Tag Archives: Current News

By Steve Roulstone

A report by the RICS in to rents paid dated July 2012 show an increase of 4.3% for the past year in rent levels across the Country. This confirms that the Industry is still healthy and demand continues to be strong. At the same time, house prices are predicted to start to rise again as the Country comes out of recession. This is probably not too much of a surprise given the drop in prices seen over the last few years, but does point to the current trends being a good time to buy property and develop portfolios as with continuing demand and climbing rents the investment, currently forecast at producing over a 5% return, should continue to rise.

Last Ten Years.

However, before there is too much clamour about greedy Landlords and long suffering Tenants some facts behind the figures should be given, for what happens year on year should, I feel, be balanced over a longer period of time, so that a more realistic figure can be arrived at. If we look at data for the last ten years the picture between Rents and House prices show quite different results.

Playing catch up.

In 2000 at a time when the rental market was less than 10% of UK housing stock, rent for an average 3 bed property in Stafford was £400.00 This is now £575.00 An average house in the UK cost £101500 and at present that price is £161777. Compare the two sets of figures and a quite different picture appears.

Renting still good value.

Because house prices rose so heavily (Ironically largely on the back of a rush for Buy to Let mortgages!) that average rent in 2000 was just under 4% of the house value. Now it is just over 3.5% The gap is still some £60.00 per month less than is currently being achieved and just shows how far behind house prices when considered as a percentage return, rental prices had fallen.

Predictions correct.

What this also confirms is that it is in line with the market levelling out for rents to continue to increase, and they are predicted to do so at 2% higher than house prices will rise. It is also of note that the period before 2000 was very stable and rents were indeed calculated against the value of the property. This obviously reflected the local market rather than national averages, but the comparison still stands up and I am more than aware that the rent locally is far behind that achievable in other Towns and Cities.                                                                                                                             

Statistics and Statistics!                                                                                                                                                        

Once again what appears on the face to be unreasonable increases can be explained when looked at over a wider period of time or against something which gives a broader context. I am also fully aware that others may be able to give a differing picture using their own parameters. So I will just go back to the more reliable method mentioned above, common when I started Castle Estates.

£400 rent against a house valued at £100000 gave £4800 per year, a return of 4.8%

£570 rent now against the same house valued at £159500 gives £6840 per year, a return of 4.2%

Therefore rents still have some way to go to seek parity with prices in 2000.

By Steve Roulstone

It would seem that a further little known section (or at least commented upon section) in the Localism Act has come to light covering the requirement of Local Councils to change the manner in which they deal with people who are becoming homeless under a standard notice to quit (Section 21) if they are unable to source alternative accommodation.

Normal circumstances.

This normally applies to Tenants with problems during a Tenancy anyway and would normally mean notice had been served because of rent arrears, hence the difficulty in finding alternative accommodation. But this is the very situation that the Council is supposed to step in and protect those unable to move and the very area where current advice can lead to an eviction order being served by the Courts.

Illegal Act.

The problem is caused by the advice currently given by Social Housing teams to stay put until such time as the eviction notice has been served. As if by doing so the courts are confirming the Notice is correct. At this stage most Council’s will provide accommodation. At first glance the change appears to make the Tenant ‘labelled as homeless’ with 21 days of the section 21 notice still to serve. Removing the need to rely upon the courts at all and ensuring the Tenant does not perform an illegal act by staying after the end of notice date and having to be evicted and all of the stress and discomfort this procedure produces.

Not so!

On taking advice and checking the legislation thoroughly, it now appears this is not the case and that this rule only applied in certain cases, where the Council placed the Tenant in the Private Rented section in the first place. But as someone who has always questioned the need to subject Tenants to such an uncomfortable and stressful course of action I cannot help but ask the question why not?

Simple.

It strikes me that a process whereby the Council can investigate and ratify a Notice three weeks before the end of the notice period, would in the long run save time and money for all concerned. Surely it is better not to place the Tenant in a position where they are in effect breaking the law and offer a solution which is based upon freedom of information and open for all parties to be present in a simple meeting. To me this is a no brainer and having spoken to our local Housing department about this very subject they do wish to involve and engage with Tenants at an earlier date, resulting they hope, in being able to provide accommodation at an earlier date.

Positive steps.

This is an action we will adopt as an agency as I only see better resolution of problems and a cheaper less stressful situation for all concerned. It is good to speak to a Housing department more concerned with solutions than problems. The only area I still felt uncomfortable about is that they still advice Tenants to stay until eviction notice is served, which I believe is tantamount to inviting them to break the law.

Keep talking.

But by ensuring Councils are aware of problem scenarios at an earlier date, hopefully this will happen less and we will do everything we can, with the knowledge that we must always have our Landlords interests first and foremost at the head of what we do. Even so, this stance can only help and hopefully sometime soon, somebody will see exactly what Tenants are being asked to be put through at a time when they are already suffering.

By Steve Roulstone

One of the most difficult jobs that we have to do as Letting Agents is to convince a Landlord that no matter how badly treated he may feel by the Tenant neither we nor he can just turn up at the property and demand recompense!  Harassment and all the actions that surround it are a serious matter and a case has recently come to my attention which highlights exactly why we give the warnings that we do.

Extreme case.

The case I am talking about surrounds a Landlords efforts to remove a Tenant because they wanted to sell the property concerned and went about it in a way that was far from normal by any standards which does mean that the efforts the Landlord went to are extreme, but the penalties  are also high and what should be considered is that the Landlord was wrong in every way, before we even get to the legal steps to avoid action, but that does not change that he was found guilty in virtually every step he took.

Notice served.

Even though the notice was served and indeed not questioned by the courts, the very fact that the Landlord applied pressure on the day the notice came to its due date is significant. The courts only have one view and that is that the law must be seen to take its view. Even if the Tenant does not leave on the due date, the courts are the only vehicle through which a Tenant can be evicted.

Landlords rights.

The law sees itself protecting both the rights of the Landlord and the Tenant, but just because a Tenant does not leave does not mean that anybody can take matters in too their own hands. This is why even calling without notice can be considered as harassment! There is one simple rule here, do nothing without notice, even a visit to discuss matters should be done by appointment.  Let the courts do their work, under no circumstances should a Landlord take any form of direct action themselves.

Extreme scenario.

Yes the detail of this case is extreme, but the consequences do show just how this can get out of hand. The damages which could amount to £30000 (along with not unsubstantial costs) are the proof of just how costly getting this wrong could be.

Private Landlord.

It is also worthy of note that the Agent concerned, having served notice, was contacted by the Tenants solicitors, but from that moment on, the action was all against the Landlord and the Agent, obviously unable to fulfil its role, arrears (correctly) to have disassociated themselves. They have no choice when matters are taken out of their hands. But if it was an Agent that was being blamed for this action no doubt ‘rogue agents’ would have appeared in the report! But as it was a Landlord taking his own actions, it would be nice to know that he was banned from being a Landlord again!

Registration.

If all Landlords were registered as was recommended in the Rugg review of 2008 then there would be no doubt and action would have been taken. But that is not the case and as far as I am aware, without a specific case resulting in a Court ban, Landlords cannot be stopped renting property again! Who knows, that may still happen, but what is sure is that there is no legislation in place at present to rely upon.

By Steve Roulstone

An Agent who went bankrupt with liabilities of over £400,000 has been found guilty by an NAEA hearing and fined £2500.00. At the same time it has been confirmed following an investigation by The Insolvency Services that he has been banned from being a Company Director for fight years.

Figures confirmed.

The report confirms a figure close to £40000 as being the amount they say Landlords and Tenants lost as a result of his failure to comply with the 2004 legislation regarding Tenants deposits in the correct manner. What appears to be missing from the research I have carried out is any conviction, as it was the Landlords who were then made liable for the subsequent fines of up to three times the deposit that followed from the failure of GDH to register them correctly.

Total?

It is obvious therefore that the total cost to Landlords and Tenants will never be known, but a conservative estimate of around £75000 would seem to be reasonable; depending upon how many Landlords were levied with the appropriate fine (Three times the original deposit)

Fair?

Now is it me? As an Agent who has constantly banged the drum for registration of Letting Agents for the last ten years, being banned from being a Director and slapped with a £2500 fine, does not seem to be fair when all of the individual cases (and there will be many to make up this kind of figure) are taken in to account? In my opinion, what would seem fairer as far as the Industry is concerned would be that he was never allowed to work as a Letting Agent ever again. This kind of punishment can only come as the result of an Industry protected under legislation and proves to me once again that the Government should be able to see that intervention is needed.

Total ban.

I say total bane, because we all know how simple it is to start again with a relative as a Director and it is only a total ban (as in lost the right to be associated) that would be fair in my opinion to all those who lost money.  It is only through Government legislation that such a rule could be enforced. Only then, would Landlords and Tenants know that they and their money was protected.

Systems exist.

And let’s not forget, that such systems to protect our customers already exist! To register with most professional bodies means monies need to be accounted for within the auditing requirements of remaining a member.  It would also be a simple step to have all deposits registered with people other than Agents own Clients account, such as DPS even though this is something I have spoken out against in the past (How would a Solicitor react to being told he could not keep clients funds?) it would be a small sacrifice as opposed to having workable legislation! And then Safe Agent, the latest initiative from professional bodies within the Industry, which already provides all the protection needed for any Landlord or Tenant!

Not far now.

I believe that it is inevitable that the Government will legislate and cases such as this show the need, all we now require is for the systems professional Agents have put in place and promoted, to be endorsed by a Government and hopefully a more suitable and long standing deterrent will be available!

By Craig Smith

If you have had a property empty for whatever reason, you may know that a property can be exempt from council tax charges for up to 6 months, provided that it is unoccupied and unfurnished. This is known as a Class C exemption.

Under the Localism Act (which has also changed the way in which tenancy deposits are dealt with recently) the Government is planning to allow local authorities to charge almost whatever they like whilst the property is empty. In theory, the council could still allow an empty property to be exempt from the charges but, on the other hand, they could charge the full amount of council during that period.

Bad News for Landlords

Lets just put one thing into perspective here. Yes, sure, the local authorities could earn a little extra cash with the budgets being tighter than ever, but have they thought how this would actually affect homeowners?

It is not always possible for tenants to move out and in on the same day and it is not usually advisable especially if any work was needed between tenancies. A Landlord could find themselves not only out of pocket but in a financial mess if their property was empty for a month or two. Not only would they have no rent coming in to cover the mortgage, insurance etc but they would also have the expense of paying the council tax for a property they don’t even use!

The Knock-On Effect

If your not a Landlord yourself then you might think I’m being biased here but what about the knock-on effect on regular homeowners? For example, an elderly person moving into a care home might leave their home empty whilst they sell it, another expense to prevent them moving forward with their lives. Or how about someone relocating for work and needs to move away quickly?

And this is a Government that is trying to get the housing market back on an even keel?

Looking at this from the other side, most rental properties would hope to be empty for only a few days between tenancies which would mean that only a small amount of council tax would be due. Now, it is isn’t always easy to contact Landlords, particularly if the Council haven’t got the Landlords home address to address any billing. This would create a whole load of extra work for the Councils to chase outstanding amounts so all that money that could earn from empty properties could all be lost in chasing the debt!

Is This Really a Possibility or Just Scaremongering?

A consultation has already been held and 169 councils voted in favour of the extra charges and only 25 against so it is clearly obvious what the majority want. Unsurprisingly, the majority of Landlords are against the idea and quite rightly too!

I’m sure that this is by no means the last we will hear of this as we trundle towards the inevitability of the ever increasing costs of being a Landlord!

By Steve Roulstone

The figures relating to the latest English Housing Survey have been released for 2010 / 2011. There are several results which are worthy for note and for what they are worth I include my thoughts on these highlight points for the Rental Industry. Each of these are included within the report and you can see for yourself they have been reported on in great depth, but what is not mentioned is the fact that these figures when isolated for our Industry, prove that the rental sector shows no sign what so ever in abating, indeed the pattern is shown as one of upwards growth.

Ten Year high.

And growing! I have stated before that I believe the industry represents a figure approaching 20% of the UK housing stock and these figures confirm the growth shown from the last report as being constant. This 17% figure represents an annual growth of 1.7% which with the same pattern for the last eighteen months would produce a current percentage of 19.55% across England. This does confirm more privately rented properties than the social rented sector as that figure continues to fall. But the most significant figure is the actual number of properties this now represents, as 20% would equal 2.89 million houses, up by 1.45 million in ten years. With 5% growth in the last three years, over 20,000 properties per month have been added to our sector during this same period.

Only lively sector.

That the rental sector is the only area where activity is significant is confirmed by the number of people moving during the period this survey was taken. Out of the whole, private rental sector was responsible for 63% (1.26 million) Confirming just how people are relying upon the Private Rented sector at present, as the means to finding accommodation throughout England.

Unusable stock.

One figure that shouts out at present is the number of houses that remained empty at the time of the survey, 940,000 (nearly 1 million!).  83%, some 780,200 properties were in the private sector.  On the basis of these last two figures, the best way of utilising these properties and using them again for habitation, knowing that a percentage would not be fit for habitation, would be to introduce them to the rental market and an Industry that was better regulated through professional legislation would no doubt attract more interest!

Rented property better than estimated.

The Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) has been updated during 2009 and the new rating shows Private Rented sector property to be far better than we have been led to believe. There have been several comments in the last twelve months by the Government supporting initiatives to improve the Energy Efficiency of the Private Rental sector, including one that stated Private Rental property was the worst performing sector in the UK.  If this is the case, then these figures show there has been one hell of an increase in quality, as by now it will outperforming Privately owned property!

Shift of emphasis.

Perhaps now the Government will stop introducing so many onerous performance requirements solely for rental properties within the 2018 Green Deal energy performance plans and include moves to encourage ALL privately owned properties, whether they be rented OR owned! There now seems no excuse to target just one sector, and if changes are made, I just wonder if they will be watered down, with the knowledge that the privately owned sector is much harder to corner. I have always felt that the rental sector was targeted because it could be rather than because of any urgent need, as an excellent way of achieving Energy performance figures for to meet Government promised figures!

Healthy statistics.

Yes I know there are statistics more statistics and damn right lies! But these figures do show a continued shift towards renting as a lifestyle choice, as well as the affordable alternative to buying. Otherwise those moving would not be so high in the rental sector, but as an industry, these figures I hope will be used as further ammunition to prove to the current Government, that professional legislation is what is required as the best way forward to breed confidence and higher standards. I equally hope that our professional bodies are ensuring that they are not only requesting legislation, but confirming just how this can be achieved through self Policing within the Industry. I for one live in hope!

By Steve Roulstone

The latest set of figures from the Land Registry House price Index, record prices from May this year and show the average house price split by County and Region across the whole of the Country.  The Headline Statistics concentrate on the average house price in the UK which continues to be disappointing after what was considerable hope that prices were recovering after the winter. But what the figures clearly show and the headline report fails to mention is that when looked at closer the gap between London and the rest of the country is continuing to grow.

London and the South East.

London showed an annual increase of 7.7% and the South East of 1.7% these two areas were (apart from the East) the only areas to show an increase. The stand out figure for me is the size of growth in London compared to the rest of the country and this does clearly show how an average price does not reflect what is still happening outside of the Capital.

Regional.

In the West Midlands for example, where we are based (as far as the collated figures are concerned) we have shown a monthly growth of 2.0% but we still have an annual decrease of 1.2%. This does mirror what we have seen and the level of activity Estate Agents are now reporting and reflects the overall monthly growth of 2%. But a quick glance at the rest of the Country and you can clearly see how many areas are still seeing depressed figures.

What happens in London.

Unlike the popular saying does not stay in London and even from my days in retail more years ago than I wish to remember, does eventually spread to other areas, but having seen the differential close for many years, it does seem that this effect reflects a period of sustained downturn and recession, but it is now so different that there is an argument for the Land Registry to split between London and the South East (or just London) and the rest of the Country.

True feel.

 It would probably be unacceptable from a political viewpoint, because of how bad the rest of the UK fares when considered against London, but it is probably the only way to get a truly balanced picture of what is actually happening outside of the Capitol. I like most who look at these figures on a regular basis do at times scan rather than study and I am sure like most who read them fail at times to see the true picture and for me separation should now be part of the reporting every month.

By Mike Edwards

What is TPO?

 The Property Ombudsman scheme has been offering a free, independent and impartial dispute resolution service to consumers who are dissatisfied with the service provided by registered firms for more than 20 years. If a dispute is resolved in the consumer’s favour, the Ombudsman can provide redress to place the consumer back in the position they occupied before the complaint arose. Resolutions are designed to achieve a full and final settlement of the dispute and all claims made by either party. Where appropriate, the Ombudsman can make compensatory awards in individual cases up to a maximum of £25,000 for actual and quantifiable loss and / or for aggravation, distress and inconvenience caused by the actions of a registered firm.

 Independence

 Whilst TPO charges registered firms an annual subscription, the Ombudsman reports to the TPO Council, the majority of which is made up of non-industry members. It is the Council who appoints the Ombudsman and sets his Terms of Reference (i.e. how the complaint process operates). The Ombudsman is required to report to the Council on a regular basis.

 The Ombudsman is not a regulator and does not have the authority to take regulatory or legal action against a registered firm. However, registered firms can be referred to the TPO Disciplinary and Standards Committee, appointed by the Council, which has the power to expel firms from the scheme and / or report them to the Office of Fair Trading, which has the power to ban firms from carrying out estate agency business.

 TPO is a member of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA).

 Membership

 At June 1, 2012, more than 21,770 offices were registered with TPO. This figure includes 11,749 sales offices and 9,301 lettings offices. TPO estimates that these figures represented 93% of sales agents and 64% of lettings agents operating within the UK.

 Further information

The Ombudsman’s Terms of Reference, the Codes of Practice, Consumer Guides and other documents about the operation of the scheme are available at www.tpos.co.uk, together with previous annual and interim reports, further explanation of governance arrangements and a full list of registered firms.

 

By Mike Edwards

Client Money Protection explained and TPO client survey.

Letting Agents can go bust (I know!) But when they do, it can be amid claims of owing landlords and tenants thousands of pounds, so here’s a quick guide to what Landlords and Tenants should look for to safeguard their money.

Letting agents are not regulated, which means anyone can open and trade as a letting agent without any qualifications or licence. Like any other business, if a letting agent stops trading, landlords and tenants become creditors and risk losing any rents or deposits held by the agent.

To stop this, several industry groups run ‘client money protection’ schemes – sometimes called ‘CMP’. Belonging to a client money protection scheme does not mean a landlord will receive compensation if something goes wrong – the schemes have terms and conditions, like time limits for claims and caps on pay outs, so check the finer points do not exclude your rental business.

The main CMP schemes are:

National Approved Letting Scheme (NALS)

NALS will pay up to £25,000 for any one claim, with a cap for landlords of three months’ rent. The total top pay out for a single claim is £300,000, while the scheme will only pay £3 million in any one year.

Association of Residential Letting Agents (ARLA)

ARLA will compensate a landlord up to a limit of £25,000. Landlord claims are limited to three months’ rent. The total payable for a member company is £500,000. In any one year, the scheme has a limit of £3 million.

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

RICS will pay a maximum of £50 000 per letting agents, subject to an overall limit for the scheme of £5.3 million for any one year.

SafeAgent

SafeAgent is not a CMP scheme, but an umbrella group for letting agents who are members of a CMP scheme. The aim is to promote money protection by displaying a single, recognisable logo that shows any money with a letting agent is safeguarded. Letting agents belonging to client money protection schemes should display a logo of one or more of the schemes listed above on their web sites and letterheads.

Even if you see the logo, still check the CMP scheme web site to make sure membership is valid. Some unscrupulous letting Agents say they are members and use the logo when client money is not protected. Don’t forget that just because the agent was part of a CMP scheme one year does not mean membership is still in force years later – check every year.

TPO canvasses members over CMP

The Property Ombudsman Scheme (TPO) is also aware of the importance of CMP as it is now canvassing member firms over the provision of insurance.

“Whilst membership of TPO requires all residential sales and letting agents to abide by the TPO Codes of Practice, have Professional Indemnity Insurance, and agents holding clients’ money to deposit this money in a separate clients account, it does not currently require residential letting agents to hold CMP,” explains Bill McClintock, chairman of the TPO operating company who is circulating a consultation document to members. “Given that the Code of Practice is generally accepted as the primary standards document in the industry, the omission of such an important aspect needs to be addressed. “This is something the board and the Ombudsman, Christopher Hamer, have been considering for some time and recent incidences of both landlords and tenants suffering financial loss means action on CMP is now imperative. Private residential lettings reportedly make up 17 per cent of the UK housing stock.”

The consultation paper sets out various options and points out that member’s of ARLA, NALS, and RICS are required to have CMP. Some letting and management companies acting as subcontractors also provide CMP on all landlord and tenant funds.

McClintock is asking TPO members which of these options, or an alternative fallback position that all TPO member firms without CMP must disclose in writing and actively flag its absence at the point of instruction or sale of services, they would prefer to see enforced through the TPO Lettings Code of Practice.

 “TPO and its Codes of Practice are part of a consumer protection regime with the firm objective of raising standards in the industry,” adds McClintock. “Whilst TPO cannot force agents to sign up to the Code, firms should see the Codes as enhancing the reputation of the industry and for those that are already members of TPO the addition of a clause requiring CMP will enable them to demonstrate to landlords and tenants that their money is protected.

“TPO is a not-for-profit company and will not itself offer CMP to member firms as a new revenue stream. It is not appropriate for TPO to offer such services but I believe it is appropriate for member firms to have such cover. However, members now have the opportunity to express what they think should be the minimum required standard.”

By Steve Roulstone

I have had cause of late to look at the tax allowance for Landlords in relation to insulating properties (Landlords Energy Saving Allowance) and with the intention of providing a good service for the Landlords we manage property for, I have been looking at how to get the message across in letters to not only the Landlords, but also the current Tenants who will of course benefit from lower bills, indeed most of the interest has come from Tenants who are able to claim grants against insulation costs in some cases at virtually no cost at all, in seeking permission to have insulation installed in loft or walls.

Little interest.

The problem seems to be that very few people are actually interested despite all of the talk around the Green Deal which is due to be introduced by 2018 and was again in the news last week, although the Government release gave very little content or actual information to assist you in understanding what this bill will mean to Landlords.  The problem though seems to be lack of knowledge of what is currently available and this is probably because it is still too little for Landlords to consider.

The Industry.

I have looked for information from one of the leading insulation suppliers to help get the message across but it would seem that not only do they have no literature to explain the current assistance Landlords can claim but have very little knowledge as employees either. This is a bit surprising considering the tax allowance of £1500 has been available for many years but what seems to be more surprising is that it is due to be phased out by 2015.

Landlords.

There is certainly very little knowledge amongst our Landlords and that is one reason why I wanted to go through this procedure, because as Agents we should always advise our Landlords, but apart from a release by the Residential Landlords Association which is very current, I have seen little other promotion or discussion.

Tenants.

You would think given the current legislation surrounding EP Certificates that Tenants would be on the ball! But since the introduction of EPC’s, we have carried out on well over 3000 viewings (as a conservative estimate) and yet we are still never asked for the EPC more than once a month. Roughly 1%. However, when Tenants are able to benefit from installing insulation at very little cost, then that is where interest does grow and why shouldn’t it?

Conclusion.

What this does seem to show is that whatever the end result of the Green Deal, what is on offer, is going to have to be easy to understand and attractive to all concerned if it is to be a success. Otherwise it will be ignored and clearly if this is enforceable then we will once again have further legislation that will produce a black hole for Councils looking to enforce matters such as Houses of Multiple Occupation legislation and indeed the current EPC legislation which only come to light when those who ignore it are caught. This is purely because Councils do not have the man power to seek out Landlords who fail to comply and the danger is that this legislation will fall under the same heading!