Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

How bad the "best joke of the fringe" is.

Needs to be publishable and short. Hence, dad-joke.

You could have just said the fringe. Or the festival.

But what annoys me is it doesn't even work as that.

There are many jokes could be made about how cheetah sounds like cheater, like "I've been going out with a really fast runner, but I broke up with him because he turned out to be a cheetah". But why would a zoo keeper turn out to be a cheetah?

pangolin

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

How bad the "best joke of the fringe" is.

Needs to be publishable and short. Hence, dad-joke.

You could have just said the fringe. Or the festival.

But what annoys me is it doesn't even work as that.

There are many jokes could be made about how cheetah sounds like cheater, like "I've been going out with a really fast runner, but I broke up with him because he turned out to be a cheetah". But why would a zoo keeper turn out to be a cheetah?

Sounds like he wasn't a keeper.

kingstongraham

pangolin said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

How bad the "best joke of the fringe" is.

Needs to be publishable and short. Hence, dad-joke.

You could have just said the fringe. Or the festival.

But what annoys me is it doesn't even work as that.

There are many jokes could be made about how cheetah sounds like cheater, like "I've been going out with a really fast runner, but I broke up with him because he turned out to be a cheetah". But why would a zoo keeper turn out to be a cheetah?

Sounds like he wasn't a keeper.

I suspected he was lion all the time.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

How bad the "best joke of the fringe" is.

Needs to be publishable and short. Hence, dad-joke.

You could have just said the fringe. Or the festival.

But what annoys me is it doesn't even work as that.

There are many jokes could be made about how cheetah sounds like cheater, like "I've been going out with a really fast runner, but I broke up with him because he turned out to be a cheetah". But why would a zoo keeper turn out to be a cheetah?

TBF, even the writer of that joke seems slightly embarrassed by the whole thing.

veronese68

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

How bad the "best joke of the fringe" is.

Needs to be publishable and short. Hence, dad-joke.

You could have just said the fringe. Or the festival.

But what annoys me is it doesn't even work as that.

There are many jokes could be made about how cheetah sounds like cheater, like "I've been going out with a really fast runner, but I broke up with him because he turned out to be a cheetah". But why would a zoo keeper turn out to be a cheetah?

Glad it's not just me that thought that.

pinno

kingstongraham said:

pangolin said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

How bad the "best joke of the fringe" is.

Needs to be publishable and short. Hence, dad-joke.

You could have just said the fringe. Or the festival.

But what annoys me is it doesn't even work as that.

There are many jokes could be made about how cheetah sounds like cheater, like "I've been going out with a really fast runner, but I broke up with him because he turned out to be a cheetah". But why would a zoo keeper turn out to be a cheetah?

Sounds like he wasn't a keeper.

I suspected he was lion all the time.

He had good clause to.

rick_chasey

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

The Liz Kershaw tweet?

Unclear why she needs to evict someone to install insulation.

monkimark

And she has until 2028 to do it (until the date inevitably gets pushed back)

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pross

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Well Shortfall gave it a like so it was obviously a dog whistle for a certain type.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Since I know a tenant currently going through a similar event, here is his theory. Once the work has been done the comfort and value goes up, so the rent will go up. It is easier (?) to evict and bring in a richer tenant than it is to deal with a current tenant who can't afford the new rent.

Jezyboy

Obviously it goes without saying that evicting people is crap.

But unless the house remains empty or is knocked down it's still taking pressure off the housing/rental market.

pblakeney

Jezyboy said:

Obviously it goes without saying that evicting people is censored .

But unless the house remains empty or is knocked down it's still taking pressure off the housing/rental market.

Not if it was a rental house in the first place but simply more expensive going forward.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

How bad the "best joke of the fringe" is.

Needs to be publishable and short. Hence, dad-joke.

You could have just said the fringe. Or the festival.

But what annoys me is it doesn't even work as that.

There are many jokes could be made about how cheetah sounds like cheater, like "I've been going out with a really fast runner, but I broke up with him because he turned out to be a cheetah". But why would a zoo keeper turn out to be a cheetah?

TBF, even the writer of that joke seems slightly embarrassed by the whole thing.

Heard her on a podcast. She says it's not even the best joke in her set.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

pinno

South of the border tenants have fewer rights than north of the border where tenants have too much power.
In Scotland, you can only raise the rent annually to a maximum of 3%. Inflation is currently standing at iro 6.5%. If you have borrowed to pay for the purchase of the rental property, this causes issues which can be further compounded by bad debt.
I know a landlord locally who's tenant was behind in rent and the SNP froze evictions (except on the most extreme cases) for some 9 months during this cost of living crisis. That tenant racked up over £8k* in unpaid rent before they were eventually evicted.
Now, rental yields in this part of the world are low.

*For example, take my nieces formerly at uni and were sharing a 3 bed narrow townhouse @£1700 pcm in Edinburgh. Here, semi-detached 3 beds are iro £550pcm, 2 bed iro £475 pcm.

I had a tenant complain officially about damp and made me out to be the worst landlord ever whilst simultaneously putting up a big spiel on Facebook. They blamed both their sons chronic asthma on the damp. Posted dozens of FB pictures showing mould etc.

I had them evicted on grounds that I needed to do extensive work.
(I can hear people crying foul play).

But the reality was somewhat very different:

1. The tenant did not report faults in a timely manner.
2. Tenant withdrew paying rent on the grounds that faults were not being fixed yet gave me less than a week to sort the issues. Most trades are 6 to 8 weeks behind locally. Getting a sparky is like trying to find rocking horse sh1t.
3. The tenants had taped over window vents.
4. The tenants had not used a dehumidifier I purchased for them.
5. They smoked in the house despite trying to tell me they didn't.
6. They were drying clothes in the bedrooms even admitting this (in error) and rarely opened the windows.
7. They did not purchase a condenser tumble dryer which was prerequisite and never used the washing line provided (I have known the elderly neighbour for some 10 years).
8. Apparently I replaced the faulty boiler with a cheap one and it took weeks and weeks to fix. It was only 6 days between the fault being reported and the installation of a new boiler costing a paltry £2840 and in this time period, I paid for alternative accommodation (they went to their respective parents houses and I paid them on a daily rate pro rata).
9. I offered them a different property whilst the faults were being sorted but they refused, They even refused to view the property!

I finally got them out under the property needing extensive work clause. I lost out on 5 months rent, I paid well over £3000 for re-decorating and internal repairs, I am paying £3800 for the house to be re-rendered, a local builder lent me an industrial dehumidifier which cost about £75 per week to run for some 5 weeks.
That's not including the time I spent doing the majority of the works.

The compromise to the render caused water ingress. The builder who gave me a second opinion on the ingress said that there was no way that the ingress happened overnight and that it had been 'going on for months' so how they never noticed, I have no idea and if they had noticed it sooner, it could have saved a lot of time and money.
The house in now occupied and the current tenant is very happy. I have contacted him and inspected the property twice since he moved in and there is zero damp.

I tried to take the partner of the previous tenant to court for defamation of character. She quickly withdrew her FB pages of shyte and offered an apology but sh1t sticks.

Months after the eviction, I was approached by a housing officer.
I had catalogued every text, every email, times, dates, response times in regards to faults and showed proof of works, pictures of works, damage to the property, evidence of carpet burns (not just from ciggies, I can tell you but it stood as evidence that they were smoking in the house), plus the taped up vents. They had no right to withdraw rent as the time frame between reporting faults and actual rectification was prompt.
The housing officer said that regardless of cause of the faults, they should have taken the alternative accommodation offered so that the extensive work could be carried out.
Nothing came of their official complaint; they had no grounds. I could have taken them to court because the internal damage to the property was without doubt, caused by them and they had no grounds to withhold rent but I was advised that it would be unlikely that I would get my money back.
(The landlord I know who was owed £8k+ is being paid back at £4 per week).

It will be at least 2 years before I start getting a return. I increased rent by a mere £25 pcm and is frozen for 2 years.
Trying to find good tenants is hard. Landlords will give glowing references for tenants if they want rid of them.

The issues under local housing authorities and private landlords (highlighted by ITV news for example), down south is scandalous. It seems as though tenants in England have far less rights and in Scotland; far too many.
Demand for housing is so high down south that the market attracts rogues (letting agencies are w@nkers) and there is a lack of legislative balance.

Nobody is going to flag up good landlords because it's not newsworthy.

rjsterry

pinno said:

South of the border tenants have fewer rights than north of the border where tenants have too much power.
In Scotland, you can only raise the rent annually to a maximum of 3%. Inflation is currently standing at iro 6.5%. If you have borrowed to pay for the purchase of the rental property, this causes issues which can be further compounded by bad debt.
I know a landlord locally who's tenant was behind in rent and the SNP froze evictions (except on the most extreme cases) for some 9 months during this cost of living crisis. That tenant racked up over £8k* in unpaid rent before they were eventually evicted.
Now, rental yields in this part of the world are low.

*For example, take my nieces formerly at uni and were sharing a 3 bed narrow townhouse @£1700 pcm in Edinburgh. Here, semi-detached 3 beds are iro £550pcm, 2 bed iro £475 pcm.

I had a tenant complain officially about damp and made me out to be the worst landlord ever whilst simultaneously putting up a big spiel on Facebook. They blamed both their sons chronic asthma on the damp. Posted dozens of FB pictures showing mould etc.

I had them evicted on grounds that I needed to do extensive work.
(I can hear people crying foul play).

But the reality was somewhat very different:

1. The tenant did not report faults in a timely manner.
2. Tenant withdrew paying rent on the grounds that faults were not being fixed yet gave me less than a week to sort the issues. Most trades are 6 to 8 weeks behind locally. Getting a sparky is like trying to find rocking horse censored .
3. The tenants had taped over window vents.
4. The tenants had not used a dehumidifier I purchased for them.
5. They smoked in the house despite trying to tell me they didn't.
6. They were drying clothes in the bedrooms even admitting this (in error) and rarely opened the windows.
7. They did not purchase a condenser tumble dryer which was prerequisite and never used the washing line provided (I have known the elderly neighbour for some 10 years).
8. Apparently I replaced the faulty boiler with a cheap one and it took weeks and weeks to fix. It was only 6 days between the fault being reported and the installation of a new boiler costing a paltry £2840 and in this time period, I paid for alternative accommodation (they went to their respective parents houses and I paid them on a daily rate pro rata).
9. I offered them a different property whilst the faults were being sorted but they refused, They even refused to view the property!

I finally got them out under the property needing extensive work clause. I lost out on 5 months rent, I paid well over £3000 for re-decorating and internal repairs, I am paying £3800 for the house to be re-rendered, a local builder lent me an industrial dehumidifier which cost about £75 per week to run for some 5 weeks.
That's not including the time I spent doing the majority of the works.

The compromise to the render caused water ingress. The builder who gave me a second opinion on the ingress said that there was no way that the ingress happened overnight and that it had been 'going on for months' so how they never noticed, I have no idea and if they had noticed it sooner, it could have saved a lot of time and money.
The house in now occupied and the current tenant is very happy. I have contacted him and inspected the property twice since he moved in and there is zero damp.

I tried to take the partner of the previous tenant to court for defamation of character. She quickly withdrew her FB pages of shyte and offered an apology but censored sticks.

Months after the eviction, I was approached by a housing officer.
I had catalogued every text, every email, times, dates, response times in regards to faults and showed proof of works, pictures of works, damage to the property, evidence of carpet burns (not just from ciggies, I can tell you but it stood as evidence that they were smoking in the house), plus the taped up vents. They had no right to withdraw rent as the time frame between reporting faults and actual rectification was prompt.
The housing officer said that regardless of cause of the faults, they should have taken the alternative accommodation offered so that the extensive work could be carried out.
Nothing came of their official complaint; they had no grounds. I could have taken them to court because the internal damage to the property was without doubt, caused by them and they had no grounds to withhold rent but I was advised that it would be unlikely that I would get my money back.
(The landlord I know who was owed £8k+ is being paid back at £4 per week).

It will be at least 2 years before I start getting a return. I increased rent by a mere £25 pcm and is frozen for 2 years.
Trying to find good tenants is hard. Landlords will give glowing references for tenants if they want rid of them.

The issues under local housing authorities and private landlords (highlighted by ITV news for example), down south is scandalous. It seems as though tenants in England have far less rights and in Scotland; far too many.
Demand for housing is so high down south that the market attracts rogues (letting agencies are w@nkers) and there is a lack of legislative balance.

Nobody is going to flag up good landlords because it's not newsworthy.

There's your problem. Had a similar conversation with a new client. Among other things they want to solve a mould problem in their loft shower room. Turns out they have no extractor fan and no openable windows in the shower room.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

It's no different to the factory owner complaining he won't be able to run the factory now he can't employ children under 10.

rick_chasey

pinno said:

South of the border tenants have fewer rights than north of the border where tenants have too much power.
In Scotland, you can only raise the rent annually to a maximum of 3%. Inflation is currently standing at iro 6.5%. If you have borrowed to pay for the purchase of the rental property, this causes issues which can be further compounded by bad debt.
I know a landlord locally who's tenant was behind in rent and the SNP froze evictions (except on the most extreme cases) for some 9 months during this cost of living crisis. That tenant racked up over £8k* in unpaid rent before they were eventually evicted.
Now, rental yields in this part of the world are low.

*For example, take my nieces formerly at uni and were sharing a 3 bed narrow townhouse @£1700 pcm in Edinburgh. Here, semi-detached 3 beds are iro £550pcm, 2 bed iro £475 pcm.

I had a tenant complain officially about damp and made me out to be the worst landlord ever whilst simultaneously putting up a big spiel on Facebook. They blamed both their sons chronic asthma on the damp. Posted dozens of FB pictures showing mould etc.

I had them evicted on grounds that I needed to do extensive work.
(I can hear people crying foul play).

But the reality was somewhat very different:

1. The tenant did not report faults in a timely manner.
2. Tenant withdrew paying rent on the grounds that faults were not being fixed yet gave me less than a week to sort the issues. Most trades are 6 to 8 weeks behind locally. Getting a sparky is like trying to find rocking horse censored .
3. The tenants had taped over window vents.
4. The tenants had not used a dehumidifier I purchased for them.
5. They smoked in the house despite trying to tell me they didn't.
6. They were drying clothes in the bedrooms even admitting this (in error) and rarely opened the windows.
7. They did not purchase a condenser tumble dryer which was prerequisite and never used the washing line provided (I have known the elderly neighbour for some 10 years).
8. Apparently I replaced the faulty boiler with a cheap one and it took weeks and weeks to fix. It was only 6 days between the fault being reported and the installation of a new boiler costing a paltry £2840 and in this time period, I paid for alternative accommodation (they went to their respective parents houses and I paid them on a daily rate pro rata).
9. I offered them a different property whilst the faults were being sorted but they refused, They even refused to view the property!

I finally got them out under the property needing extensive work clause. I lost out on 5 months rent, I paid well over £3000 for re-decorating and internal repairs, I am paying £3800 for the house to be re-rendered, a local builder lent me an industrial dehumidifier which cost about £75 per week to run for some 5 weeks.
That's not including the time I spent doing the majority of the works.

The compromise to the render caused water ingress. The builder who gave me a second opinion on the ingress said that there was no way that the ingress happened overnight and that it had been 'going on for months' so how they never noticed, I have no idea and if they had noticed it sooner, it could have saved a lot of time and money.
The house in now occupied and the current tenant is very happy. I have contacted him and inspected the property twice since he moved in and there is zero damp.

I tried to take the partner of the previous tenant to court for defamation of character. She quickly withdrew her FB pages of shyte and offered an apology but censored sticks.

Months after the eviction, I was approached by a housing officer.
I had catalogued every text, every email, times, dates, response times in regards to faults and showed proof of works, pictures of works, damage to the property, evidence of carpet burns (not just from ciggies, I can tell you but it stood as evidence that they were smoking in the house), plus the taped up vents. They had no right to withdraw rent as the time frame between reporting faults and actual rectification was prompt.
The housing officer said that regardless of cause of the faults, they should have taken the alternative accommodation offered so that the extensive work could be carried out.
Nothing came of their official complaint; they had no grounds. I could have taken them to court because the internal damage to the property was without doubt, caused by them and they had no grounds to withhold rent but I was advised that it would be unlikely that I would get my money back.
(The landlord I know who was owed £8k+ is being paid back at £4 per week).

It will be at least 2 years before I start getting a return. I increased rent by a mere £25 pcm and is frozen for 2 years.
Trying to find good tenants is hard. Landlords will give glowing references for tenants if they want rid of them.

The issues under local housing authorities and private landlords (highlighted by ITV news for example), down south is scandalous. It seems as though tenants in England have far less rights and in Scotland; far too many.
Demand for housing is so high down south that the market attracts rogues (letting agencies are w@nkers) and there is a lack of legislative balance.

Nobody is going to flag up good landlords because it's not newsworthy.

Can't this post be summarised that rent controls don't work in the long run?

rick_chasey

Re rent controls, they're only really good if you want to avoid people being forced out by gentrification.

If you want to lower rents, that's not the way to do it in the long run.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

How many of these properties are inheritances? And how does that explain the trend of landlords selling up currently?

Rick seems to see these as a type of capitalism that he doesn't approve of. Which is a bit leftie really.

pinno

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

Stuff...

There's your problem. Had a similar conversation with a new client. Among other things they want to solve a mould problem in their loft shower room. Turns out they have no extractor fan and no openable windows in the shower room.

There's a ceiling fan in the bathroom and I set a timer delay of only 3 minutes because tenants were switching it off at night due it it 'disturbing their sleep' and not switching it back on again. It comes on with the lights but can be switched off manually. The bathroom window had not been opened for so long, it was actually seized up.
When it fails (and the others), I will replace it with one that you cannot remotely switch off.
In that property, I installed a dehumidifying ceiling fan that runs constant in the upstairs hall ceiling. It's a mere 1.9 watts, cost around £150, will run at a pittance and can be set in 10% humidity intervals from 40 to 80. Probably the best money I spent on the property.
People don't realise that damp air is far harder to heat. That fan will probably save the tenant money on heating. It's amazingly quiet.
However, the tenant has common sense.

pangolin

pinno said:

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

Stuff...

There's your problem. Had a similar conversation with a new client. Among other things they want to solve a mould problem in their loft shower room. Turns out they have no extractor fan and no openable windows in the shower room.

There's a ceiling fan in the bathroom and I set a timer delay of only 3 minutes because tenants were switching it off at night due it it 'disturbing their sleep' and not switching it back on again. It comes on with the lights but can be switched off manually. The bathroom window had not been opened for so long, it was actually seized up.
When it fails (and the others), I will replace it with one that you cannot remotely switch off.
In that property, I installed a dehumidifying ceiling fan that runs constant in the upstairs hall ceiling. It's a mere 1.9 watts, cost around £150, will run at a pittance and can be set in 10% humidity intervals from 40 to 80. Probably the best money I spent on the property.
People don't realise that damp air is far harder to heat. That fan will probably save the tenant money on heating. It's amazingly quiet.
However, the tenant has common sense.

Link?

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

How many of these properties are inheritances? And how does that explain the trend of landlords selling up currently?

Rick seems to see these as a type of capitalism that he doesn't approve of. Which is a bit leftie really.

I'd argue most landlords are "rent seeking capitalists", if we put the confusing terminology aside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

How many of these properties are inheritances? And how does that explain the trend of landlords selling up currently?

Rick seems to see these as a type of capitalism that he doesn't approve of. Which is a bit leftie really.

If chancers who watch too much Homes Under The Hammer stop buying ‘investment properties’ in the mistaken belief it is money for old rope then maybe there will be more affordable housing available for people to buy to live in. Ultimately there is the same amount of housing in the country for people to live in so it’s just how that is split between whether it is owned or rented. Responsible landlords understand the market and the risks.

JimD666

pangolin said:

pinno said:

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

Stuff...

There's your problem. Had a similar conversation with a new client. Among other things they want to solve a mould problem in their loft shower room. Turns out they have no extractor fan and no openable windows in the shower room.

There's a ceiling fan in the bathroom and I set a timer delay of only 3 minutes because tenants were switching it off at night due it it 'disturbing their sleep' and not switching it back on again. It comes on with the lights but can be switched off manually. The bathroom window had not been opened for so long, it was actually seized up.
When it fails (and the others), I will replace it with one that you cannot remotely switch off.
In that property, I installed a dehumidifying ceiling fan that runs constant in the upstairs hall ceiling. It's a mere 1.9 watts, cost around £150, will run at a pittance and can be set in 10% humidity intervals from 40 to 80. Probably the best money I spent on the property.
People don't realise that damp air is far harder to heat. That fan will probably save the tenant money on heating. It's amazingly quiet.
However, the tenant has common sense.

Link?

I was assuming one with a humidistat fitted, as opposed to a actual dehumidifier. Really hoping for Pinno to prove me wrong though...

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Re rent controls, they're only really good if you want to avoid people being forced out by gentrification.

If you want to lower rents, that's not the way to do it in the long run.

Correct. The widely held view in Scotland is that the SNP were trying to be populist and help out renters, whereas what it's actually done is restrict the supply and drive up rents, because the btl market has collapsed.

Well, you may say, the people leaving the buy to let market have freed up homes for buyers, allowing more people to own houses. We'll yes, but that's only benefitting a small proportion of renters who would be able to buy anyway.