Nine and a half years ago, in the heady house price boom of 2003, the Bank of England lowered interest rates to a (then) paltry 3.5%. We all know what happened next. Mortgage lending went beserk, house prices went manic and in 2007 the banks' balance sheets started to burst under the strain. We're still nowhere near out of the woods five years on.
Have look back at the BBC archives. Have a look at how the experts, or the so called 'great and the good' all hailed it as an unquestionable good. Then scroll down to the bottom of the page and look at the comments from the man on the street. This part is my personal favourite:
House prices last month were 24.9% higher than in January 2002, Halifax, the UK's biggest mortgage lender, said on Wednesday. But the Bank warned of a gloomier economic outlook. "Over the next two years, the prospects for demand, both globally and domestically, are somewhat weaker than previously anticipated," a Bank statement said. While inflation was, at 2.7%, a "little above target", the Bank attributed the rise to temporary factors. The cut would help keep inflation "on track", Thursday's statement added.
Isn't it just a shame that the five readers quoted at the bottom of the article weren't running the Bank of England instead? The bad news is that 'great and the good' are still there, pushing out the same old politically correct claptrap and wrecking young people's futures in the process of being paid to be wrong about pretty much everything. I wonder how many of them own buy-to-lets?
Isn't it time to have a clearout?
Friday, 10 August 2012
Wednesday, 8 August 2012
Landlord scams (4)
Continuing the theme of the previous posts, one landlord scam goes as follows:
1. Tell the tenant that the rent is inclusive of Council Tax, so the rent can be increased by £50 - £100 per month.
2. Don't pay the Council Tax.
3. Wait until the tenant has moved out and then inform the council of the tenant's new address and the council will then chase the former tenant. The law is broadly that the Council Tax is payable by the occupant, not the person registered at HM Land Registry.
4. The landlord profits by the extra rent he charged, which was supposed to cover the Council Tax.
5. Some tenants do the same in reverse, i.e. they don't pay the Council Tax while they are there, and then do a disappearing act, so as a default, the council will chase the owner/landlord for the Council Tax.
As the law stands, there is a little that the defrauded tenant (or landlord) can do in such a situation, however there are things which local councils can do administratively to prevent this happening.
YPP councils would work on the basis that the primary liability to pay the Council Tax is with the registered owner. If the landlord and tenant agree (for whatever reason) that the tenant will pay, they will have to both sign and submit a declaration to that effect. The council will check that the purported landlord is in fact the registered owner of the home and liability to pay will transfer to the tenant when he receives confirmation from the council (and no earlier).
Some tenants will prefer this method; if they receive the notification from the council that, then this is their confirmation that the purported landlord is the actual owner.
Similarly, it is far more convenient for all parties - the owner/landlord, the tenant as well as the council - if the primary liability remains with the landlord and he adds it to the rent, leaving the tenant with a single monthly or weekly payment and no need for two re-registrations every time a tenant leaves and a new tenant moves in.
1. Tell the tenant that the rent is inclusive of Council Tax, so the rent can be increased by £50 - £100 per month.
2. Don't pay the Council Tax.
3. Wait until the tenant has moved out and then inform the council of the tenant's new address and the council will then chase the former tenant. The law is broadly that the Council Tax is payable by the occupant, not the person registered at HM Land Registry.
4. The landlord profits by the extra rent he charged, which was supposed to cover the Council Tax.
5. Some tenants do the same in reverse, i.e. they don't pay the Council Tax while they are there, and then do a disappearing act, so as a default, the council will chase the owner/landlord for the Council Tax.
As the law stands, there is a little that the defrauded tenant (or landlord) can do in such a situation, however there are things which local councils can do administratively to prevent this happening.
YPP councils would work on the basis that the primary liability to pay the Council Tax is with the registered owner. If the landlord and tenant agree (for whatever reason) that the tenant will pay, they will have to both sign and submit a declaration to that effect. The council will check that the purported landlord is in fact the registered owner of the home and liability to pay will transfer to the tenant when he receives confirmation from the council (and no earlier).
Some tenants will prefer this method; if they receive the notification from the council that, then this is their confirmation that the purported landlord is the actual owner.
Similarly, it is far more convenient for all parties - the owner/landlord, the tenant as well as the council - if the primary liability remains with the landlord and he adds it to the rent, leaving the tenant with a single monthly or weekly payment and no need for two re-registrations every time a tenant leaves and a new tenant moves in.
Tuesday, 7 August 2012
Labour's housing policy fail (3)...
Let's try to interpret some more of Labour's newspeak into English shall we? Page 10 details the following proposal:
We intend to work in partnership with the sector to develop solutions, and will look at potential measures including a code of code of conduct with entry requirements for letting agents and compulsory business and consumer protection measures. We will consider how compliance could be monitored, for example by a regulatory body with enforcement powers.
... a code of code of conduct ...
This is a set of rules, established by a trade association or similar entity. For example there is the Association of Residential Lettings Agents (ARLA) Code of Practice, or The Property Ombudsman (TPO) Code of Practice. Businesses choose whether or not to pay for membership of a trade association, and by joining agree to follow the code of conduct.
... entry requirements for letting agents ...
This means qualifications, such as those awarded by the National Federation of Property Professionals. Their quaifications "are developed in consultation with ARLA and therefore meet the qualification requirements necessary for ARLA membership." (Their words, not mine)
... compulsory business and consumer protection measures ...
The big question here is what they mean by 'compulsory'. The two codes of conduct above are compulsory should a lettings agent choose to join the relevant trade association / scheme. Are labour planning to make membership compulsory for lettings agents?
... for example by a regulatory body with enforcement powers ...
In other words a quango. What labour are clearly proposing is to create a statutory ARLA or TPO. Let's go back to the first line of that statement:
"We intend to work in partnership with the sector to develop solutions ..."
What Labour mean is that they intend to put ARLA or the TPO, or more likely an amalgamation of the two, on a statutory footing and compel lettings agents to join. In other words, legislate to turn them into a quango. After all, this is the only 'solution' that 'the sector' (i.e. trade associations, landlord industry representatives and big estate agents) will agree to.
YPP councils will not by pander to landlords, estate agents and their representatives, but help tenants by approving planning applications and building more social housing.
Monday, 6 August 2012
Corby by-election
It looks like Louise Bagshawe/Mensch has gathered enough raw material to write a few Parliament-based bonk-buster chick-lit novels and is buggering off to sunnier climes.
If you live in or near Corby and would like to be our first Parliamentary candidate in the by-election to be held in November, please email your details to contactypp@gmail.com.
Time wasters need not apply, as the saying goes.
If you live in or near Corby and would like to be our first Parliamentary candidate in the by-election to be held in November, please email your details to contactypp@gmail.com.
Time wasters need not apply, as the saying goes.
Labour housing policy fail (2)...
Whilst labour's housing policy review might claim to stick up for tenants, YPP can explain why they are up to their old trick of not telling the truth. Let's take this rather bold statement at the top of page 5:
Now it is true that lettings agents are not legally required to have 'client money protection'. A lettings agent can collect the rent from the tenant and use the money as the normal cash flow of the business. They do not have to keep it in a seperate 'client account' on behalf of the landlord. This is what 'client money protection' means.
However once the tenant has paid their rent to the landlord's agent - aka their lettings agent - then as far as the law is concerned they have paid it to the landlord. The tenants' money cannot be 'lost' because a dodgy lettings agent has spent it on fast women and cocaine before it got to the landlord as labour suggest.
Ah, but what about deposits? They belong to the tenant don't they? Well, under the Housing Act 2004 (see Chapter 4 and Schedule 10) it is the landlord that is responsible for protecting the tenant's deposit. If his agent - aka the lettings agent - spends it on fast women and cocaine, the landlord is still liable to the tenant for the deposit, including where the tenant remains in place (say the lettings agent has gone bust) re-protecting the deposit in a deposit protection scheme out of his own pocket.
A tenants money cannot be 'lost' because a dodgy lettings agent has no 'client money protection' only the landlord's money can be 'lost' this way. So don't be fooled by labour's proposals for more new landlord protection legislation. Just look at the vested interests labour quote as wanting this reform on pages 8 and 9 for a start:
* The British Property Federation
* The Association of Residential Letting Agents
* The Residential Landlords Association
* National Landlords Association
* Countrywide Estate Agents
We'll look more at how these vested interests stand to benefit from labours landlord protection regulation later on. Labour haven't changed, don't let them fool you again!
"There are cases of agencies, even large and well-established [lettings agency] businesses, running into difficulties because they had no client money protection, with both landlords’ and tenants’ money being lost."
Now it is true that lettings agents are not legally required to have 'client money protection'. A lettings agent can collect the rent from the tenant and use the money as the normal cash flow of the business. They do not have to keep it in a seperate 'client account' on behalf of the landlord. This is what 'client money protection' means.
However once the tenant has paid their rent to the landlord's agent - aka their lettings agent - then as far as the law is concerned they have paid it to the landlord. The tenants' money cannot be 'lost' because a dodgy lettings agent has spent it on fast women and cocaine before it got to the landlord as labour suggest.
Ah, but what about deposits? They belong to the tenant don't they? Well, under the Housing Act 2004 (see Chapter 4 and Schedule 10) it is the landlord that is responsible for protecting the tenant's deposit. If his agent - aka the lettings agent - spends it on fast women and cocaine, the landlord is still liable to the tenant for the deposit, including where the tenant remains in place (say the lettings agent has gone bust) re-protecting the deposit in a deposit protection scheme out of his own pocket.
A tenants money cannot be 'lost' because a dodgy lettings agent has no 'client money protection' only the landlord's money can be 'lost' this way. So don't be fooled by labour's proposals for more new landlord protection legislation. Just look at the vested interests labour quote as wanting this reform on pages 8 and 9 for a start:
* The British Property Federation
* The Association of Residential Letting Agents
* The Residential Landlords Association
* National Landlords Association
* Countrywide Estate Agents
We'll look more at how these vested interests stand to benefit from labours landlord protection regulation later on. Labour haven't changed, don't let them fool you again!
Sunday, 5 August 2012
Labour housing policy fail (1)...
The Labour Party have launched a policy review on the private rented housing sector. Calling for yet more pointless regulation and town hall bureaucracy, it really misses the mark. Let's start with on of their case studies.
Page 6 - Submitted by Newham Council
"Letting Agent X agreed to rent out a ground floor flat to a tenant. Letting Agent X took the tenant’s deposit and a month’s rent and gave her the keys. A few days later the “real” Letting Agent (Letting Agent Y), entered the flat and was surprised to find the new tenant. Letting Agent Y said to the tenant that she had to leave as she was trespassing and he had no knowledge of Agent X. The tenant could not contact Agent X. Agent Y agreed to let her stay in the flat but she had to pay a month’s rent. The tenant, who had very little money was left with little option but to stay on Agent Y’s terms. The tenant had to pay the equivalent of £1,650 rent for the first month, instead of 550 and lost her deposit in the process."
How this scam works
This is a simple scam, whereby the criminal has access to the keys for the property concerned. It is easy to get keys cut and there are lots of ways they can can get them. Previous tenants is the most obvious answer. A less obvious, but not unknown modus operandi is that many lettings agents are happy to employ sub agents on a commission only basis. They allow sub agents to advertise the property themselves, come to the office, collect the keys and show prospects around. A dodgy sub agent may have cut keys they obtained from a legitimate lettings agent.
Once you have the keys you falsify the paperwork, take the first months rent, deposit and fee (usually well over a grand these days, and in cash) and hey presto you have made an average months wages tax free. It is also conceivable that agent X defaulted on agent Y, preferring to stuff the tenants deposit up his nose, and that agent Y are unlawfully taking it out on the tenant.
The law and the consequences
If the tenant reports this to the Police they will most likely be told it is a 'civil' issue. If they report it to the council they will most likely be told to report it to the Police. Very few public authorities bother to investigate these kind of 'petty' thefts. Yet they will happily arrest and prosecute shoplifters for stealing much less. Tenants are seen as fair game in today's Britain.
In the case study, letting agent X has probably committed offences under the Theft Act 1968 (for stealing the tenants deposit that should have been kept in a custodial or 'insurance backed' scheme as per the Housing Act 2004). Newham council can prosecute Theft Act offences if it wants to. Agent X would have also most likely committed trading standards offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which councils like Newham already have ample powers to investigate.
If agent X had obtained the keys on the black market, and disappeared into the night then any investigation would most likely be a wild goose chase unless disproportionate police resources were deployed. However, if agent X was a sub agent of agent Y, and was authorised to make such contracts by agent Y, the tenants contract should stand and agent X simply owes agent Y the money.
The YPP stance
The Theft Act 1968 did not stop theft, just like the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 did not stop misuse of drugs. More town hall regulation and bureaucracy will not stop dishonest people stealing keys to bedsits and trying on this scam via the small ads. It will provide more pointless jobs for Labour's paymasters, the folk who pay public sector union subscriptions and draw an often handsome salary from the town hall coffers. It will not protect tenants, who in reality have to be careful about who they hand their cash over to.
YPP councils will champion tenants' existing rights and prioritise the investigation and prosecution of dodgy lettings agents and landlords under existing legislation. Labour will create more pointless regulation and bureaucracy for their town hall paymasters to administer, while doing nothing to catch criminals or legislate to create a better deal for tenants. Don't let Labour trick you into voting for more of the same old nonsense. It didn't work last time and it sure as Hell won't work this time.
Page 6 - Submitted by Newham Council
"Letting Agent X agreed to rent out a ground floor flat to a tenant. Letting Agent X took the tenant’s deposit and a month’s rent and gave her the keys. A few days later the “real” Letting Agent (Letting Agent Y), entered the flat and was surprised to find the new tenant. Letting Agent Y said to the tenant that she had to leave as she was trespassing and he had no knowledge of Agent X. The tenant could not contact Agent X. Agent Y agreed to let her stay in the flat but she had to pay a month’s rent. The tenant, who had very little money was left with little option but to stay on Agent Y’s terms. The tenant had to pay the equivalent of £1,650 rent for the first month, instead of 550 and lost her deposit in the process."
How this scam works
This is a simple scam, whereby the criminal has access to the keys for the property concerned. It is easy to get keys cut and there are lots of ways they can can get them. Previous tenants is the most obvious answer. A less obvious, but not unknown modus operandi is that many lettings agents are happy to employ sub agents on a commission only basis. They allow sub agents to advertise the property themselves, come to the office, collect the keys and show prospects around. A dodgy sub agent may have cut keys they obtained from a legitimate lettings agent.
Once you have the keys you falsify the paperwork, take the first months rent, deposit and fee (usually well over a grand these days, and in cash) and hey presto you have made an average months wages tax free. It is also conceivable that agent X defaulted on agent Y, preferring to stuff the tenants deposit up his nose, and that agent Y are unlawfully taking it out on the tenant.
The law and the consequences
If the tenant reports this to the Police they will most likely be told it is a 'civil' issue. If they report it to the council they will most likely be told to report it to the Police. Very few public authorities bother to investigate these kind of 'petty' thefts. Yet they will happily arrest and prosecute shoplifters for stealing much less. Tenants are seen as fair game in today's Britain.
In the case study, letting agent X has probably committed offences under the Theft Act 1968 (for stealing the tenants deposit that should have been kept in a custodial or 'insurance backed' scheme as per the Housing Act 2004). Newham council can prosecute Theft Act offences if it wants to. Agent X would have also most likely committed trading standards offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which councils like Newham already have ample powers to investigate.
If agent X had obtained the keys on the black market, and disappeared into the night then any investigation would most likely be a wild goose chase unless disproportionate police resources were deployed. However, if agent X was a sub agent of agent Y, and was authorised to make such contracts by agent Y, the tenants contract should stand and agent X simply owes agent Y the money.
The YPP stance
The Theft Act 1968 did not stop theft, just like the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 did not stop misuse of drugs. More town hall regulation and bureaucracy will not stop dishonest people stealing keys to bedsits and trying on this scam via the small ads. It will provide more pointless jobs for Labour's paymasters, the folk who pay public sector union subscriptions and draw an often handsome salary from the town hall coffers. It will not protect tenants, who in reality have to be careful about who they hand their cash over to.
YPP councils will champion tenants' existing rights and prioritise the investigation and prosecution of dodgy lettings agents and landlords under existing legislation. Labour will create more pointless regulation and bureaucracy for their town hall paymasters to administer, while doing nothing to catch criminals or legislate to create a better deal for tenants. Don't let Labour trick you into voting for more of the same old nonsense. It didn't work last time and it sure as Hell won't work this time.
Wednesday, 1 August 2012
Our first leaflet
It's to be printed two-sided and folded in three, so the front page is the right hand column of page 1. Right click and download etc if you'd like to print it yourself.
Nothing is ever final, so please leave any comments and suggestions in the, er, comments.
Nothing is ever final, so please leave any comments and suggestions in the, er, comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)