The government should aim to stimulate housing market activity post-lockdown by abolishing the 3% stamp duty surcharge for buy-to-let landlords acquiring additional properties, according to the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA).
The organisation argues that scrapping the stamp duty surcharge would boost housing market activity by encouraging investors to return to the market and invest in properties and that would in turn help meet the rising demand for rental homes and drive up transaction levels.
Mortgage interest relief changes, the scrapping of the ‘wear and tear’ allowance and the introduction of the 3% stamp duty surcharge have hit landlords’ profits over the past few of years, which partly explains why so many people are exiting the BTL market and thus reducing the supply of much needed private rented stock.
The government’s draconian tax changes have not just pushed a number of BTL landlords out of the PRS, but have also left prospective tenants in some parts of the country with little alternative but to bid against each other, pushing rents up in the process, as a result of falling housing supply.
Given that investors invest in a wide range of properties, Ben Beadle, chief executive of the NRLA, argues that supporting activity in this area of the market would add to the net supply of housing.
This would, according to Beadle, include investment in new build homes, the conversion of large properties into affordable units, changing the use of a property from commercial to residential, or bringing one of the almost 650,000 empty homes in England back into use.
He said: “To have a tax on developing new housing is completely nonsensical at a time when more is needed. Supporting growth in the private rental market, alongside all other housing types, would provide a significant boost to the economy in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. Research published last year suggests that landlords inject over £3.5bn into local businesses across the UK.”
Another change the NRLA wants to see made is to ensure the tax system encourages the provision of longer-term rental property over short-term holiday lets.
From April this year the final phase of reducing mortgage interest relief for landlords to the basic rate of income tax will be completed. This measure does not apply though to furnished holiday lets. This has encouraged the removal of properties from the long-term market for use as short-term holiday lets.
Beadle, commented: “To be taxing long term homes to rent less favourably than holiday lets is simply bizarre. It completely undermines efforts by the Government to encourage the provision of long term, secure housing.
“It is time for the government to realise that its tax policies have created a shortage of rented housing. This can only mean higher rents and reduced choice for renters. This is not going to do much for the levelling up agenda.”
Couldn’t ask for the return of MIRAS as well could you? 🙂
People trying to buy a home to live in don’t get a tax break, but it’s sensible that Investors buying property to make money are helped at the expense of everyone else?
A good course of action might be to help those without a home to reclaim one of the 650,00 homes at a price they can afford, so they wouldn’t need to rent – or is that too bizarre ?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Absolutely bizarre. Why should the taxpayer subsidise those who should be competing with others in an open property market?
Everyone has an equal chance of buying. It is only stupid Govt policies that prevent many aspirant FTB from buying. The MMR being a major problem. Residential buyers should be able to obtain IO resi mortgages with no repayment vehicle required for over 40 year terms if not longer. However I would also agree that MIRAS be reintroduced if resi IO mortgages aren’t permitted. But the facts are that investors have to pay substantial deposits compared to resi buyers. So purchasing costs roughly even out. LL do not out compete FTB. Those buyers just don’t bother bidding for a property as they can’t afford them. I can’t afford a RR. That doesn’t mean I wish ro prevent others buying as many RR as they want by instituting policies to prevent them buying many RR!
There should be no restiction on how many properties anyone may buy.
There should be no penal regulation for buying multiple properties such as the SDLT surcharge.
Rather the maximum encouragement should occur for all to buy resi properties for their determined use.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
You’re the landlord who quoted “white flight” from London and said that disabled people would be quietly refused when they apply for your properties as might require an assistance dog in the future?
It’s interesting that you think anyone wants to read your opinions, but I suppose you’re not very bright.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Hmm! Bright!?
I think a lot brighter than you!!
My comment on ‘white flight’ was simply a comnent on anecdotal fact.
I pass no judgement on the fact.
It is what it is
I say again I am entitled to take a BUSINESS decision not to let to any tenant with a dog even an assistance dog.
A dog is a dog whether assistance or not.
I don’t want any sort of dog in my properties.
My business choice.
I am entitled to make such business choices.
Of course such choices might cause me to miss out on great tenants and suffer voids.
As indeed I have.
I say no pets or DSS tenants.
That has meant voids.
My choice.
Whether they are wise business choices is debateable; but they are mine to make!
I’ve had pet dogs previously.
Never again!!
Society cannot dictate to me my business choices.
White flight has been a phenomenon that has been occurring for over 40 years now.
It is not racist to recognise this fact.
Perhaps questions as to what may be done to address this exodus might be more appropriate.
Clearly certain ethnic types don’t like residing where they are.
Their prerogative to move if they wish.
The fact they may be people of white is irrelevant.
These types are leaving London especially but it is a phenomenon happening in a diverse areas maily in the UKs major cities.
WFH has compounded this societal shift.
Plus all those diverse communities tend to wish to stay together.
There will be major shifts of population following this CV19 pandemic.
It isn’t racist to quote this reality.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
You won’t have a choice for much longer whether your tenant is on benefits or has a dog……
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Wanna bet!?
No DSS tenant can afford my rents.
My headlease prevents dogs.
So please tell me how you force me to take either!!!??
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Everything Ok hun ?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Its only a ‘ Model ‘ tenancy, bit like a model tenant – doesn’t really mean anything.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Check his ads on spareroom, apparently he’s a live in landlord that only visits once a week, also ask him why hes banned from propertribes, p118 and landlord today.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s interesting that they at least have some mediation on their forums. He should have been banned for his discriminatory comments last week. Inexcusable.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
That’s interesting – I wonder if his tenants are all on licenses rather than assured shorthold tenancy agreements if he is a “live in landlord” ?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
… I suppose you think landlords owe you a living . Landlords pay tax on their rents, so all of society benefits from the activity indirectly.
The NRLA isn’t asking for anything “at the expense of taxpayers” it is simply asking that the government stop penalising landlords etc. ostensibly to benefit society, when as they say, the policy is actually to society’s detriment.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
There is clearly an inability of many to be in a position to afford their own resi properties. In lieu of such purchasing ability these frustrated OO need somebody to provide accommodation for them LL rise to this challenge using their private capital to provision such letting property. Govt by its ideological attack on LL through penal policies prevent many LL from entering the PRS and are in fact forcing many LL out of business. For some bizarre misunderstanding Govt believes that fewer LL will result in more tenants being able to buy and who will then vote Tory. They couldn’t be more wrong in this misunderstanding! Getting rid of LL won’t magically reduce property prices. But it will increase rents due to much reduced rental stock and still increasing demand. Deterring private LL from deploying their capital to provide much needed letting property is simply perverse. Reduced supplies of letting stock doesn’t assist tenants at all. It certainly doesn’t benefit FTB as very little of the ex-rental stock is bought by ex-tenants or FTB. There is no shortage of properties to buy. Forcing LL to add to this stock by forcing those LL out of business doesn’t make things any easier for tenants or FTB. Anecdotally most properties are being bought by up and downsizers. Very few FTB or ex-tenants are buying. Govt needs to promote mass building of Social and Private housing. At least 300000 properties need to be built every year of all types and tenures for the the next 20 years. Doesn’t look like Govt is supporting Building Back Better!!!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Is the Lockdown getting to you?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
@MyThoughts
You say homeowners don’t get a ‘tax break’ (as don’t landlords, in fact!) but you seem to forget lower SDLT and zero capital gains. As for MIRAS, there is no such thing as imputed rent any more, so nothing for MIRAS to be offset against. Buying a property, or indeed any item at all, for either business or personal use has always been treated differently, as well it should. Using your house as your own personal home attracts no tax at all, so what exactly would you be relieving against?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Is ‘ My Thoughts ‘ a Robin Hood impostor ? – a tiny bit Woke, perhaps.
Taking from the Rich, who’ve EARNED their money, and Giving to the Feckless Poor who sit on their @r$e and collect Tax-payers benefit.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The SDLT surcharge makes absolutely zero sense. I’m not sure how on the one hand you can say there is a “housing crisis” (i.e shortage of rental properties), and then penalise the very people who are solving that crisis
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Excellent point you make.
Beating up LL who provide what the population wants and needs is a most bizarre strategy.
Only a bonkers ideology would cause such crazy behaviour.
Yet Govt believes what it is doing is perfectly sensible!
You just can’t beat stupid!!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
So nice to see the NRLA use strong words, sentiment and phraseology to condemn the British Government for their anti landlord policies, we need to see more of that fight attitude.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I’ve shed forty-seven tenants in two years due to changing government legislation. Only one property sold to a LL and only one to a FTB.
I’ve thirty more tenants who will lose their homes in the next 18 months.
Stamp duty was not the reason although it’s wrong to charge LL’s, second home owners and overseas buyers such hefty supplements.
MY reasons for exiting the PRS are:
The possible abolition of section 21. Difficulty with process of evicting anti-social tenants.
The tenant fee law banning any payment at all for setting up a new tenancy and referencing including a cap on deposits and limit on interest chargeable on late payments (less than I can borrow at)
Blanket licensing of shared houses where unnecessary. Onus on LL to prevent anti-social tenant behaviour.
One size does not fit all. Not all councils reasonable or acting appropriately.
Draconian fines such as for rent repayment orders which LL’s could be trapped into by conman tenants.
Shambolic universal credit; promised payments fail to materialise or cease if a tenant doesn’t want the LL paid direct. Tenant can misappropriate rent money without penalty leaving LL footing bill.
It should be fraudulent to use rent payments for anything else.
If tenant has mis-claimed benefit a LL can be asked to reimburse council
Councils still telling tenants to stay put until bailiff evicts despite LL adhering to lengthly eviction process
Difficulty and cost of collecting rent debt through the over-stretched courts, more of this coming. In addition to pre-action protocol now there will be ‘breathing space’.
One-sided rental agreement legislation creating serial tenants hiding behind the law.
No suitable AST for short let. Where a tenant genuinely wants less than 6 months by mutual agreement LL has no protection if tenant outstays their welcome. This creates issues for LL’s selling or for those hoping to return to their own property to live.
If a tenant gives notice or has pre-agreed a leave date there should be no risk of wrongful eviction.
Similarly where tenant has clearly gone from a property, abandonment is an unreasonable and lengthly process for LL.
Likely increase in CGT costs.
Property is a long-game. LL has an inability to respond quickly to rushed, ill-contrived legislation, which may then change again.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Spot on. Property is a long term investment which requires stability. The government has made property investment unstable as investors never know what further punishment our idiot politicians will dream up next with their communistic partners (called charities) in their effort to get votes.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Very well put!
Those LL like me who agree with what you have correctly stated will be making hundreds of thousands of occupants homeless.
I will be making 16 homeless.
All excellent occupants.
Haven’t the heart to tell them what is going to happen in 9 months time.
Good LL like you and I are being forced out of what has become for me unviable.
Even when I started out 11 years ago I failed to understand the completely dysfunctional eviction process.
Had I appreciated this I doubt I would even have bothered being a LL.
Perhaps the most would have seen me invest in one 4 bed house.
With this eviction ban teetering on the edge of bankruptcy is no fun.
I can’t wait to sell up.
But everything you state rings so true.
LL who don’t have mortgages are I believe a tougher breed.
They are better able to ride out sector issues.
Being a BTL at whatever leverage just leaves you extremely vulnerable to feckless tenants.
Something I am no longer like you prepared to tolerate.
It will take about 5 years for LL wishing to sell up to achieve this.
In 5 years time the PRS will be a much smaller place.
Even now I have people coming to me desperate for an affordable room.
I have nothing available but refer them to other LL I know.
I believe what you state is a desperate plea for things to be changed.
However I know it will fall on deaf ears.
That is why your actions now and in the future are logically pragmatic though it must gall you that you are having to exit a successful business cos it does me!!
But we are where we are.
Nothing we can do about it now.
I predict lettings will revert to how it was in the 60 to 80s……………….a nightmare for tenants
I hope to become a lodger LL or maybe FHL but never again AST lettings.
With a mortgage AST lettings are no longer viable in light of the dysfunctional eviction process etc.
We know the PTB aren’t interested at all in what you have correctly stated.
Bizarrely they seem to believe that by continually bashing LL that all these tenants will magically vote Tory!
Have you heard of anything so bonkers!!!!!??
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
No mention of greater regulations for landlords and the tenant fee ban that has seen costs go up. All of these scatter gun policies and regulations have achieved exactly what we expected 5 years ago, higher rents for the folks they wanted to help.
Young couples with joint incomes have enjoyed zero tenant fees, lower deposits and being able to move on a whim. Sadly “generation rent” with set income and two/three kids to provide for are stuck for life in the PRS and the rent is now going up and up (police/nurses in many cases) .
Its an appalling abuse of one group of people (landlords) to call them a “business” in one breath and then in the next say that can’t offset legitimate trading costs (interest and alike) against tax. I ve said it for many years, they (successive governments) sold off good old fashion council housing and now they want the PRS to pick up the mess and when it does not they are regulating to force it. Total abuse of a PRIVATE sector.
An example of this (and believe me this will continue when section 21 is abolished soon and the PRT’s roll out) is the totally insane obstacles being put in the way of gaining possession back of your property/home via accelerated possession proceedings. Think about it, what difference does it actually make whether a tenant has been given an EPC (they don’t read) or a How to rent guide (again they don’t read) when they are given two (or with covid ) six months notice, yet we all except these ridiculous hoops……….hoops that are simply there to trip landlords up and give local councils breathing space……its just not right. Everyone knows what a notice means, creating such technical defences is laughable. I do not include retaliatory notice in that cohort unless of course neglect on repair work is non proven (which is commonplace).
With regards to increased stamp for landlords – what a joke – the bottom end of the market in our area (one bed flats and alike) has been stagnant now for years. Capital growth is stupidly low in this section of the market as FTB’s are skipping this rung of the ladder and we don’t have investors to step in.
I cant even get started on the empty homes act …………..what a disgrace! – legislation that was brought in to force boarded up houses back into circulation was how this was sold to the general public – a great and noble idea! – so how does this translate to landlords being charged full council tax to clean a property for 4 days to get the new tenant in? How the hell is that an “empty home”?. This is yet another stealth tax and has fuelled a more commercial approach to rent levels. I should mention that government did allow councils to “make their own decisions” on implementation of this and what a surprise, they all piled in for the £££.
When I say commercial approach, if like me you have been acting for a long time for private landlords in a pleasant home county, you will know that most landlords are fair minded, hard working and reasonable. They don’t seek to push full market rents on existing tenants, they don’t seek to neglect repairs, they want a healthy landlord/tenant relationship – a quite life – don’t we all? However, since the bullets have been flying at them they are in defence mode, under fire and thinking they have to fire back. What is the natural reaction to real and possible future costs….increase the rent.
Policy makers spend FAR to much time listening to the loud minority instead of understanding the true picture. The very best example is Shelter constantly being asked for comment on the PRS. They are have no idea what goes on in the successful area of the PRS, they need to stick to what they are funded to do – help the truly In need, those in dire straights – not help force through legislation that then gets manipulated by high earning tenants to buck the system!
* Did anyone notice in the most recent update of the “penguin books how to rent guide” the statement that Section 21 is to be abolished?? I have never (in all my life) seen a government guide state a future act before its been made law?? So basically that’s a done deal to!
And so it goes on, I don’t like to weaponize words (I heard the phrase “digital poverty” this week and I nearly threw my coffee cup at the tv), BUT, the genocide of landlords looks set to continue. NOW, there can be only two reasons for this, utter incompetence and those elected will notice the effects and reverse some policy OR its a larger, more sinister agenda to cull private landlords (the small guys) and replace with large on masse rental stock owned by large corporations/hedge funds………..you decide? (the housing white paper in 2017 was interesting for me in this regard).
Sorry, turned into a Friday rant. Maybe the grouchiness will subside when the pubs open………….the crux of it is – extra stamp for landlords should be removed if the PRS is to replace lost stock.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
With the continuing genocide of LL you will probably have a much reduced business. Based on your totally correct assertions how do you persuade your LL clients NOT to sell up!? A difficult one that! But think of all the LA that depend on LL for their livelihoods. What are they going to do as their LL clients sell up or reduce property numbers? Times are gonna be tough for tenants and LA alike as LL desert the PRS. This is what happened in Ireland which now has a homelessness crisis as a result. The Irish Govt has been forced by their incompetence to offer incentives in a vain attempt to attract LL back to the sector. But the LL aren’t playing. They are keeping the ball. Consequently victim tenants are homeless.
What a disaster!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The direction of travel is now unstoppable. If I was starting out again the SDLT reduction wouldn’t incentivise me to invest. There are far more important issues that very effectively would prevent me from even bothering to invest. This latest SDLT discount might have been a small filip to the market but things will revert to a bumbling along market. The flat cladding issue has to be sorted out first. This will take at least 10 years. The market will remain very moribund until flats attain their value again. The SDLT surcharge won’t make much difference as few LL are entering the market. LL are leaving the market in their droves and there is nothing likely that will occur to prevent this exodus. Govt isn’t minded to do anything to prevent it. Indeed it continues to encourage it by introduction of ever more bonkers anti-LL policies. It is a very sad situation for the tenants but LL have little choice than to get out of a game the Govt wishes didn’t exist at all. No idea who will house all the homeless tenants but then having departed the AST PRS that won’t be something I will have to bother with. My sympathies lie with the poor old tenant who is being thoroughly mistreated by bonkers Govt policies. But there you are what can the little LL do against overwhelming Govt power!?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Just to respond to a few comments in response to what was a slight Tongue in Cheek” opinion.
PossessionFriendUK39 – Robin Hood, little bit woke – No, just brought up in an era where I was taught to think of others.
I also don’t take such a miserable view that all tenant are “,,,,, Feckless Poor who sit on their @r$e and collect Tax-payers benefit.
Deltic2130 – MIRAS – had nothing to do with inputed rent. Look it up and it will also answer the comment made in the last sentence
PMT – Think Landlords owe me a living. Why do you assume I’m a tenant?
Just for the record
I believe meeting the Housing Need is the responsibility of Government and not one that should be burdened upon the PRS.
Landlords that choose to Invest in the PRS should be treated in the same way as any other Investment in terms of tax liability. They would not be subjected to the same regulation and tax burden if they had chosen to invest in some form of financial instruments such as Stocks or Bonds. In fact, many saving schemes offer savings personal allowance & a dividend allowance introduced in 2016
There is a strong case to incentivise this type of Investment because it does relieve the Government and in particular, local authorities of an immense expense. The cost of maintaining a stock of “Council House” as they were known would now be unsustainable.
Since 1979 when Councils were able to stop building “Council Houses” & when Mrs Thatcher introduced the Right to Buy scheme in 1984, effectively reducing Council House Stock, the need has been subsequently borne by the PRS. Irrespective of which Political Party has been in Government since that time, the building of Council houses has effectively stopped. Under Labour, between 1997 and 2010 there were 2,780 council homes built with a peak of 320 in 2010. Ironically, more Social Housing has been built under Conservative Governments.
The rational for SDLT is the same as it is for all taxes, whether it be Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax ,etc. To raise revenue – pure & simple. Whether it is fair or not is a different question. My view is as I have said before, no single type of Investment should be treated differently from another.
The whole question of taxation upon gains made from whatever type of investment should be a level playing field and should be reviewed.
My comment that FTB should be helped (MIRAS) reduced the cost of borrowing at the time at 33% is not some ‘Robin Hood” notion but it would actually help reduce the need for housing within the PRS and help fill the void left by the 222,000 landlords that left the PRS between 2018-19.
A healthy flow of FTB helps mobility within the housing market as a whole.
It would also stop the plateauing of the levels of Homeownership which has remained constant at around 65% and is well below levels seen in less developed European Countries. Germany with 51% owner occupied levels has its own specific reasons.
Property has proven to be a sound investment that has created a level of wealth for many owner occupiers that had limited capital to invest. The equity gained is the security for retirement for many.
The administration costs for Government and Local Councils are far less for owner-occupied property than rented accommodation although this mitigated in part by the tax receipts.
So, my view is that Landlords are treated inequitably when compared to other Investors and even more so when in reality, they are fulfilling the responsibility of Government. With Landlords leaving the PRS and a shortage of stock, the government should offer a stimulus to that market in the same light as the SDLT holiday to encourage Landlords to re-enter the market and help increase the supply of housing stock.
This should also be assisted by reducing the number of people currently dependent upon the PRS to reduce the shortage by making housing purchase affordable to FTB.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Excellent comments you make and all correct. You have far more appreciation of how an effective Govt policy should proceed than all the Govt policy wonks put together. How did you get to be so astute and wise!! Govt needs people like you to sort out the complete mess they are making of things!! But we know Govt won’t and will continue to slowly but surely destroy the PRS. Doesn’t bother me I don’t need to be a LL. I can do other things not involving AST or any form of family tenants. Single unrelated occupiers whilst subject to more churn than families are certainly a viable option along with FHL which I consider will continue in popularity even when this latest pandemic has abated. There is no doubt that the shine has gone off foreign holidays. With the climate changing hotter summers for the UK will be great news for the UK tourist industry and that includes British tourists. It will be years before the world is fully vaccinated against this evil Covid virus. Who wants to risk it abroad!? But all your good ideas will be ignored by Govt. A great shame that good LL like me will exit the industry much to the great disappointment of my currently very satisfied clients. But hey it isn’t our fault we have determined to leave. We haven’t really been left with much alternative. Such is life!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
At least you have kept racist and discriminatory comments out of your ravings today. That must have taken some self control.
Someone mentioned that you have been banned from Property Tribes and 118 etc. What for, exactly? Is it anything to do with your creepy live in landlord arrangements, or your extreme views possibly?
I imagine your tenants look forward to hearing your views on current affairs when you knock on their doors each day. It must be the highlight of their day.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
A most bizarre response. My statements aren’t ravings they are just the current realities or do you suggest that I am somehow incorrect!? If you do it would you that would be incorrect. My clients always look forward to my attendances to catch up on things. There are usually all sorts of little jobs which don’t merit much attention and they certainly don’t bother mentioning until I’m there in person. I provide a very personal service which they much appreciate. Indeed I do things for my clients which many other LL wouldn’t. But because I’m a very good LL I have no problem attracting new clients to all my properties on a self managing basis. Yes I accept I have to do it but don’t mind as I am in complete CONTROL of my little domain and that is the way it will remain until I’m all sold up soon! My clients have discussed all that you mention and totally agree with me and my business methods. Indeed they have stated that if I didn’t operate that way they would vacate. I have unique arrangements with my occupants and they much prefer how things are currently arranged. Far from creepy. Exactly the opposite in fact. But that is the beauty of self management. My clients and I may do things to suit ourselves; which we do! So as far as we are all concerned everything is going swimmingly! .Ahh!! Yes so good am I that former clients have returned to me and I am fairly regularly having enquiries from other former clients if I have any availability. So the way I do things works very effectively. I run a tight but generous ship which works very well for all parties. Obviously I don’t let to any DSS tenants nor pets nor noxious cooking tenants. All business decisions I am entitled to make for my rather nice properties. .
Ahh! Yes
Property118.
I once stated that only 5% of women ever bought a property on their own
Alexander didn’t like that.
Subsequent figures proved I was correct but why let facts get in the way of blind prejudice??
Propertytribes didn’t like reference to the reality of ‘white flight’
So there you go go woke cancel culture in action.
Do I care!?
Not in the slightest!
Very soon I hope to be a little lodger LL with one property with lodgers that I choose to be most compatible with me.
You can probably guess who they won’t be; my house my rules and requirements!
But at least no more tenant things to concern myself with.
Lodgers are myway of making money I hope.
Or perhaps a FHL.
Not totally sure yet.
But definitely no more AST occupants
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“Noxious cooking tenants” care to expand on that ?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Your right, the working Tenants don’t sit on their @r$e and collect benefits, just don’t always pay the rent.
Which to be fair, is a small minority who as usual, spoil things.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register