steve gilbert

Registered with Property118.com
Wednesday 15th October 2014


Latest Comments

Total Number of Property118 Comments: 20

steve gilbert

22:02 PM, 12th October 2020, About A year ago

Be warned - Use your own electrical contractor?

Reply to the comment left by Badger at 12/10/2020 - 19:47
I have just ordered (due tomorrow) NAPIT EICR codebreakers. A bargain at £23. This gives a list of all faults (no rcd or perhaps not split box) and what the fault should be recorded as ( c1 etc). Even if one has little electrical knowledge you can look at your report and list of faults and then see what code should be recorded. Therefore regardless of electricians scruples or opinion as a LL you will have a pretty good leg to stand on... Read More

steve gilbert

10:30 AM, 11th October 2020, About A year ago

Be warned - Use your own electrical contractor?

Reply to the comment left by Paul landlord at 07/10/2020 - 19:07
Hi Paul, just checking in with your opinion as evidently you know what you are talking about but also, even amongst professionals, there seems to be a differing opinion on consumer units. You say that a plastic consumer unit is a C3 however the general consensus I am getting (these are from trusted guys who know their stuff) is that a plastic unit is a C3 unless it is in a fire corridor in which case a C2 and needs replacing. Considering nearly all single residencies hallways are a protected escape route and that many consumer units are in the cupboard under the stairs, then many plastic units will need replacing. The exception being if under stairs has half hour fire protection (double boarded) or a metal cupboard fitted around the unit.
Also with regards to RCD's . I have been led to believe that a split consumer unit, both RCD protected is required so a single RCD would be a C2
I am certainly not trying to contradict just seek your opinion. I am not qualified but have been in building a long time and know many decent electricians, many of whom are friends. It is not all bodge artists trying to rip off. There is genuine confusion amongst good guys
Where do you stand on above... Read More

steve gilbert

12:30 PM, 3rd January 2019, About 3 years ago

Restriction on investment property preventing remortgage

Hi seething no you are wrong there in a way. Under trust law and reflected by land reg for a DoT to be legal on a property a Form A must be registered. The beneficial interest is not noted or % just that there is a 2nd party with interest in the property. Form 17 is never required for DoT if you read HMRC manuals they are very clear on this. Form 17 is merely for varying ownership when husband and wife are both legal owners. So if you send a Form 17 to HMRC on a DoT they just ignore it. You also do not and should not send a DoT into HMRC. Again their manuals are clear on this. If you send one in their employees are instructed to not look at it but to file it.... Read More

steve gilbert

9:18 AM, 3rd January 2019, About 3 years ago

Restriction on investment property preventing remortgage

Hi Charles I had the exact same problem. You can look up my previous comments on here and PT to see. I lost the mortgage in the end and then had 6 months of work and turmoil to try and sort out. I went through word for word HMRC trusts internal manual, through land reg manuals and spoke to 10 different solicitors.
The problem boils down to this. Under Trust law and the Land Reg for a DoT to be legal a Form A restriction must be entered on the title deeds in favor of the beneficiary/ 's. Common sense really to have a beneficial interest on a property it has to be noted and stop the noted owner from being able to act against beneficiaries interest. So far so good However under trust law and therefore followed by land reg there has to be minimum 2 trustees named and in agreement for a change. Therefore land Reg will not allow a change on deeds, say for a remortgage as there is only 1 trustee. For landlords this can be a problem. Most Dot are between husband and wife. One being trustee the other beneficiary. The DoT is legal, provided a Form A restriction is entered on deeds, however that will disallow any changes in charges etc being allowed as there needs to be 2 trustees in agreement and there is only 1 trustee! I understand the reason 2 trustees need to agree is to stop fraud and make sure the trustees act in beneficiaries interest.
There is an answer. HMRC either understand this problem or are ignorant or actual trust law. I am not sure which but they re willing to accept DoT without any restrictions or interests noted on Land Reg for beneficiary. In effect HMRC for tax purposes accept non legally binding DoT. I can't remember the forms but you need to apply to land reg to nullify the restriction. It only takes about a week, then reapply for a mortgage. HMRC will still accept you have a Dot. A solicitor did 14 DoT for me with the restrictions and caused me no end of bother. They ended up refunding me and compensating me. So weirdly solicitors executing a legal DoT, mainly for tax reasons, are in the wrong and those writing them with no Form A restriction whether through ignorance of the law I don't know, are having no problems and HMRC are happy.
Hope this helps... Read More

steve gilbert

19:39 PM, 7th November 2018, About 3 years ago