Tag Archives: Landlords

The slightly unusual dilemma of a Croydon landlord Fun Stuff, Latest Articles, Question of the Week, UK Property Forum for Buy to Let Landlords

Re-published – first published on 21st October 2013

Dear Mark (and all Property118 readers)

I think my wife might be having an affair with one of my tenants. The usual give away signs are all there, lots of “girlie nights out”, which she never used to do, and phone calls where the other person just hangs up when I answer the phone, mainly when I wouldn’t usually be at home. It’s been going on for months and I didn’t put two and two together until recently.

When I do 1471 the callers number has been withheld but the other day the callers number was there so I called it back and sure enough it was one of my tenants. He said he must have called my number by accident but soon after that my wife got a text and had to “pop out” because one of her work colleagues had apparently “lost her keys” and couldn’t lock up. I offered to take her but she insisted on going alone as her friend had told her she was having marriage problems so they might go for a drink afterwards for a girlie chat. The slightly unusual dilemma of a Croydon landlord

When she got home she said she was having another night out with the girls on Friday so I decided just to agree. My plan was to stake out my tenants property and she if she would turn up.

I remember my wife showing this tenant around the property when it became vacant and raving about how good looking he was. She also did the check in so I’ve never actually met him but I have spoken to him on the phone a few times.

Friday came and I decided to get a taxi from work and get dropped off around the corner from my tenants house so my wife had no chance of spotting my car if she did turn up. I decided to climb onto the garage roofs opposite my property, armed with my camera and telescopic lens where I could get a better view and a good shot. I laid on the roof for around an hour in the dark and cold, continually focussing my camera on my rental property so I could get the perfect shot for evidence purposes.

Whilst I was up there waiting I zoomed into the roof area and noticed that I have a few tiles missing and the guttering is coming away from the roof. My question, therefore, is does anybody know a good roofing contractor in the Croydon area?

Regards

LMAO


FOS rule West Brom Tracker Rate Hike is fair Advice, Landlords Stories, Latest Articles, Legal, Mortgage News, Property Investment News, Property118 News, UK Property Forum for Buy to Let Landlords

The FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service) have done it again! FOS rule West Brom Tracker Rate Hike is fair

In the past the FOS have controversially agreed that rate hikes applied by Bank of Ireland, Skipton Building Society (Amber Homeloans) and also the Danske Bank (formerly National Irish Bank) were fair. Therefore, is it really that shocking that FOS would also rule in favour of West Bromwich Mortgage Company?

Following a judicial review in the case of Millar & anor -v- Financial Services Ombudsman [2014] IEIC Mr Justice Garard Hogan recently ruled that the Irish FOS were wrong in their contractual interpretation in a rate hike case that the Millars brought against Danske Bank [source1].

This supports the Property118 members’ lack of confidence in the UK FoS decision making process, and hence the decision for Property118 to raise funds to enable their members legal team to stand toe to toe on 21st January 2015 with the West Brom legal team at the Commercial Courts in the Rolls Building.

Property118 members have raised nearly £500,000 and these funds are set to grow as a result of people who complained to the FOS realising that Property118 were right all along to take a representative action to the Courts.

The National Landlords Association initially recommended its members to pursue the FOS route and await the outcome of that before considering legal action. Many of those who followed this advice are enquiring about joining the representative action organised by Property118 as a result of the FOS finding. **West Brom has indicated through its legal team that it will apply the finding of the Court across the board to all affected borrowers**, so all additional support to ensure the right result is achieved is essential.

The Property118 representative group are happy to welcome all who have received the FOS rejection letter. The same financial commitments to those who joined prior to the deadline will apply, plus a small price for the administration costs associated with Cotswold Barristers applying to the Courts to have the names of the newly represented participants added to the claim. A new deadline of 19th December has been applied, this will definitely be the final deadline for legal reasons.

Newcomers are interested in joining the fight in the full knowledge that sufficient funds have already been raised and that the case will be heard on 21st January 2015.

Each member has paid £1,000 into an escrow account held by BARCO (The Bar Council’s Escrow service) plus a further £500 to Property118 and Cotswold Barristers to cover legal costs and associated running and marketing costs of the campaign for each represented mortgage account. Some members have a dozen or more represented mortgages, most have one or two. In the event of the case being won the majority of funds will be returned, plus of course a refund of any over-payments to West Brom and the satisfaction of their terms being upheld as per the borrowers understanding of the tracker rate mortgage contracts they entered into.

Every newcomer to the Property118 reduces the financial exposure to the funds already raised on the basis that all costs are shared pro-rata to funds committed.

** Beware false promises! **

Back in 2009 the CEO of the Skipton Building Society went on record that they would honour an interest rate cap [source2] just one year before that promise was reneged upon [source3]. However, insufficient funds were raised to take the case to court and borrowers have been left high and dry by the FOS and the FCA who decided the rate hike was fair despite the promises made. Perhaps that’s why West Brom borrowers want the certainty of being represented in the Property118 vs West Brom Court case, whilst it is still such a cost effective option?

If you are affected, and are not already a member of the Representative Action, please complete the form below for more details on how to get involved.

Representative Action Information Request

 


The Social Housing crisis and Landlords Landlord News, Latest Articles

Paul Shamplin of Landlord ActionIn May last year I did a TV programme called The One Show, where they filmed me serving a section 8 notice on a LHA tenants at 7am, they had kept the landlords rent of £4,000.

This piece was about the launch of the trial version of ‘Universal Credit’, which I warned would be not be appealing to landlords. Under the ‘Universal Credit’ scheme, the tenants would be paid their LHA, with other benefits on a twice monthly or monthly basis. This means that many tenants who were unable to manage their money, or were in debt, would ultimately fail to pass on the rent to their landlords.

The ‘Universal Credit’ scheme has been delayed and is now supposed to be launched in 2015. I read recently that £621million so far had been spent on this pilot scheme, trialling with less than 2000 benefit tenants in Greater Manchester. There has also been a debate that the IT system built to manage the scheme, is not working properly and indeed is not fit for purpose.

The Housing Benefit /LHA systems have been constantly changing for landlords in the last few years.

It all started to go wrong in 2008, in my opinion. The previous government decided to issue direct payments of Housing Benefit to tenants instead of landlords, to empower them, so they could take responsibility for their own budgets. This resulted in mass arrears, subsequently causing more evictions and those tenants being made homeless. I should stress however that there are many benefit tenants that can manage their finances. Statistically an LHA tenant will look after a property better and stay longer, which landlords like.

Then in 2011 this government introduced the capping of housing benefit, which made sense, because we have come across cases, of some landlords before the cap coming in, making over £4k a month on a 3 or 4 bedroom houses in some London boroughs. This of course resulted in landlords serving section 21 notices to end tenancies, as the cap became too low in some cases. Frustrated landlords evicted the LHA tenant and rented out to private tenants.This did not present an immediate problem, as rents were rising and it became a landlords market, governed by supply and demand, especially in London.

We have heard of situations recently of families being moved from London to Stoke On Trent and this can be upsetting and unsettling for those concerned. This will happen more and more, because currently we have council waiting lists running from 10-20 years and not enough properties being constructed. It is currently estimated that we need 200,000 extra homes a year to be built, which has never been achieved. The argument constantly heard is that tenants should only live in a place that they can afford.

There is also an alarming temporary housing crisis, many councils are struggling to find people temporary accommodation. We have heard of some desperate families ending up in Premier Inn Hotels. By law someone is only supposed to be put in temporary housing accommodation for up to 6 weeks.

On top of all of this we now have the ‘Bedroom Tax’. When an extra room at a property is not used, it is taxed and families are having their benefit cut, resulting also in an all-time high in the use of food banks. The government has set up a fund called Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) to help councils deal with hardship cases, and many councils have turned down three quarters of the people asking for help. As an example Leeds City Council spent 105 % of its budget, more than £2m, by 12th February and still had to turn 2,200 people away. This equates to almost 40% that applied for help under DHP.

I outline my main fears below-

We know what’s going on at the sharp end of things, as we act and speak for landlords on a daily basis. More and more of them are evicting LHA tenants and are stating that they plan on exiting the LHA market entirely, the reasons are as follows;

‘The tenants housing benefit has been capped and I’m not getting the rent I should be getting.’

‘The tenant has been told to stay in the property by the council, so they have to obtain a possession order, so they can be re-housed.’

‘The tenants benefit has been withdrawn.’

‘The tenants have kept the housing benefit and not passed it on.’

‘I can get more rent on the open market, not renting to an LHA tenant.’

Lastly the biggest issue I have with LHA’ Universal Credit’ is this. Cutting benefits may or may not get people back into work but more likely it is going to have an opposite effect. More people will be evicted, because of cuts in benefit and landlords not wanting to rent to LHA tenants, because of the fear they won’t get their rent. If the landlord has the security that the LHA will be paid direct to them, then that’s a good start. I’m sure the councils would welcome it, not draining their resources and putting extra pressure on already overstreached arrears departments and having access to more landlord’s properties. Landlords will also opt to stay in the sector rather than leaving and renting exclusively to private tenants, where demand is very strong and shows no signs of slowing down.


Safety laws should be applied to ALL property owners Landlord News, Latest Articles, Property Investment News, Property Maintenance

Safety laws should be applied to ALL property owners

I am in favour of new regulations which could help to save lives but I don’t understand why only the lives of tenants seem to matter in the eyes of the law.

I don’t have gas at home but I do have electricity (yes even in mid Norfolk LOL) and I also have an electrical safety certificate dated just a few months ago for my own home. Safety laws should be applied to ALL property owners

If proposed new regulations for electrical testing in residential properties comes about then I hope they are imposed on all property owners and not just landlords.

Laws need to be applied equally.

If the lawmakers don’t care about the safety of children living with irresponsible parents who don’t get their homes checked for gas and now electricity then why do they care so much about tenants living in rental properties?

How many homeowners get an annual gas safety check?

Why shouldn’t owner occupiers be made legally responsible for protecting the lives of their children, neighbours, emergency services who try to rescue them when their house explodes in a ball of flames and of course their own lives?

What’s good for the goose ….

What are your thoughts?


East Midlands Property Owners Expo – Date for your Diary Landlord News, Latest Articles, Lettings & Management

East Midlands Property Owners is a professional residential landlords association but also a not-for-profit organisation. Its members own somewhere in the region of 15,000 rented properties across the East Midlands region.East Midlands Property Owners

Our purpose is simple. We want to provide landlords, letting agents and property investors with the advice, knowledge and tools they need to be more professional and we want tenants to have affordable, decent and safe homes.

East Midlands Property Owners hosts the East Midlands Landlord & Letting Agent Expo, the major residential property event in the area. This FREE visitor event is targeted at residential landlords, letting agents and property investors. Last year’s event attracted over 60 exhibitors and 800 visitors.

The East Midlands Landlord & Letting Agent Expo 2014 will be at the East Midlands Conference Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2RJ on Thursday 15th May 2014, 10am to 4pm.

The event will include over 80 exhibitors, an impressive seminar timetable, a live Graham Penny Property Auction and high profile guest speakers. The 2014 Expo will be hosting the 2014 Landlord & Letting Agents networking Luncheon event. (Pre-paid event)

www.eastmidlandslandlordexpo.co.ukEMPO long

 


Message from Anthony Wilson of Ashley Wilson Solicitors LLP Ask Me Anything, Buy to Let News, Guest Articles, Landlord News, Landlords Stories, Latest Articles, Legal, Mortgage News, Property Investment News, Property News, The GOOD Landlords Campaign

Anthony Wilson of Ashley Wilson Solicitors LLPMy name is Tony Wilson.

I have today committed £15,000.00 to the fund to enable Mark Alexander and Mark Smith carry on the superb work they are doing on behalf of buy to let landlords who are being (in my view) mistreated by the West Bromwich Mortgage Company.

As a solicitor who has been in private practice for over 25 years and specialising in property throughout that time I am appalled at the way in which West Brom have sought to justify their unilateral action and I believe it is entirely correct that we should pursue a collective representative action in the way advised by Mark Smith which limits the financial risk to all concerned while giving us a voice to remedy this injustice.

I have done my due diligence before parting with any funds and I am fully satisfied that the route suggested by Mark Smith and Mark Alexander with funds protected within the Barco account gives us all maximum financial protection.

I also applaud Mark Alexander for leading this campaign.. which clearly deserves maximum public exposure.

This is not the first time over the last five years when I have been subject to a financial institution taking unilateral action despite the terms of a written agreement on the artificial basis “that it cannot afford it.” This type of action needs to continue to be challenged … the compensation payments having to be made by such institutions are increasing all the time now that the “chickens are coming home to roost”.

I urge everyone who has been affected by the West Broms behaviour to stand up and be counted .. to provide the financial resources to give us the maximum chance of securing a positive result and to ensure that the decision makers at the West Brom who have been arrogant to enough to make this decision unilaterally without first seeking judicial sanction..are accountable to their members for their inappropriate conduct.

I believe that we will win.. but win or lose this behaviour needs to be challenged.

Tony Wilson (Anthony Ashley Wilson)

Follow Up Comment

Thank to everyone for their positive comments about my post…. in a way I actually feel privileged to be part of it when I consider all the hard work and commitment which has been put into this to date by Mark and others..it is encouraging to know that the fund is heading in the right direction.. . if anyone has any doubts.. I am happy to discuss with them direct why I decided to participate.

Editors Note

To read the response comments from other campaign members please click HERE

To view Tony’s member profile please click HERE

To find out how to get involved please complete the form below

The deadline for submission of instructions has now expired, sorry.

 


London Housing Solutions Rips off Landlords and LHA Buy to Let News, Cautionary Tales, Latest Articles, Property News, UK Property Forum for Buy to Let Landlords

This report from Channel 4 investigates London Housing Solutions, a Rent to Rent company which is believed to have ripped off over 100 landlords for more than £400,000. London Housing Solutions Rips off Landlords and LHA

Advice from Property118 is that if you are contemplating renting your property to a Rent to Rent company then make sure you ask them to use a contract which has been drawn up to protect your interests by an independent solicitor (see below). Ask for the directors of the company to provide personal guarantees and ask an accountant to run some checks for you on the financial viability of the company you will be dealing with. Search the name of the company on Google followed by the word “scam” or “complaints” and read everything you can find. Sometimes the darkest secrets may be buried and will not be found on page one of the search results. If in doubt, walk away and talk to a professional letting agent about letting your property through more conventional channels.

Order the "Rent to Rent" lease contract template

  • Price: £ 97.00

Property118 Members vs West Bromwich Mortgage Company Advice, Buy to Let News, Cautionary Tales, Favourite Articles, Financial Advice, Landlord News, Landlords Stories, Latest Articles, Legal, Mortgage News, Press, Property Investment News, Property Investment Strategies, Property News, Property118 News, UK Property Forum for Buy to Let Landlords

UPDATE – 31st March 2014

Since publishing this article our campaign has raised over £450,000 and legal action has now commenced. The official closing date for borrowers to be represented in this action was 28th March 2014. However, it may still be possible to be included in the representative action by paying additional fees to cover administration and Court fees to be added to the list of represented claimants. For further details please Contact Carla Morris-Papps at Cotswold Barristers – telephone 01242 639 454 or email carla@cotswoldbarristers.co.uk

West Brom Tracker Mortgages

Property118 Members vs West Bromwich Mortgage Company

Property118 Members vs West Bromwich Mortgage Company

Borrowers representing 84 mortgage accounts affected by the West Bromwich Mortgage Company 1.9% rake hike to their tracker rate mortgage margins attended a secret meeting of paid up campaign members on 27th February 2014. At that meeting it was confirmed that 420 affected mortgages are currently represented by the campaign group.

Property118 had previously created a secure forum for paid up members of the group to discuss various legal strategies, one of which was a proposal to West Brom to consider arbitration as an alternative to Court action. Each member had paid £240 for each affected mortgage plus a contribution to a campaign marketing campaign.

Arbitration was proposed for tactical legal reasons which were explained by the groups advisers, some details of which must remain confidential for legal reasons.

This would have been significantly quicker and cheaper for all concerned and had massive upsides to West Brom in that the outcome would be confidential. In other words, if West Brom had lost the case, nobody would have “officially” known about it other than those who had already paid to be a member of the campaign group. This would have meant the worst case scenario for West Brom would be losing no more than 10% of their reported £19 million of additional annual profits from this rate hike.

West Brom refused!

This refusal now plays very nicely into our hands for litigation purposes as it will be frowned upon by the Courts, especially if we lose our case and end up having to pay costs associated with the David and Goliath battle. 😉

The attendees of the meeting voted unanimously to proceed immediately with litigation on the basis proposed by (Mark Smith – Barrister-At-Law) as explained below. Thanks were offered to Justin Selig and his team at The Law Department for his sterling work to date in helping us get to this position. Without their help our campaign may never have got this far.

Litigation will commence during the week of 31st March 2014 with the service of Court Papers. This provides a final opportunity for any remaining affected borrowers to commit to the action by Friday 28th March.

We already have more than double the necessary funds on account to pay our own legal team. Mark Smith has agreed to represent borrowers for a fixed fee of £120 + VAT per affected mortgage subject to there being at least 250 borrowers committed. Further details in his Terms of Business and Instruction letter which can be downloaded by completing the form at the bottom of this page.

Existing campaign members are also reminded that they MUST complete and return the instruction form  to Mark Smith to act for them and the required additional funds by 28th March 2014.

The deadline for submission of instructions has now expired, sorry.

Costs Funding

The primary concern of existing members that had to be overcome was their potentially unlimited liability to the West Brom’s legal costs in the event of losing the case and the “open cheque book” often associated with legal cases. It was agreed that all fears could be overcome by creating a fund to be held in a BARCO escrow account (BARCO is the Bar Council – the regulators of Barristers). This account will provide evidence to the Courts that we have sufficient funds on account to settle the other sides costs in the event of losing the case and having an adverse costs order awarded against the group.

The first step of the legal action will be a costs hearing, as part of a “Case Management Conference”. This is where both sides must submit their costs budgets for the case to the judge and where the judge decides upon reasonableness. If either side fails to do this then the maximum they can claim for costs against the other side is the Court fee, i.e. £175! It is extremely rare for judges to award costs in excess of the agreed costs budget.

Our estimate is that based on the number of affected mortgages being represented, and the possibility of more people now wishing to be represented at this stage, the BARCO account could contain as much as double the other sides costs budget. This is why we are so confident about costs not exceeding the amount of funds that will be held in escrow. In the extremely unlikely event of the groups funds being insufficient to meet a potential costs order the group would have an opportunity to withdraw their case and settle the other sides costs to date.

If/when we win, the contents of the BARCO account will be rolled over to deal with all of the costs associated with the inevitable appeal case and if/when that is won the funds will be returned to members. If we lose, the contents of the escrow account will be used to pay costs awarded to West Brom and the balance of funds will be returned pro-rata to members.

The case will be fought on the basis of a representative action. This means that the ruling of the Courts will only apply to those borrowers who have paid to be represented in the case. There will be no free rides!

We fully appreciate that some affected borrowers will not be able to raise the necessary funds in time to be part of this action so there is a Plan B. Affected borrowers who are not represented may have another opportunity to make claims in a few years time. In the meantime they will continue to pay the higher rate and will probably be expected to forfeit any refund of overpayments in return for a no-win-no-fee arrangement. This could be a far more expensive option, hence the reason why so many affected borrowers are so keen to be part of the imminent legal action.

The legal strategy and process we are undertaking will be a very simple one. There will be no witnesses called so there will be no surprise twists such as those often seen on TV where a new witness or new evidence appears at the last minute. On this basis, we anticipate the case, including any appeal, to be concluded before Christmas.

We will only be asking the Courts to rule on two things:-

1) Based on the documentation produced by West Brom, do they have the right to increase the tracker margin?

2) Based on the documentation produced by West Brom, do they have the right to call in loans within 28 days without the borrower being in default?

There has been lots of discussion about whether West Brom did or did not provide all of the documentation they are now relying upon. This is not relevant to our case.

There has also been much discussion about Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations; again this is not relevant to our case.

It has been questioned whether in fact the mortgages issued by West Brom were indeed trackers, this cannot be denied by West Brom as this is the basis they report them to the rating standards agencies – see this link

The agreed level of funds to be deposited into the BARCO account is £1,144 per affected mortgage being represented. For example, somebody wishing to have 10 affected mortgages represented will need to deposit a further £11,440 into the BARCO account. Existing members will receive a refund of unused funds which they paid into the client account of The Law Department. New members will need to pay an additional premium of £356 per mortgage to the Property118 marketing fund to equalise the financial contributions and efforts of the forerunners of the group.

Therefore, the net payment per affected mortgage for members will be:

  • For existing members who have already instructed The Law Department £994 (assuming a refund of £150 per affected mortgage from The Law Department)
  • For new members the total cost per mortgage to be represented will be £1,500

We have created a simple set of instructions explaining how much you need to pay and who you need to pay it to here >>> http://www.property118.com/simplified-payment-instructions-join-west-brom-action/

Remember, if/when we win you will get more than this amount back when you also factor in 100% of the extra 1.9% interest you have been paying which will also be refunded. The worst case scenario is that you will get none of this money back if we lose. If you can live with that you should proceed.

The reason we have chosen this strategy as opposed to buying ATE insurance is that it costs us much less if we win. We are in this to win this. The above strategy means that we all know what we stand to lose and can proceed with our eyes wide open, confident that our liabilities are limited.

If the balance of the BARCO account associated with this action is less than £250,000 by close of business on Friday 28th March 2014 the legal action case will be aborted, funds will be returned to members within 14 days and that will be the end of the line for this campaign for myself and Property118 – at least for 12 months or more anyway. If necessary we will then take another look at Plan B.

UPDATE – 31st March 2014

Since publishing this article our campaign has raised over £450,000 and legal action has now commenced. The official closing date for borrowers to be represented in this action was 28th March 2014. However, it may still be possible to be included in the representative action by paying additional fees to cover administration and Court fees to be added to the list of represented claimants. For further details please Contact Carla Morris-Papps at Cotswold Barristers – telephone 01242 639 454 or email carla@cotswoldbarristers.co.uk


Immigration Minister resigns for employing an illegal immigrant Landlord News, Latest Articles

Mark Harper the Immigration Minister who took the Immigration Bill through Parliament in autumn 2013 has resigned for continuing to employ his cleaner when she no longer had a right to reside in the country.

The Immigration Bill which was hotly debated on Property118 requires Landlords to carry out reasonable checks and take copies of documents proving tenants have the right to reside in the UK. The Government said Landlords were not required to be experts or spot anything other than an obvious forgery.

However the Government’s own Minister has fallen foul of the very checks it is requiring Landlords to carry out. To be fair Mr Harper did initially carry out reasonable checks when his cleaner was initially employed, and it is doubtful any action would be taken against an employer or Landlord in these circumstances, but it does raise the question if Landlords have the required expertise to help police immigration when Mr Harper himself has failed.

Mark Harper’s resignation letter to the PM

“Dear Prime Minister

In April 2007 I took on a cleaner for my London flat. In doing so, I was very mindful of my legal and financial obligations and undertook a number of checks beforehand. This included consideration of the HMRC tests as to whether the cleaner was performing her work under a contract for services on a self-employed basis which I concluded she was. However, even though there was no legal requirement for me to check her right to work in the UK, I felt that it was appropriate to do so. I therefore took a copy of her passport to verify her identity and also a copy of a Home Office letter, dated 26 January 2006, which stated that she had leave to remain indefinitely in the United Kingdom, including the right to work and engage in a business.

I considered the issue again when you appointed me as a Minister in the Cabinet Office in May 2010 and concluded that as I had performed a right to work check in 2007 and that my cleaner had indefinite leave to remain in the UK no further check was necessary. When you then appointed me as Immigration Minister in September 2012 I went through a similar consideration process and once again concluded that no further check was necessary. In retrospect, I should have checked more thoroughly.

As I took the Immigration Bill through Parliament in autumn 2013 I talked a lot about these matters in the context both of employers and landlords. What we do, and will, require of both is that they carry out reasonable checks and take copies of documents. We do not require them to be experts or spot anything other than an obvious forgery. Given this focus on these matters, I thought it prudent to check that all my documents were in order for my cleaner. I undertook an extensive search to locate the copies of documents I had taken but unfortunately I was unable to locate them.

As a result, in the week commencing 20 January 2014 I asked my cleaner for further copies of these documents which she provided on 4 February. On 5 February, I asked my private office to check the details with immigration officials to confirm that all was in order. I was informed on the morning of 6 February that my cleaner did not in fact have indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. I immediately notified the Home Secretary and my Permanent Secretary. This is now a matter for Immigration Enforcement.

Although I complied with the law at all times, I consider that as Immigration Minister, who is taking legislation through Parliament which will toughen up our immigration laws, I should hold myself to a higher standard than expected of others. I have also considered the impact on my Parliamentary colleagues, the Government and you. I have always believed that politics is a team game, not an individual sport. Under the circumstances, I have therefore decided that the right course is for me to return to the Backbenches. I am sorry for any embarrassment caused.

I am grateful for the opportunities you have given me since you became Leader of the Conservative Party, first in Opposition and then in Government. I will continue to support you as Prime Minister, the Conservative Party and this Government in whatever way I can from the backbenches. I will also continue to serve my constituents in the Forest of Dean to the best of my ability.

Yours ever,

MarkImmigration Minister resigns


Do landlords have to pay class 2 National Insurance? Latest Articles, UK Property Forum for Buy to Let Landlords

We have three properties which we let out via a letting agent. My husband works full time and I have no other income. I am told that the tax man treats these properties as “investments”, (such as buying stocks and shares to quote them) rather than a business, thus limiting the type of expenses we can offset against them.

However, they want my husband to pay Class 2 NI contributions as they are classing him as being self employed.

This seems like ‘double speak’ to me – either it is a business or it isn’t. Do landlords have to pay class 2 National Insurance?

Do all landlords pay these contributions?

Thanks

Sophie

 

UPDATE

This discussion thread is now closed. By all means read through the pages of comments to understand the level of confusion surrounding this topic. However, the definitive answer was eventually posted by a Chartered Accountant who specialises in landlord taxation. His response quoted both legislation and case law. Link to his comment HERE.

 


Property Forum and News website where UK landlords and letting agents share best practice