profit.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Blod

[Neverwhere]

"Their" portfolio is owned by the banks, they "own" the debt. As the value decreases their debt expands wiping out profit.

Absolutely, I just doubt many of them see it that way. They believe in HPI forever, expecting property to keep perpetually going up over the long-term (look at pipllman's bonkers reference to Japan as evidence of this) and see anything else as short term "bubbles inflating and bursting" to be weathered until they can lock in the next round of HPI gains (hence why they won't sell at the top of bubbles, they expect any losses to be retraced and surpassed). I don't think forced sales into a crash will lessen this belief for many of them, I just think it will make them bitter about being excluded from the gains that they still imagine will be coming down the line.

[Neverwhere]

I am lost here guys....you appear to be taking Ros' figures literally and then applying maths and logic to work out here position. It is these very numbers that made me realise when the 118 thread gathered pace that I was on the wrong side and began to read HPC - I could see just what a crazy, high risk strategy these guys had taken...

You're right, we shouldn't assume any kind of reasonable yield and even assuming that the interest calculations are correct is touch and go. Still, any portfolio even approaching those kinds of numbers is going to be well and truly under water when Basel III risk weights kick in.

[Bland Unsight]

Oops. You are correct.

That's better. Now why aren't they writing some of their charming letters to the Queen?

[Bland Unsight]

The BTLegraph is now taking a two-pronged attack, bubble denial from Richard Dyson and a report on a study from 2011 from Joanne Christie. The message, property prices will stay high forever and taxation of UK buy-to-let is already aggressive relative to overseas comparators. The comments section are awash with comments from the usual suspects, motivated by fear of getting crushed one supposes.

[Lavalas]

God I love this thread.

Schadenfreude... you bet! Keep it coming folks.

[Exiled Canadian]

That's better. Now why aren't they writing some of their charming letters to the Queen?

The Queen is a wealthy, no leverage, landlord......

[mattyboy1973]

and a report on a study from 2011 from Joanne Christie.

Two immediate points:

1. Anyone looking to Australia or New Zealand for guidance on how to manage BTL is bonkers. Australia in particular is the poster child for everything that is wrong with property investing, including prices that are more insane than ours and a market that is > 50% speculators, running at losses and avoiding tax in the process (>AU$10Bn lost in personal taxation due to negative gearing offsets last year alone).

2. If you want to compare us with France or Germany, come back when we've got the same tenant rights. Letting is treated as a business over there because it is a business, not a hobby for middle-aged house wives.

[Ah-so]

The Telegraph is at it again:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11991806/Rented-homes-are-desperately-needed-so-why-are-landlords-demonised.html

Increasing numbers of people are choosing renting as a lifestyle option, and 80pc of tenants are satisfied with their current landlord. Yet landlords are consistently being demonised by politicians, including now by the Treasury.

[Bruce Banner]

The Telegraph is at it again:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11991806/Rented-homes-are-desperately-needed-so-why-are-landlords-demonised.html

Not Connie Cheuk again, I'm sick to death of hearing about that woman .

For those new to this thread, put connie in the search box (this topic).

Edit: The above Telegraph article contains a poll . If you have reached your monthly free limit of Telegraph articles. just clear "Telegraph" cookies in your browser settings and you're good to go for another 20.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Bruce Banner

[Ah-so]

Not Connie Cheuk again, I'm sick to death of hearing about that woman .

For those new to this thread, put connie in the search box (this topic).

Edit: The above Telegraph article contains a poll . If you have reached your monthly free limit of Telegraph articles. just clear "Telegraph" cookies in your browser settings and you're good to go for another 20.

I voted. We must all vote!

[Maynardgravy]

Voted.

37% agree with me.

63% are BTL slumlords.

[Bruce Banner]

As usual, the poll questions are worded to suit their agenda.

[mrtickle]

I voted. We must all vote!

Yes, this is one very public vote that would be nice to fairly represent the true opinion of the public. At the moment it's been heavily swamped with vested interest votes from landlords who are affected, so clearly they are going to vote "no".

This is different from the inconsequential "did he answer the question" votes (such as http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2015-09-09.9770.h&s=landlord#g9770.r0- please vote if you haven't, anyway!).

This vote, if "YES" wins, will hopefully persuade Dyson that his campaign sucks, and he should blow it off now. Please share the link folks.

[mattyboy1973]

As usual, the poll questions are worded to suit their agenda.

Do you agree with the new buy-to-let tax?

"Yes, the rental sector is out of control"

"No, people should be free to use property as they wish"

WTF? How is option 2 in any way the opposite of option 1?

Anyway it's not a new tax, is the removal of (some) tax relief.

[Neverwhere]

As usual, the poll questions are worded to suit their agenda.

Do you agree with the new buy-to-let tax?

"Yes, the rental sector is out of control"

"No, people should be free to use property as they wish"

WTF? How is option 2 in any way the opposite of option 1?

Anyway it's not a new tax, is the removal of (some) tax relief.

+ 1

Totally misleading and dodgy stuff from the BTLegraph. Note that the "article" was written by Alan Ward, chairman of the Residential Landlords' Association. It's a blatant advert for unbalanced vested interests.