Tag Archives: Current News

14Nov 2012

Prescribed Information confirmed as having Greater Importance

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Mike Edwards

In July 2011 the Court of Appeal ruled in the case of Suurpere v Nice and Nice that inadequate Prescribed Information as required under the Tenancy Deposit Regulations as set out in the Housing Act 2004 and above all in the Housing (Tenancy Deposits)(Prescribed Information) Order 2007 had been issued to the tenant.

In this latest case the Court of Appeal on 6th November 2012 has reached a similar decision and overturned an earlier and incorrect lower court decision. The full details of this decision are awaited but the simple facts are that the tenant had paid a deposit and the Landlord had protected it in one of the approved schemes but he had not given the prescribed information (PI) as required by the Prescribed Information Order 2007. In the Suurpere case there was an agent involved who paid the fine but in this case there was no agent.

The tenant had significant arrears so the Landlord issued proceedings and as is so often the case and where the big danger lies for landlords the tenant counter-claimed that the requirements of the Prescribed Information Order had not been complied with. At the initial hearing the Landlord admitted this ‘offence’ but in defence claimed it didn’t matter as the tenant could easily find the information for themselves. This was exactly the decision in Suurpere – that the tenant should be given the information not have to go searching for it as and when they needed it.

This opinion was strongly emphasised in Suurpere which makes it all the more astonishing that the lower court Judge was persuaded by this argument. That in effect it is the protection of the deposit that matters in TDP cases and that the issuing of the PI is no more than an administrative procedural necessity. So the Landlord claimed the deposit had been protected (which it had) and that the tenant could have gone to the scheme administrator for anything else he wanted to know. The lower Court dismissed the tenant’s claim stating information in the tenancy agreement (scheme details) plus other information the Landlord provided during the Court hearing was enough to comply with the requirements of the Order.

Not surprisingly given such an obvious error at law the tenant appealed and equally unsurprisingly the more learned Court of Appeal disagreed completely with the Landlord and original Judge. It held quite clearly that the giving of the PI amounts to more than just a minor procedural obligation and that the information has  real importance in advising tenants how to get their deposit back and also how they could go to a dispute at no cost to themselves and without the need for litigation on their part.

In effect the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court in Suurpere v Nice (see Nearly Legal report here). The lower Court had not reached a proper judicial evaluation. The Landlord clearly was in breach of the Prescribed Information Order and so the penalties in section 214 The Housing Act 2004 applied. Therefore the Landlord was ordered to return the deposit plus, because the original offence had occurred before The Localism Act 2011 provisions came into effect in April 2012 the mandatory penalty of three times the deposit applied

So the tenant won and his appeal was allowed. Significantly the Court of Appeal has now agreed with the High Court decision in Suurpere that the Prescribed Information a Landlord must serve on the tenant is not some administrative afterthought which simply acts as an accompaniment to deposit protection. It is instead a vital component and one of two parts in the deposit protection process both of which must be fully and correctly completed by the Landlord to discharge his obligations in respect of deposit protection.

Simply to protect the deposit, laudable though that is compared to not protecting it, is insufficient to discharge the obligations. But more importantly this latest binding decision from a Court of Record confirms as was held in Suurpere that Landlords must supply that information themselves and not leave tenants to go searching for it themselves. As in Suurpere simply providing the DPS website address is not enough – the Scheme Terms and Conditions must be printed and attached to the Prescribed Information notice being served.

For the other two schemes there is a leaflet which under their rules it is obligatory to issue. Post Localism Act 2011 if not doing so before landlords and agents should definitely obtain a signed copy of a suitably endorsed PI form as proof that the tenant has indeed received all the information.

All this means that if there was any shred of doubt post Suurpere there is now none whatsoever that the need to comply with the Prescribed Information Order is just as important as the need to place the deposit in the DPS Custodial scheme or insure it through The Dispute Service or my|deposits schemes. The two decisions mean tenants can easily defend a landlord’s section 21 action if they can show the deposit has not been protected OR that the Prescribed Information now have clear means of defending possession actions based on s21 Housing Act 1988 actions or in rent arrears cases. If either has not been completely and correctly completed by the Landlord and if he is unable to prove that if challenged then any s21 notice he has served will fail and in any section 8 action the tenant can counterclaim.

Informed opinion was that this appeal would always fail and that the Lower Court was clearly in error by in effect saying the PI didn’t really matter and if the tenant wanted more information he knew where to find it. But the Landlord was foolish to appeal as the July 2011 Appeal Court decision in Suurpere virtually guaranteed this appeal by the tenant would succeed. So now the Landlord hands over the deposit, plus a x3 penalty and presumably has significant costs.

While agents and Landlords may be irritated by this decision it is the only correct one that could be arrived at, as in Suurpere. Given the detail in the Statute and above all the Prescribed Information Order (2007) it is clear that no matter what Landlords may believe the Prescribed Information always had great significance given the detailed way the information that must be served on the tenant is laid out in the PI Order.

08Nov 2012

Current Property News: Tenant must be advised correctly or Landlords will pay.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

A Court of Appeal decision has confirmed that Landlords not only need to register Tenants deposit under the Tenants Deposit Protection legislation, but that they must provide Tenants with the Prescribed Information in connection with the scheme the money is protected with, or the courts now have a clear case confirming exactly what will happen should they fail.

Old News

Back in February this year, I confirmed the changes introduced by the Localism Act 2011 which was introduced in April this year. The changes surround not only when protection needed to be registered by, but also what was delivered to the Tenant in how we register deposits.

PI

The Prescribed Information is what was under review in this case, after a Landlord had failed to supply the data to the Tenant even though the deposit was protected. In fact in the original court decision, he thought the courts agreed with his stance, that the purpose of the legislation was to protect the money and that had been achieved. The Tenant on appeal, has won on the basis that protection MUST be accompanied by the information surrounding the Tenants rights and how to act to protect his money.

Fine.

The penalty is both full refund of the initial deposit and a fine to the value of three times this same amount. This is of course significant and places before anybody who felt otherwise, that the need to protect deposits is only half of the intended actions required under the act. But it is not just when the deposit is initially received that action needs to be taken.

End of fixed term.

Under the Localism Act, it also became clear that in clarifying how the legislation should work, new documents need to be given with every new Tenancy. This means, when a Tenancy ends its initial fixed term, new information needs to be given. The fine for failing to do so, is as was awarded in this case, three times the deposit.

Solution.

There is only one! Do things the right way to start with, understand the requirements and put in place a system that ensures all Tenants receive the data at the start of the Tenancy, as well as with any new agreement signed. This alone should be easy, if a Tenant is signing an agreement, hand out the scheme rules surrounding the deposit. If you then add a system that does the same when an agreement becomes periodic (Treated as a new agreement in the Localism Act) and ensures Tenants get the updated information at this time, you will be covered. But always, if in doubt? Ask!

02Nov 2012

Current Property News: Free Carbon Monoxide Detectors!

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Two items of news from the last week have caught our attention at Castle Estates in Stafford and that is news surrounding Carbon Monoxide Detectors. The first was the change is the Landlords Gas Safety Certificate to include inspection of flues running through voids and now it has been made compulsory in Northern Ireland for all new homes.

Swift progress.

Both of these moves are positive forces in the battle against this silent killer and whilst the change to include hidden flues within the Gas Safety Inspection is going to cause many problems before the end of the first year whilst the changes take effect (Many, in blocks of flats, will require access through areas which do not belong to the premises in question) the change in Northern Ireland is a move to have them as standard practise in all properties whether rented or owner occupied.

Balance in favour of rented property.

For many years as a Letting Agent I have known just how Tenants are better protected than owner occupiers, who would normally never dream of having a Gas Safety Inspection. Because I did think it a good idea, I found a Gas fire in a house I purchased was not vented at all when fitted, indeed the chimney breast was open and allowed fumes to pass directly in to the main bedroom through fitted drawers. I could have gone to bed and never woken up if we had not found the problem.

Good progress.

But the other point about Carbon Monoxide Detectors is that they are such a good idea! Because of this, as an Agent who likes to ensure we do things the right way, we are going to issue a free Carbon Monoxide detector for every new Landlord and change of Tenant.

Correct usage.

Of course one important matter is to ensure they are fitted and used. We have decided to provide one that is portable and allows the Tenant to have it in the lounge when the fire is on and then taken to the bedroom when they turn in for the night. This way we will be able to ensure that they are working from day one. The only maintenance being the replacement of the battery!

Law of the Land.

What must be remembered is the change in law came about because of a death and any move to reduce the risk has to be a good one. This is why we and our Plumbers believe it will not be long before it becomes Law for all properties. By providing them free of charge, we will remain ahead of the game and ensure this is one more area where are doing the best possible for our Landlords.

12Oct 2012

Current Property news: Increased Student fees biting deep for Student Landlords.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

I guess everybody wondered what the effect of the new style Student fees would have and reports have abounded supporting both sides of the fence. What cannot be denied are hard facts and in Stafford there is no doubt that Students have looked differently for their accommodation needs and because of the reduction in numbers, several Landlords have found themselves with no takers for their Student accommodation.

Change of use.

Of course at this time of year it is clear if nobody has come forward yet, then they are hardly likely too for the academic year that has just started and I have had three difficult conversations with Landlords about what options they have in their properties at present. Of course change to family let has been the recommendation on each occasion, but strangely this problem has not occurred in what we have found this year.

No vacancies!

We manage a large purpose built block in Stafford with 68 rooms spread between 14 flats. Our numbers are slightly down on last year, but have held up far better when compared to what seems to be happening in the traditional Houses of Multiple Occupation. Why? Well the cost is less and a Warden is present as well as private room and en-suite facilities. Add its location next door to the main Stafford College and perhaps we have the answers. But because our occupation is still high this is why I suggest they have looked at the market differently.

Market forces.

No doubt there has been a reduction in numbers, because most Student Landlords would manage the property themselves, so if we have seen three empty houses, the Town probably has two dozen! This would represent a marked drop in the overall Student accommodation requirement. But I am also convinced that quality is starting to play a hand as well and it is Market Forces that is driving demand as students search harder for value for money.

Still need for change.

Of course, none of this assists the Landlords of houses that are still empty now, especially if they are looking to move back to Students next year! Some requirements for the general market just do not sit with a more traditional ‘Family’ let. (Not to mention furniture which is hardly ever the best and rarely matching?) Locks on bedroom doors, fire blankets, Card Meters! All of these are better removed and of course rarely can that be done without affecting appearances. But worst of all, that dreaded style of decoration, woodchip wallpaper!

Back to market forces.

I was present in a property yesterday which was very well presented, but had to be honest with Landlords who were already going to see quite a drop in monthly income, from three students to a Family in a 1st floor flat, my advice had to be based on the property they were competing with! Small properties with three types of carpet that can all be seen from most of the rooms will not be well received when judged against the common fashion of using the same carpet throughout. It is comparing against other property that has to be the benchmark.

Conclusion.

The bottom line is in most cases lots of improvements need to be made and cost is always going to be an issue, but to then change back again is going to be a double whammy as for example, hardly anybody has storage room for furniture and would therefore have to buy new. Ironically it could be that very change that might attract Students in a market being driven by services and quality as I believe it now is. Either way, tired or poor accommodation will continue to struggle and the next two years could be a very hard challenge as more Students drop off after three years and the intake continues to fall!

27Sep 2012

Property Landlord advice: High Tenant fees coming home to roost?

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

There is an article in this week’s Property Drum on page 8 that has caught my eye as one of the chain of Letting Agents who have had to address issues in Scotland have commented upon the Shelter campaign surrounding the removal of Tenant fees. I would have to say I agree with  some of what they say, but I disagree with the main thrust of their argument.

Explaining the group.

First, to place some context behind what I wish to say about the subject, I need to explain where the difference lays between Martin & Co offices and Castle Estates offices, because we both have a Franchising background, but now Castle Estates is an independent group who share the same name, but operate entirely independently of each other and have no central controlling Head Office. Martin & Co remain a Franchising organisation where centre influence and dictate the policy of the group.

Comments are my own.

 Therefore I am commenting as an Independent Castle Estates in Staffordshire and not as the Head of an organisation in the same light as Sue Hopson, head of standards at Martin & Co is doing. As far as Castle Estates offices are concerned, if they operate in a manner I disagree with, then they are also the target of my comments.

Agreement.

Firstly I must say that the whole idea of dropping Tenant fees altogether as is the case in Scotland does not just move costs from the Tenant to the Landlord, for just as sure as Landlords will have to pay for the costs generated, these costs will be offset by increases in rent. Then, as has always been the case, market forces will drive rent levels to their correct rate. But they will start from and therefore remain at a higher level.

Major factor missed.

What the comments miss are the manner in which many Agents and I am not referring to anybody specifically when I say this, reduce Landlord fees and raise Tenant fees so they can market themselves as a cheap Agent in to Landlords in the first place! This is a short sighted policy and will surely attract the attention of such groups as Shelter and the CAB who have been looking at Tenants fees for well over ten years.

Bad practise.

In a market where the number of offices offering Letting services has probably doubled in the last three years as Estate Agents flooded to the Lettings Industry for financial reasons, the opportunity to advertise services to Landlords at low prices at the expense of the Tenants has seemed to much of an opportunity to miss for some. But the short sightedness of such an approach should Tenant fees be scrapped in England will need to be explained to Landlords and of course all of us will have to do this, not just those who overcharge.

Long term practise.

It is also a fact that high Tenant fees are nothing new and I have no problem in pointing the finger at Estate Agents who historically have been the main protagonists of this practise. Do I have Tenant fees? Yes, but they have hardly changed in over twelve years and I am happy to justify them, as I have done before now, to any Tenant coming through our system.

Inevitable?

Unless our Industry receives the backing of the Government in driving through legislation to ensure professional standards are upheld by all Letting Agencies, or they can no longer operate, then I believe the day will come when Tenant charges are dropped altogether justified or not, because those with this objective will always be able to point at practises that take advantage of Tenants where fees are concerned. But equally, as I have pointed out that from my own perspective I speak for my own office only, anybody else speaking on the subject should not ignore the current practise of high charges and should be able to ensure that offices under their control can justify what they charge Tenants as well!

26Sep 2012

Current Property News: Errant Landlord caught out.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

I have stated before that one of the major problems with legislation that is policed by Councils is the amount of effort placed upon seeking out Landlords and Agents that ignore the law. This applies to Houses of Multiple Occupation, Fit and proper accommodation, Tenant deposits and in the case to hand today, Gas Safety certificates.

Local Council request.

In this instance a Landlord who was asked to provide copies of Gas Safety certificates for two properties in Staffordshire by her local Council and having failed to do so was referred to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). It is they that then pursued the matter, but it is good to see a Council taking a pro-active stance in ensuring property is properly maintained.

Legal requirement.

Just to confirm, for those without Gas in a property, the Gas Safety certificate is needed each year to ensure the equipment is working correctly and is safe to use (carbon monoxide gases)

No excuse!

The end result was a fine of £4709 including costs for a £65 job! There can be no excuse for not complying, especially as this Landlord ignored the requests for many months. This also included being given time to produce a certificate by the HSE within a month of notices issued.

Landlord needed convincing.

It does however strike me that by having gone through a procedure with the Local Council and then being given time by the HSE to comply, perhaps the problem lay not in what should have been done, but that the Landlord just did not believe prosecution would actually take place! It looks as though the whole affair took well over a year before any prosecution actually took place!

Contradiction in effect.

This is where action needs to be seen to take place quicker, because if the Law requires a Certificate to be renewed every year, then in a scenario where a certificate does not exist in the first place, to take a year to bring a case to court (assuming that one does now exist?) then the appliances concerned could have been unsafe for anything up to two years!

Does not add up!

Now forgive me for playing the cynic and far be it from me to suggest the Law is not correct, I would not dream of risking not having a property covered for a week, never mind a year, but to take a whole year to bring the case to conclusion for a Law that requires annual checks somewhat makes a mockery of the legislation that demands the check in the first place. Surely by delaying instant action, you are ignoring the supposed risk the Tenants are suffering?

 

18Sep 2012

Current Property News: What Landlords want to know?

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

As part of our good practises when reviewing our methods of operation, between us we always discuss what Landlords ask about and speak about when we visits them to give a valuation and review of their property. It is important for us to be aware of any new trends and old ones and surprisingly, one trend that does not change is that Landlords are still discussing and talking about ‘Nightmare Tenant’ stories and what is done to stop them occurring.

Changed Market.

The market has changed considerably and I am sure will keep evolving over the next ten years. Certainly technology and mobile phones have meant we have to make information available quickly and accessible. Standard of housing has improved as competition for Tenants continues to grow and more and more properties enter the market. Yet the one thing that will not go away is the stories of Tenants trashing houses and the fear that brings with it.

Not common.

Yet certainly as far as I can comment on the houses we have been involved with, this is something that rarely happens now and I cannot remember the last time we had a property that was badly damaged by the Tenants.  We, like all Agents, get Tenants that do not care for property in the way that both our Landlords and we would prefer, but this is always a case of standards rather than actual physical damage done.

Strange beliefs.

There are also plenty of situations where what should be done and what the Tenants actually believe needs to be done differ, such as the Tenant who stated they did not need to clean one bedroom, because they had never used it during the Tenancy. Or the person who broke a window when mowing the lawn and said the Landlord had to be responsible because the lawn from where the stone came was the Landlords and not hers!

Manage to avoid.

The answer for me is to catch problems early and make sure the Tenant knows both their responsibility and our role as Agents in what you are trying to achieve together. In short, good Management will ensure damage limitation. But what this does prove is that some cases must still happen and that bad stories are the ones most Landlords hear first, or perhaps take note of!

Practical experience.

In the middle of writing this Blog, I have visited a new Landlord at their property, student accommodation it may have been, but she described the manner in which the last Agents had allowed the students to live last year. Not a property wrecked, as I have stated, more a question of standards. But it does rather prove my point. Whether self Managing or appointing an Agent, make sure that visits take place and that problems are resolved head on and not left to fester. Perhaps then we may allay Landlords fears by reducing further tales of the ‘Horror Tenants’

06Sep 2012

Current property news; Squatting finally made illegal.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

It is possibly one of the most depressing and sickening things that can happen to a property owner, to find that squatters have broken in to your property and that the law does not support this effective breaking and entering in any way and the responsibility to deal with the intrusion is thrown squarely on the shoulders of the rightful owner. These words, whilst repeated as I remember them, were used during a presentation to the Lettings Industry during a speech on the use of empty housing some ten years ago.

At last!

Now, after so many years the Government has reacted and made it an illegal offense to squat in premises without a legal right or reason to be present. What should have happened then is the unfortunate property owners who were suffering at present be given their voice and an outcry of at last should have been heard. What was heard was a cry of ‘unfair’ as housing groups and charities warned of rising homelessness.

Responsibility.

Now I must make myself clear here, I am not uncaring of the position people are in that sees them squat in the first place or the problems they now face if removed from property. My problem is that the house owner should have always been in the position of being able to rely upon the assistance of the law and it is unfair to somehow shift the responsibility back on the shoulders of the owners. This is clearly a failing of the social system in providing housing for all in the first place. This is said with full knowledge that there are some who will always remain outside of the system and be non-conformist!

Ignoring the Law.

I have always found it somewhat ironic that the Houses of Multiple Occupation laws were introduced to tackle safety in high rise City Centre properties and for ignoring them Landlords could be banned from owning property. Squatters, by the very nature of what they do, cause far more danger and would never consider such legislation in how they live, yet they are protected because their activity has always fallen under civil offense legislation and not an illegal act. To make it so at last corrects this ridiculous state of affairs.

Financial requirement.

What is so often forgotten is the financial requirement that the owner needs to fulfil and the difficulties they find themselves left in when a property is a target for squatters. In my small way, I feel I need to make a stand for the owners, and no matter how many stories there are of squatters who have maintained a property well, there are just as many of properties left in an appalling condition.

Enforcement.

Now we must hope that this blight (although mainly a City centre problem) is dealt with in short order. It is a fairly simple statement for me to make, because no matter what your feelings, we should live by the letter of the law and I believe ownership rights should be amongst those at the top of the list of laws to abide by. My hope is that the charities and groups working with those made homeless by this change of law do not fund any legal challenge through the courts. Owners, who are not all £multimillion Companies who can afford losses, deserve the law to be enforced in full.

31Aug 2012

Current property News: Montague report offers the Key for growth? Part 2

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

In looking at the second part of the Review of the Barriers to Institutional Investment in private Rented Homes, I have read and will comment on the sections headlined; The Barriers and Conclusion and The Recommendations.

 The Barriers.

 Most of these sections concentrate on the land and planning permission needs, but do refer to some rather confusing detail. Such as that Management costs are as high as 30% for Residential property. Now I know that National Companies specialise in offering services for Companies with large property portfolios, but when you consider the normal cost for Management on a local level would average at 10%, I find it difficult to see how this rises to 30% when managing from afar.

 Total Costs.

 I may of course be wrong, but it rather looks as though it is the cost of maintaining the property that has been added to the running costs, however, as the report confirms that it is normally Capitol growth that is considered to be the income from residential and not the rental income, whereas with Commercial investment it is the opposite way round. Surely then, if Commercial values drop over time, the cost of maintenance should be offset against Capitol growth and it is both that should be considered, as they are real income, when comparing residential to Commercial? Is this where encouraging Tax breaks can be made?

 Local market.

 Otherwise, once again, local Management will answer the cost issue, rather than distance Management having to find a local Agent to carry out the role of providing a Tenant, let the Local agent be the sole property Manager. Costs halved? – probably!

Lack of Experience.

The report then states that there is a lack of experience in knowing how any scheme would operate. But this does not exist in the market place; rather this confirms that in compiling the report, the Property Management Industry has not been approached. A fact confirmed by the later statement in Recommendation Five: that the market would benefit from; the professionalism of the management service. Had the Industry been spoken with (also confirmed in the Terms of Reference) then Sir Adrian Montague would have been aware that one already exists.

Right Model.

I also believe that the right model already exists as well. There are numerous professional Letting agents, who also operate as Property Managers as well, looking after leasehold sites (Block Management) throughout the UK. Providing that any incentives in profitability and land availability are made available Nationwide and providing there exists Agents with the ability to run both, then costs can be controlled, the whole Industry will benefit and progress can be made throughout the UK.

Professional Management.

But I believe that this is another opportunity for the Government to change their attitudes towards the rental sector, which is growing at the same speed home ownership for individuals is declining giving a thriving rental sector the opportunity to be part of the growth if not the very reason for it, that this country desperately needs. Tied with ensuring the Industry moves forward in a professional self managed, or Government managed (although I believe this is where the lack of motivation currently exists) manner, ensuring the scheme meets all the requirements listed in this report and that the properties concerned will continue to give the profitable long term return institutional investors require.

29Aug 2012

Current property News: Montague report offers the Key for growth?

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

The Montague report which reviews the manner in which the Private Rented Section is viewed by the Institutional Investment market has been released and is available for download from the Department for Communities and Local Government. The basic idea of the report was to look at why Investors do not look upon the Private Rental sector in the same way that they do Commercial property investment.

 The report is a weighty 28 pages of Summary and evaluation, but holds many good ideas and could just see the way forward for our sector as we struggle to meet the demands of a modern mobile work force. It is in three sections and is going to take at least two posts to comment upon, in this first post, I have selected highlights from the Background and Evidence sections in this post. I will follow this up by looking at the Barriers, Conclusions and Recommendations.

 Growth.

 I am a total advocate for the building industry (Housing) being the vehicle for leading the way out of recession. This is why I am always looking at new build and activity and look to the property sales figures of a guidance for where financially we currently sit. It is therefore nice to see clear figures quoted to support my theory. For every £1m spent, 12 jobs are created or supported and for every £1 invested in construction, £2.60 is generated elsewhere in the supply chain. The supporting sources are listed in the report.

 Local or distant Management.

 It struck me quickly when looking at the Evidence that a market exists, that there was a need to build in assured maintenance. I agree whole heartedly, that any long term scheme should include an organised plan for both maintaining of and maintenance on the property concerned. My immediate thought was to ensure the properties are managed locally and not by some distant organisation, to ensure both a distribution of the Management structure and workload through local contractors rather than the majority of the expenditure remaining in London.

 Across the Country.

 To do this, as the report recognises, there needs to be many differing schemes, which, in order to maximise the effect across the Country, as highlighted above, needs to be spread across the country and not concentrating again in the area that generates ever increasing rent levels; London. It is important in arriving at any conclusion that promotes and encourages Investor growth in Private rented property, that the whole Country sees the benefits.

 Wardens.

 Unsurprisingly, the wish to see Wardens or a Management presence in specific developments is a nice idea, but one that is only reflected for affordability, through the size of the initial development. As an Agent who Manages whole sites on behalf of one owner, exactly the type of site referred to in the report or that would be developed as a result of Investors becoming involved, there is a recognisable limit to the size of what are acceptable sizes of development so as not to have to large an impact on the local market, both by type of property available and by long term effect on local suburbs. In short, there are places that high rise buildings fit in and areas where they do not! Wardens suit large buildings but would cost too much for more localised schemes offering between 20 and 40 units.

 Long Term Agreements.

 I think it is a good idea to generate an agreement that sits well for longer than the current popular Assured Short Term agreement, but by the same token, I see no need to do this by changing the AST. As case of ‘It ain’t broke, don’t fix it!’ But a document built around the normal lease as exists for purchasing leasehold property would be ideal. This could still give the Tenant of this shorter term lease the protection afforded to the leaseholder, whilst reflecting the short term usage and the interests of the Freeholder as well.

 Block Management.

 It is suggested that Management of such buildings would tie in nicely with the current Block Management style and again as this is one of the services we offer I can comment and could not agree more. This would be ideal providing that local Companies were sought for provision of services, instead of the properties being managed from afar. Why do I feel this is important? Because we have grown our business on the dissatisfaction of leaseholders whose representative never visit sites or more importantly, cannot be visited because their offices are in London, Birmingham or Manchester.

 There are some great ideas in this report and I look forward to commenting on the conclusions but if there is one point of caution it is that consideration has to be made as to the spread of housing, which is needed throughout the Country as well as provision of service, which, to avoid complaints about schemes failing to deliver and being unapproachable, need to be sourced close to the buildings concerned.

 More to follow!