Clint

Registered with Property118.com
Saturday 18th April 2015

Trading Status
Joint

Insures properties through a broker recommended by Property118
No


Latest Comments

Total Number of Property118 Comments: 106

Clint

17:22 PM, 20th June 2019
About 2 hours ago

Shelter ask for Landlords views

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 20/06/2019 - 14:52
I had a tenant who was on HB for about 6 years and was slightly in arrears with his rent which was quite acceptable to me. He switched over to UC and it was within the first six months he owed me several months’ rent and was evicted. He kept blaming UC but in reality, he just could not help himself with money being paid to him and later admitted it.
Besides the rental arrears that built up with UC, he was a good tenant and kept the place clean and tidy but unfortunately, UC destroyed his livelihood. This tenant was evicted in August 2018 and up to now has not found accommodation and is now living "illegally" with another benefit tenant as the council will not house him for making himself intentionally homeless.
I am aware of all this as the ex-tenant keeps phoning me from time to time pleading with me to offer him accommodation once again.... Read More

Clint

9:33 AM, 20th June 2019
About 10 hours ago

Shelter ask for Landlords views

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 19/06/2019 - 23:45
I would like to make the following points in reply to your post:
• If I asked a benefits tenant to pay 3 months in advance and relied on benefit tenants taking up my property, most of my properties would be permanently empty. I don’t think it is much worse than saying “No DSS”
• I always ask to see the last 3 months of the tenant’s bank statements and very few of the benefit tenants have more than £100 in their accounts and most are near the balance of £0 and some are in overdraft. I tend to avoid the ones who have an overdraft but even then, sometimes accept them based on my gut feeling. May not sound like a good way of taking tenants but over the years having gained experience, it seems to have worked for me. It is Universal Credit that has destroyed everything in respect of experience, gut feeling, etc. It is designed so that a Landlord may be robbed.
• I have many benefit tenants. When I was dealing with Housing Benefit it was superb in that, I could engage with the council and each and every tenant signed a letter which stated that it was a condition of the tenancy that the rent had to be paid to the Landlord and in the letter there was included the law that stated words to the effect that the council should pay the rental benefit to the Landlord and in including the law, the rent was always paid to the Landlord. The letter also stated that the Landlord could act on behalf of the tenant and discuss the tenant’s benefits which worked out quite well. This is something that just does not work with UC.
• Under the HB system I had many tenants who were there for years and it was not usual to have some tenants for 6 years and above and my longest living tenant who was on benefits was there for 13 years
• With HB if the council was not following the right procedures, one could appeal against their decision and the system seemed reasonably fair in this respect.
• One drawback that I found with HB is that if the tenant had left without informing the Landlord, the council would not inform the Landlord and the Landlord often found out about 3 months later when a council bill arrives or HB sent a letter requesting money back due to an overpayment. Even then, the council would not verify that the tenant had actually left if asked and the Landlord would end up with the problem as to whether they should apply for possession of the property or not as, the tenant very often left things which could be deemed as still living in the property.
• In dealing with HB tenants although, I have painted a good picture above, I can say that had HB continued I would never advise any inexperienced Landlord to take on a HB tenant as unless one kept up with HB regulations and was very thorough with them, one could lose a lot of money.
• What I found was that once the HB tenant started work that is when the rent arrears started as I learnt that the culture is different for a regular non-working tenant who gets a job and a regular working tenant. A regular working tenant generally knows how to budget, and a benefits tenant generally is much less experienced in budgeting and often spends the money or probably feels that is their money as they earned it and the responsibility for the rent is the governments.
• Universal Credit has been an absolute disaster. I have found that it is not possible to speak to DWP on anything even if a letter is signed by the tenant giving permission. UC is so ridiculous that I have had on numerous occasions where a tenant was applying for UC and had a tenancy agreement clearly showing the rent & deposit and tenant and landlords name and signed by both, the officer dealing with the case would ask for a letter from the landlord asking if the tenant has moved into the property and actually has a tenancy.
• I have found on many occasions and even currently the tenancy starts of with the tenant being in arrears as although, the tenant is given the first months rent in advance and deposit by the council, UC often forgets to pay the first month’s rent and ends up never paying it.
• With UC when the tenant is more than 2 months in arrears and the landlord applies for the payment to be paid to them, UC often continues to pay the rent to the tenant and this could go on for months.
• To date, I have never had a tenant pay the last month’s rent when they leave the property as apparently, that months rent is stopped and paid for the new property immediately after the tenant informs UC. I don’t know if this is true. All I know is that I never get the last month’s rent which is something I did get. I wonder if there is anyone who knows more on the reasons for this.
• With UC there is no appeals procedure or anyone or body that can help you. I have spent hours on each tenant attempting to get money that was due to me and have lost thousands of pounds due to either errors made by UC or them just ignoring my letters. More recently, I turn away a lot of UC tenants (something which I never did with HB & at one time continuously took tenants with just the deposit) and only consider those who have a guarantor or are able to pay rent three or more months in advance. This only causes homelessness which is due to the government and their advisors (one of them being Shelter) creating a system where Landlords are not only exploited but robbed,
As usual, I intended to raise a few points on DSS tenants but it is a subject that one could go on endlessly and I believe it is a sore subject created by those who say they are trying to prevent homelessness.... Read More

Clint

17:50 PM, 18th June 2019
About 2 days ago

How to Rent Booklet Updated 31st May 2019

Reply to the comment left by JB at 18/06/2019 - 17:39
Having read a lot about this, as far as I am aware, it is only after 31st May 2020 that you have to return the excess of the deposit. Further to this if you are working on the basis that you have a new tenancy and require to return the excess deposit, the fact that you state that you have a contractual periodic tenancy and not a statutory periodic tenancy possibly means that you have a single tenancy with a fixed term followed by a periodic tenancy which is still part of the same single tenancy so you should not have to return any of the excess deposit at the moment.
I am no expert on this so these are all just my views... Read More

Clint

11:02 AM, 18th June 2019
About 2 days ago

Shelter's call to adopt Scottish indefinite tenancies model criticised

Reply to the comment left by Larry Sweeney at 18/06/2019 - 09:08
Keep up the good work. I fully agree with you.

I strongly recommend those who have not joined the National Landlords Alliance to do so immediately. They actually fight for Landlords rights.... Read More

Clint

10:55 AM, 18th June 2019
About 2 days ago

Shelter ask for Landlords views

Amelia, I am extremely surprised at the points you have made since you are a joint landlord with your husband and should have a lot of experience in renting. Without being rude or being antagonistic towards you, I have come to the conclusion that you and Shelter are not in the current Landlord world and it appears to me that your rental business is in a different planet. From the very lengthy comments you have written, I do however see that you are trying to do what is best for tenants, and like I believe most landlords wish to run an honest rental business for the good of all.
I have written below in point form in order to be as concise as possible:
• Section 21 should definitely not be banned as it is not a revenge eviction and for those that have misused it for revenge evictions, the law has bee tightened to avoid this altogether. The revenge eviction you have referred to, is not possible as, if the tenant got the council involved and they served a notice, a section 21 could not be used. Landlords do also need to retire and would not necessarily want to be renting their properties till they die where they are hounded by very many ridiculous laws and bodies such as Shelter. I name Shelter as, I have had first-hand experience with them.
• I am extremely surprised that your daughter had to go to the extent of having to carry out the gas certificates (which is a serious matter by law) and arrange for the boiler having to be repaired. In this case, the simplest thing that Shelter or you should have advised your daughter to do was to go to environmental health and they would have served a notice on the landlord where he would have had to repair the boiler in a timely manner. I don’t believe that one requires a highly paid organisation such as Shelter to resolve such a simple matter. CAB would also have been able to provide her with this simple advice.
• To have a level playing field, I have absolutely no objection to a tenant getting legal aid for illegal eviction where the taxpayer funds this however, I have every objection to the legal team being paid whether they win or lose. The case at present is that if they win, the landlord pays their costs and if they lose, the government pays their costs. At court, I had a barrister when attempting to settle a case where I was trying to evict a tenant who owed me over £5000, the barrister requested £2000 in fees where he only attended at that point once and stated that if I let the case run on it would cost me a lot more and in their case they had nothing to lose as they would get paid if they won or lost. As you will appreciate, it is highly expensive having a solicitor and barrister represent one however, in a truly level playing field, if the tenant loses, the Landlord should also be entitled to have barrister and solicitor fees paid for by the government if they engaged one.
• I believe that the landlord that gave your daughter two months to vacate the property that he wanted to live in did so quite rightly in that he rented it out whilst he was away. Surely, there is nothing wrong with the fact that he wanted to live there and I assume that was his only place of residence. In a case such as this, surely it is better that the owner rented his property rather than left it empty for 5 years. I take it that the property was not for rental purposes only. The landlord as I see it followed the right procedures in gaining his property to live in. Putting myself in your daughter’s place, I would more than likely not be happy but simultaneously would not be disgruntled with the landlord or, I would not feel that I was unfairly treated.
• I believe that most landlords that advertise “No DSS” are basically being cautious as DSS are high risk and insurance premiums are also higher due to the risk level. Many landlords just want to live their normal lives without going bankrupt due to rent not being paid and properties being thrashed out and in saying “No DSS” a landlord I believe is just minimising risk. I am one of the landlords that do accept DSS and in fact advertise as DSS accepted however, more recently with the introduction of UC am far more careful and more and more inclined to avoid such tenants due to a high level of rents not being paid and then having first-hand experience with Shelter fully supporting such tenants. I think taking on DSS requires a more specialist landlord who has been in the business for a long time.
• I believe Shelter should persuade the government to make it unlawful that “Buy to Let” mortgage providers demand that a property is untenanted on the point of sale. In nearly all cases, mortgage companies require that the property is empty without a tenant following completion of a sale although, the sole purpose of the property is to let out. This would considerably reduce the number of section 21 notices being served when a landlord wants to sell which quite rightly should be their legal right.
• As repeatedly stated on this and many forums, DSS rentals would easily be resolved if Shelter act as guarantors. Surely you Amelia must see this as a good step forward as you are adamant that “No DSS” should be banned and you feel that DSS tenants are not a higher risk than working tenants in terms of losses to the landlord.
• Your article concentrates a lot on landlords selling up. I think if this is happening a lot more than before, surely the question why they are doing this should be addressed. I think you will find it is bad press against good landlords and Shelter adding fuel to fire that is causing landlords to flea from this otherwise respectful business. If you really want to help tenants, my advice would be to help prevent the ban on section 21. If section 21 is banned, landlords will flea in droves and there will be far more homelessness.
I believe the points that I have listed are not only my views but those of hopefully most landlords.... Read More