Ian Narbeth

Registered with Property118.com
Monday 8th July 2013

Location
London

Trading Status
Joint

Providing essential rental accommodation since
1989

Insures properties through a broker recommended by Property118
No


Latest Comments

Total Number of Property118 Comments: 772

Ian Narbeth

17:01 PM, 23rd July 2019
About 14 hours ago

Pointless Rogue Landlords Database

Reply to the comment left by Heather G. at 22/07/2019 - 18:47
And therein is the problem. Unless landlords submit reports to all databases and in turn search all of them on new lettings, it is hit and miss whether a rogue tenant is spotted. Also, absent a court order, I can foresee data protection issues if rogue tenant databases become more popular.

I would encourage all landlords to ensure their judgment debts are registered as CCJs.... Read More

Ian Narbeth

11:03 AM, 23rd July 2019
About 20 hours ago

Brokenshire to stamp out 'poor doors'

Paradoxically, policies like this may lead to fewer social houses being built. Let me explain why. When planning consent is applied for developers include a viability study to show how much if any social housing the scheme can support. In many cases the social housing has negative value to the developer and is disposed of to a housing association at effectively a loss.
Planners and social engineers think it is a good thing to "pepper-pot" social housing among open market housing. Having common entrances so that the banker shares the entrance and the lift with the busker and the lawyer with the laundryman is likely to devalue the property in the banker's and lawyer's eyes.
This has the effect (although this is sometimes disputed) of reducing the value of the open market housing. This in turn affects the viability of the overall scheme. The developer can then argue (and win at appeal if the Council don't agree) that the percentage of social housing should be reduced.... Read More

Ian Narbeth

10:28 AM, 23rd July 2019
About 20 hours ago

Mockery of hunting landlords

Reply to the comment left by SlippersSimon at 23/07/2019 - 09:25Welcome to the Forum, SlippersSimon.
The mischief that lodging deposits was intended to deal with was landlords and agents running off with deposits or just refusing to hand them over, leaving tenants in difficulty and having to institute legal action to recover their money.
What we got was a bureaucratic nightmare for landlords. My example is nothing like not declaring income to HMRC. Read it again. Deposit protected (meaning the tenant's position is protected) and the prescribed information given to the tenant but, by oversight, not signed. If the signed form was served a day late the result would be the same. In what reasonable legal system does that merit a £3000 penalty (e.g. for a £1000 deposit)? You only get a £100 fine if your tax return is sent in late, or unsigned and then rejected.
Analogies are never perfect but consider this. Suppose at work when recovering £50 travel expenses you had to sign the claim form. If you forgot to do so, your accounts department wouldn't pay the expenses but would send the form back and tell you to sign. Now imagine instead that you were fined up to £150 for not signing the claim form. Most people would think that unjust. Imagine that your firm went even further and put your name and that fine on a public register that all the world could see and that your name would be there for years. Would you agree that's even more unjust?
Well, that is what this "Conservative" Government seems to be planning for landlords.... Read More

Ian Narbeth

16:59 PM, 22nd July 2019
About 2 days ago

Mockery of hunting landlords

So, let's consider the scenario. Some hapless landlord in 2015 protected the deposit but forgot to sign his Prescribed Information form. The tenant defaulted on rent and the landlord served a section 21 notice. At court, five months later, the landlord was ambushed because of the PI glitch and was "persuaded" to forego three times the amount of the deposit on the basis that his tenant would actually leave. Now it is proposed the landlord will end up on the rogues' database.

Of perhaps, some piffling mistake was made with the Tenant Fees Act: https://www.property118.com/tenant-fees-act-2019-elephant-trap-unwary/ or https://www.property118.com/tenant-fees-act-2019-draconian-legislation/
and a landlord ends up with a blackened name.

Be careful what you wish for. What is coming of course when section 21 is abolished is that many more tenants will have CCJs for rent arrears. The CCJ register will become a quasi- rogue tenants' database. Many more tenants will find themselves rejected.... Read More

Ian Narbeth

17:50 PM, 18th July 2019
About 6 days ago

Zero Tolerance - £30k per offence?

Reply to the comment left by Dr Rosalind Beck at 18/07/2019 - 16:59
Have had one Council complaining to us because our tenant was allegedly repairing cars in the street outside. I told them to use their own formidable resources to enforce if there is a breach of the law. It's not for Landlords to police our tenants' behaviour.... Read More