Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Killer Bunny

B T Lers Face Prison If They Don't Check Status Of Tenants

Recommended Posts

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So, the (very marginal) reasons for BTL are, IMHO, out of the window now.

Low yield with capital growth is now likely low yield without capital growth

Tax changes

More bureaucracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fearmongering starts:

"“At the other end of the spectrum, landlords who become aware of the new Bill and become over cautious could instead open themselves up to challenges on the grounds of discrimination, leaving landlords between a rock and a hard place."

Im sorry, but carrying out a routine "are you entitled to be living here" is not grounds for discrimination...or are they thinking about another sort of question a stupid landlord might ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having to prove I'm entitled to live here when renting a house, having to prove where my money came from if I decide to buy a house, what happened to innocent until proved guilty?

tried getting a job recently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't say I have, what do you have to prove to do that?

Well if its anything involving Financial Services:

That you're not a terrorist whose last 3 months off work were not spent in Syria learning how to make bombs.

That you have never been charged with stealing a packet of crisps.

To name but a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if its anything involving Financial Services:

That you're not a terrorist whose last 3 months off work were not spent in Syria learning how to make bombs.

That you have never been charged with stealing a packet of crisps.

To name but a few.

So, after 800 years, the Magna Carta has effectively been repealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if its anything involving Financial Services:

That you're not a terrorist whose last 3 months off work were not spent in Syria learning how to make bombs.

That you have never been charged with stealing a packet of crisps.

To name but a few.

But not 'have you ever fixed LIBOR?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much about this is wrong......for a start, there are many thousands of UK legal residents who do not hold a driving licence or a passport a birth certificate is not ID.....utility bill for someone looking for a place to live is also out of the question......we do not have a national ID card as far as I know.....and who will be policing this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, after 800 years, the Magna Carta has effectively been repealed.

Well I dont think legally any of this can be used to reject you an employment opportunity. That doesnt really mean much in reality though.

But not 'have you ever fixed LIBOR?'

That probably gets you past the telephone interview stage. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having to prove I'm entitled to live here when renting a house, having to prove where my money came from if I decide to buy a house, what happened to innocent until proved guilty?

You have no problem proving you are entitled to live here or where your money came from. However those checks could prevent someone else who shouldn't be living here, taking a rental you fancy or outbidding you on a house with ill-gotten gains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no problem proving you are entitled to live here or where your money came from. However those checks could prevent someone else who shouldn't be living here, taking a rental you fancy or outbidding you on a house with ill-gotten gains.

Why should I have to prove my innocence?

The principle is so wrong. The end does not justify the means. This is a slippery slope.

Is it to be assumed that anyone who does not wish to prove their identity, or where the cash in their pocket came from, has something to hide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone Vanessa from PT interviewed seemed switched on for his business (at least on the immigration side) doing the checks, apparently complying with the law's requirements (afaik). If it's only £10-£50 for a landlord to do the checks with such a company and get email/letter showing the landlord has fully complied for immigration check for each tenant to Home Office standard, then seems fair enough landlord/BTLer cost.

Partnered with some US firm...

'Do your job properly / good referencing'. 'It should be us that want that. It should be all of us.' -(all meaning all Landlords/BTLers) - after all it's the BTLers/landlords properties.

http://www.propertytribes.com/new-laws-dictate-that-landlords-only-let-legal-t-7987.html

http://www.propertytribes.com/landlords-could-face-year-jail-term-for-housing-t-127621378.html

Edited by Venger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Bruce - this is yet another worrying development. Increasingly, you have to prove "innocence" for the most routine aspects of existence - getting a job, having a bank account, living under a roof, spending money. Except, it's worse than "innocence" - it's compliance you're having to prove; that you have submitted to collecting the right paperwork and putting yourself on the right government computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not reached the stage where it's seriously impacting on personal freedoms (I was always hard against identity cards linking back to a database of info).

Maybe tell the banks then not to do it. Welcome in more dirty money. Drop all the money-laundering checks firms have to do, and compliance for same for many other companies.

Open up bank accounts for anyone who wants one. Wanna mortgage? Oh we don't need to check if you're good for it.. skip silly MMR... here's a fortune.. now go outbid a HPCer by 300%. Call up NS&I and tell them your justthisbloke and you've moved address and want to empty your savings to new account, with a cheery voice, and let it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not reached the stage where it's seriously impacting on personal freedoms (I was always hard against identity cards linking back to a database of info).

Maybe tell the banks then not to do it. Welcome in more dirty money. Drop all the money-laundering checks firms have to do, and compliance for same for many other companies.

Open up bank accounts for anyone who wants one. Wanna mortgage? Oh we don't need to check if you're good for it.. skip silly MMR... here's a fortune.. now go outbid a HPCer by 300%. Call up NS&I and tell them your justthisbloke and you've moved address and want to empty your savings to new account, with a cheery voice, and let it happen.

Obviously banks need to do checks before lending money and also identity checks before releasing customers' funds. But putting the burden of proof on the individual to prove that his cash is legitimate is reversing the long held principle of innocence unless guilt is proven.

You have £5,000 cash in your wallet and are involved in a car crash. You are unconscious and a policeman looks in your wallet for any identification and finds the cash but no identification. When you regain conciousness should your cash be confiscated until you can prove who you are and that you obtained the cash legitimately?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point BB, for I am wary of such things too.

In some instances though it could be worth investigating further. I don't want the authorities fearful of asking any question, and it's not a process of immediately finding someone guilty of anything. Police asking a driver to take a breathalyser isn't finding someone guilty.

Equally, in examples where that Safety Deposit company was raided (by police I recall) and all the boxes impounded (as I remember it).. that's wrong - needs proof and due process. It was messy but did result in some monies being kept and seized. I personally wouldn't store any valuables/keepsakes in any safety deposit box... read a story they're not insured (but would have to check the facts).

Eight out of ten box owners were provably innocent. Taylor said: 'Of the £53 million in cash that the police took, £20 million has also been given back and £33 million is now being referred to as "under investigation", of which only £2.83 million has been confiscated or forfeited by the courts.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1222777/The-raid-rocked-Met-Why-gun-drugs-op-6-717-safety-deposit-boxes-cost-taxpayer-fortune.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/model-wont-get-cash-and-jewels-back-from-police-after-it-was-seized-judge-rules-9042067.html

Mario Balotelli comes to mind, from that example. Answer accepted.. move on.

CAR CRASH (August 2010)

Just days after signing for City, Balotelli hits the headlines after crashing his Audi R8 en route to the club's training ground. Balotelli is found to be carrying £5,000 in cash at the time of the accident and when police ask why, he reportedly replies: "Because I am rich."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2879512/Mario-Balotelli-banned-one-game-Liverpool-striker-s-Instagram-post.html

I would expect to be questioned by police, if I were stopped and they found I had £5000 in cash on me. I've had £2500 cash on one occasion, but a plausible explanation if I were stopped. I had just closed a savings account and was en-route to pay it to another savings account.

Equally I don't see the harm if some banks are (reportedly) to ask customers why they want to withdraw large sums in cash (over £10,000). Just needs an answer.

Edited by Venger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect to be questioned by police, if I were stopped and they found I had £5000 in cash on me. I've had £2500 cash on one occasion, but a plausible explanation if I were stopped. I had just closed a savings account and was en-route to pay it to another savings account.

Equally I don't see the harm if some banks are (reportedly) to ask customers why they want to withdraw large sums in cash (over £10,000). Just needs an answer.

"I like to carry cash" should be sufficient for the police, unless they have some other reason to think I may have broken the law.

Last time I drew out a largish sum of cash (£15K) and was asked why, I replied "Because I want to have some emergency money in case the bank goes bust", my wife was less obliging, her reply was "None of your business", both were accepted without comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I like to carry cash" should be sufficient for the police, unless they have some other reason to think I may have broken the law.

Last time I drew out a largish sum of cash (£15K) and was asked why, I replied "Because I want to have some emergency money in case the bank goes bust", my wife was less obliging, her reply was "None of your business", both were accepted without comment.

Ask a question, get an answer. And what an answer.

When I closed my Britannia savings account and took the balance of some £3K as cash, the cashier asked the same (about the cash) and I recall feeling quite good at giving a similar blunt answer. 'Because I want to have some emergency cash in case bank networks goes down'. She nodded her head and that was that.

It's my general understanding that they're required to ask as part of anti money laundering checks (some withdrawing might give an alarming answer to what the money is for), and fraud safety. The fraud one does step into murky territory, although I think I did once read of a building society putting a stop on a repeat large withdrawal, preventing an elderly customer totally emptying her account to give it to a roof-tile worker who was preying on her. They contacted the woman's daughter. Should the bank get involved in that? Difficulties of where the line is, and the bank's responsibility. Asked her a question and the cashier didn't like the answer, and escalated it.

'What are you doing with YOUR money?' Furious customers hit back at high street banks forcing strict checks on getting out large sums of cash

This is Money revealed how HSBC customers were being blocked

Now Santander, Barclays and Nationwide are making stricter checks

Banks say they need to protect from fraud, especially 'vishing' attacks

By Lee Boyce

Published: 10:46, 28 January 2014 | Updated: 08:54, 29 January 2014

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-2547286/High-street-banks-block-customers-taking-large-cash-sums-counter.html

It's a bit of an overreaction, imo, to answering a question, when the focus is preventing the depositor (and bank) from becoming victims of fraud. The 24 hour notice for sums over £5K or £10K seems fine to me also. I got wrong footed when I thought I could turn up at bank and get a Bankers Draft done then and there, but was told they need 24 hours notice.

I wasn't earning much interest at Britannia. Already had an account at Co-op Bank who they were set to be taken over by. Yes both were duffy in the end, with Britannia dragging Co-op Bank (shirt from his back) down, but I'm not doing full-on analysis with such sums to stay informed check their solvency. That's regulator work and had guarantee for such sums of £5K. According to some HPCers my savings are responsible for the bubble, so I should be stripped of my savings as a long term renter-saver creditor, all the mortgages forgiven and the victim-debtors given free £500,000 houses to keep outright in the name of fairness; to make savers learn their lesson. (Read it time over on hpc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to some HPCers my savings are responsible for the bubble, so I should be stripped of my savings as a long term renter-saver creditor, all the mortgages forgiven and the victim-debtors given free £500,000 houses to keep outright in the name of fairness; to make savers learn their lesson. (Read it time over on hpc).

Glad to see that you have got with the programme. :)

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   102 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.