Profile incomplete
7:57 AM, 8th April 2014, About 10 years ago 54
Text Size
I became a landlord about 10 years ago, as a pension investment. At that time, returns in my local area were relatively poor. I bought in an area that had 8-8.5% returns and had my properties managed locally.
I am a Chartered Surveyor with significant property management experience, so I believed that I came into the business with my eyes open. It was nevertheless a steep learning curve. After a few years I had to intervene to protect my tenants and my investments, and I now manage these properties myself. I am always at the end of the phone, even on holiday; most of the work on my properties is arranged as planned improvements or maintenance, usually following on from an inspection; and I hope that I provide as good a service as any managing agent (and I acknowledge that there are excellent agents out there; sadly, mine was not one of them!).
The local council has introduced selective licensing. I must make clear that I am not submitting this article in order to complain; whatever I feel about the policy is quite irrelevant. Most of the requirements are clear, and are either already in place, or easily achievable.
However there are several points that I find troubling, and suspect that other smaller investors like myself will have problems with the same issues. These are the problems I foresee, and my proposed solutions:
1) Requirement for monthly inspections. It would be inconvenient to carry these out personally, so I would contract out interim inspections. I will provide a suitable proforma to be completed, with photographic evidence, by an experienced contractor.
2) Antisocial behavior action plan. I take the view that, as a small investor, I have no choice but to issue warnings and if necessary refuse to renew the tenancy on expiry. Of course, if something serious happens long before expiry I would commence possession proceedings. My action plan will set out the behaviour I regard as sufficiently serious for these two options.
3) The requirement to notify tenants of their obligations. All of this is within the tenancy agreement, so I would propose to write to the tenants restating these terms.
4) There is a requirement for emergency and other arrangements in the event of the holder’s absence. In practice, I have always been at the end of the phone, wherever I am, and able to arrange repairs as normal. However, I propose to “nominate” an alternative contact, who will be another landlord like myself.
5) If I am unable to satisfy the Conditions, then it will be necessary to appoint a managing agent. I expect that I would still be required to submit the application in my own name, but with reference to the managing agent in the relevant sections of the form. I would presumably still be liable for any breaches, my only defence being to prove that I took steps to ensure that said agent were fulfilling their responsibilities under the conditions. In my opinion, it would be better to take full and direct responsibility, contracting others in to carry out parts of the requirement as necessary, so I will seek to obtain a licence on this basis.
I am very concerned that the impact of this new control would be to reject any landlord who does not live in the same town, or nearby, as unsuitable for three reasons:
– Sufficiently regular inspections carried out by the licence holder personally may not be practical (although, as said, I intend to arrange such inspections in a way that would satisfy the requirements)
– There would be a problem in attending a training course in the same town as my properties (although one day would not be an issue). I hope that the Council’s requirement here (which is not specified) would be reasonable.
– It might not be feasible for a landlord who does not live locally to take unspecified emergency action. Although the Conditions make no direct reference to personal availability in emergency, I suspect that this could be an implied criterion in assessing an application. I say “unspecified” because I have worked during evenings and weekends to arrange contractors for gas, electric and plumbing emergencies. However, in theory, there might be something that could require the “person in control” to attend immediately.
In summary, I am determined to personally fulfil the requirements of this licence, and would welcome a discussion on practicality for a small investor who is 1) not based locally and 2) has other employment. I am sure that other landlords like myself have successfully obtained and maintained licences, and are providing the service that the council is looking to achieve. However I have not found any discussion of this issue, and therefore hope that this article – and the responses to it! – will prove useful.
Regards
Philip Aston MRICS
Previous Article
High-End Liverpool Buy to LetNext Article
Surrender of shorthold assured tenancy
Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118
9:33 AM, 12th April 2014, About 10 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Linda Price" at "12/04/2014 - 09:10":
I recommend you speak to your local NLA representative.
.
Joe Bloggs
9:34 AM, 12th April 2014, About 10 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Gary Nock" at "12/04/2014 - 07:21":
gary,
the very comments you say about me are what i think of your post, i.e.:
'To make comments such as yours in response does not help the debate or tbe forum and discourages members from posting.'
thats what you are doing by defending a poster on the sole basis of experience. IMO that is plain wrong. anyone has the right to question so called experts...it is not unusual for an expert to be wrong. your post implies that experts are always right as rather than an honest debate of the issues, the first thing you mention is 'Mary is factually a very experienced landlord...'. thats what i mean by trumps. it was certainly not my intention to say you are silly and i dont think i have.
Mary Latham
12:00 PM, 12th April 2014, About 10 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Joe Bloggs" at "11/04/2014 - 19:02":
See Section 3A (a) of Protection from Eviction Act 1977
(3A)Subject to subsection (3B) below, the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if—
(a)he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or
(b)he persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises in question as a residence,
and (in either case) he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that that conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation of the whole or part of the premises or to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises.
(3B)A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (3A) above if he proves that he had reasonable grounds for doing the acts or withdrawing or withholding the services in question
A landlord who insists on inspecting a property, where a tenant has refused entry, would be guilty under this Act. A tenant is likely to feel that the landlord is interfering with his peace if he inspects on a monthly basis.
I DO NOT CALL MYSELF AN EXPERT - where did that come from? I post as an experienced landlord and I give my own opinions and information about my own experience and that of the many landlords I work with every year. I also do not base my successful business model on emotion - I find that remark offensive - I have changed my model over the years to ensure that I am keeping my tenants safe and happy - that is the business that I have chosen to be in. If other landlords have different experiences I am always interested to learn and I am the first person to acknowledge that I never stop learning from other good landlords. I have NEVER run one seminar where I have not learned something from a delegate and I always thank them during the seminar.
I do not pretend that my experience is scientific - it is my experience - but I have never been shown evidence that inspecting makes any difference to the final outcome.
Tenants can live in a home and keep it in good order. The weekend before they move out they have a party and there are drinks spilled on carpets, bin bags full of rubbish in the garden, bottles/cans and cigarette ends left outside......
Tenants, especially students, can live in very untidy homes. The day that they move out their mums come and clean up and leave the property in reasonable condition. The carpets are always clean because they have been covered by their clothes during the tenancy and when the clothes are removed .....
I am only interested in the condition of the property when it comes back to me unless there is a health and safety issue and I always spot these when the gas Safety, electric safety and smoke alarm tests are carried out or when I take contractors to carry out repairs or replacements - these are not inspections and my tenants know that I do these for their safety and comfort, even in single occupancies where the law does not always require them.
I have been told by landlords " I know that they have other people living there but when I give them notice that I am coming there will be no evidence" or " I didn't see the cannabis plants because they were in a tent in the loft and I don't inspect my lofts". or "I didn't see the damage until I moved the furniture".
The evidence that regular inspections make no difference can be seen in the number of deposit disputes that are raised for cleanliness or damages and where the landlord or agent has carried out regular inspections - these are facts given by the deposit protection schemes - look on their web sites to verify.
The purpose of this discussion "would welcome a discussion on practicality" My post was to give Philip some information with which to open a discussion with this local authority. They don't care about landlord who find it difficult to meet the conditions but they do care about the law and the impact their requirements might have on tenants.
When I am posting on discussions I prefer to make comments about the discussion rather than to enter into personal debates with other posters. Scoring points is not my style and I have stopped posting on fora where
------------------------
Follow me on Twitter@landlordtweets
The perfect present for property investors @ £4.64. My book, where I warn about the storm clouds that are gathering for landlords is available on Amazon title. Property For Rent – Investing in the UK: Will You Survive the Mayhem? http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1484855337
Steve Hards
14:09 PM, 12th April 2014, About 10 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Mary Latham" at "12/04/2014 - 12:00":
Very good, Mary! And your comment about students, their Mums, and carpets match our experience exactly!
Mary Latham
14:37 PM, 12th April 2014, About 10 years ago
Sorry I have just realised that my post was not completed.
I have stopped posting on fora where the discussions become personal because this is a waste of my time and does nothing to help the sharing of information.
Thank you Steve, it's good to know that my experiences are similar to other landlords.
Joe Bloggs
16:13 PM, 12th April 2014, About 10 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Mary Latham" at "12/04/2014 - 14:37":
Mary,
You are respected on this forum, no doubt in part due to being an nla trainer and publicizing your book at the bottom of each. Even in your last post you refer to running seminars. Therefore, you hold yourself out to be an ‘expert’. As an expert some people will inevitably rely on what you state. You therefore owe a duty of care when posting and should do your upmost to avoid negligent mis-statements. Unfortunately, despite all of the above you have propagated misinformation:
1) you maintain that ‘There is no evidence to prove that regular inspections have any impact on the behaviour of tenants.’ This is misleading and based on nothing your anecdotal experience. Common sense must tell you that regular inspections do help (see below).
2) Worse still, you say ‘If a tenant is doing something wrong in the property he will simply refuse entry to the landlord, as is his legal right.’ So what you have said is that a LL has no right to inspect! You are clearly mistaken:
http://www.saracenssolicitors.co.uk/uncategorized/a-landlords-right-of-access-to-the-property-as-set-out-in-the-landlord-and-tenant-act
Accordingly, I queried whether the tenant is really within his/her legal rights to deny access for reasonable periodic inspections. As the right to access is enshrined in L&TA 1985 how can the tenant possibly be within his/her rights? The LL can even gain possession in certain cases for denial of access so I repeat how can can the tenant possibly be within his/her rights? Your final post defending your position cites the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. That seems perverse to me as reasonable regular inspections in accordance with the statutory provisions are most unlikely to be ever deemed harassment. The law is of course not as definitive and clear cut as your initial categorical statement asserts. If a tenant does refuse access then there is little a LL can do but to seek possession which will eventually probably remove the tenant who may well be a cause of ASB. This brings me back to point 1) above that regular inspections do help with untenantlike behavior.
3) you introduced the issue of ‘emotion’ by stating ‘Frankly I would be embarrassed inspecting another persons home, even if I do own the building’. Embarrassment is an emotion and talking about your personal emotions is not helpful to a legal debate.
4) After all this ridiculousness, I think you are actually agreeing:
‘I always spot these when the gas Safety, electric safety and smoke alarm tests are carried out or when I take contractors to carry out repairs or replacements – these are not inspections and my tenants know that I do these for their safety and comfort, even in single occupancies where the law does not always require them.’
Why do you say ‘…these are not inspections…’? OF COURSE THEY ARE!
Fed Up Landlord
17:36 PM, 12th April 2014, About 10 years ago
Mary re your comment on accreditation. Sandwell Council are looking at introducing this now and the inevitable "training fee". I am an NLA accredited landlord. can I "passport" that over with my CPD to avoid this at all?
Reader
17:49 PM, 12th April 2014, About 10 years ago
Has any council been challenged as monthly inspections could be a breach of the tenants right to "quiet enjoyment" of their tenancy. May be 3 or 6 monthly might be consistent with their common law entitlements, any thoughts?
Mary Latham
19:47 PM, 12th April 2014, About 10 years ago
Gary Sandwell has always been part of the Midlands Landlords Accreditation Scheme (MLAS) - this is not new and the cost of the full day foundation seminar is £150. A person who is accredited with NLA and has attended NLA foundation seminar can passport to MLAS at no cost by simply informing the MLAS administrator of their NLA accreditation number and completing the application form.
Reader that is exactly what I would do.
Joe Bloggs a quote from final paragraph of the article in your link
"The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 make clear that landlords should not enter the property without the express permission of the tenant."
--------------------
Follow me on Twitter@landlordtweets
The perfect present for property investors @ £4.64. My book, where I warn about the storm clouds that are gathering for landlords is available on Amazon title. Property For Rent – Investing in the UK: Will You Survive the Mayhem? http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1484855337
Joe Bloggs
20:21 PM, 12th April 2014, About 10 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Mary Latham" at "12/04/2014 - 19:47":
mary, what you asserted in no uncertain terms was that the tenant is within his right to refuse the LL access... you did not qualify this with any provisos. in any event, and furthermore this would in fact seem another example of experts (solicitors) getting it wrong as in fact the Act merely states [at s.11(6)]:
'In a lease in which the lessor’s repairing covenant is implied there is also implied a covenant by the lessee that the lessor, or any person authorised by him in writing, may at reasonable times of the day and on giving 24 hours’ notice in writing to the occupier, enter the premises comprised in the lease for the purpose of viewing their condition and state of repair.'
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/70
so express permission is not necessary as far as the law is concerned.