Tag Archives: Renting Property

29May 2013

Current Property news: New Portal risks falling in where others have fallen before!

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

New portal

Reports over the weekend confirm a story I heard not two months ago, that a serious contender to Rightmove and in a lesser way Zoopla, is about to be launched on the market. Recent price increases on the amount charged for portals have been discussed at length within the Industry and have mainly been as the result of Rightmoves belief that as the leading market provider, they can increase costs at will. I may be wrong, but see no increased level of services for increasing levels of invoices?

 

Right to reply.

This is a course of action that rightly in my opinion generates responses and in this case we seem to have had a response, which, if successful, will severely dent Rightmoves position as market leader. I will not comment on the scheme in general because we have very little detail as yet and until we do I would prefer to keep my powder dry.

 

However!

What is worthy of comment and the detail that caught my eye when reading a report on the plans on a property press web site was the initial statement that Agents joining the site would be asked to do so by only utilising the services of one other portal. It seems strange that having stated detail would follow, that such a major requirement should be the only rule released? Unless of course it was released to test the water!

 

Expected reaction.

If that is the case, the reaction seems to be as expected, that people like to choose for themselves who they do or do not wish to run with. If not, then hopefully notice will be taken of the reaction received because it flies in the face of one of the very principals the new site would be battling against in clearly setting itself up as a competitor with Rightmove.

 

Visit the reasons.

Please take on board Agents Mutual that you have set yourselves up as an alternative to Rightmove, not only because of prices, but also because of the manner in which they treat their customers. The feeling that we are dictated to by Rightmove, as a customer of theirs, has increased on many levels over the last few years and is in my opinion, a major influence on our perception of them as a Company.

 

Right to choose.

This is why, when given the right to choose a viable alternative, a large sector of the industry may well do just that. But by telling us in effect, who we can and cannot trade with, is acting in a manner no different to Rightmove in the first place. It is very clear as to why the need for such a rule to be in place is felt to be important to its success. But I would ask those involved to re-consider? Surely a better motivation to potential customers can be found than one that tells its customers how to go about their business?

 

Landlords that matter.

It must not be forgotten that we exist to provide a service to our Landlords, in doing so we should give best advice at all times. It cannot be in the Landlords interest for Agents to withdraw services from a provider because of a principal of business which may in the long run serve to improve what we offer, but will change little from our customer’s perception. Better the providers work on offering a better service which we need to follow, the principal remains the same, but Landlords do not suffer along the way!

29May 2013

Transparency of Agency Fees Discussed

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Craig Smith

3 Agents Fees 290513

The big talking point in the lettings industry at the moment is something I wrote about just a short while ago. Due to the increase in the amount of rental properties at the moment, there seems to be a lot of ‘have a go’ agents popping up. As there is no compulsory regulatory body for letting agents, there are more and more stories of rogue agents leaving their clients out of pocket.

Hidden Extras

There are tales of agents disappearing and their clients having no clue about where their money is. But the other big concern is agents who don’t show a transparent fee structure to their clients which results in a lot of hidden costs.

Naturally, you would expect to pay a higher cost if a higher amount of work is needed. For example, you can buy yourself a pizza but if you want extra toppings you would be charged extra. The same principle applies to lettings, a Landlord taking a tenant find only service would pay extra for additional services such as an inventory. Although charging for additional services is fine some agents will hide the charges from clients in order to try and gain extra business.

I would just like to point out at this stage that Castle Estates have never hidden any fees. Tenants are asked to sign a terms & conditions leaflet before applying for any property which contain a set of possible fees, not just for the application but for almost every eventuality throughout the tenancy. Likewise, our agreements with Landlords contain a list of any fees that may be necessary throughout the tenancy.

Lack of Experience

The problem isn’t just with the rogues of the business out to make an early retirement, it is also down to the amount of agents who aren’t properly trained or have the support they need to know exactly what they need to do. Running an agency isn’t about sitting back and waiting for the money to come in, far from it! There is a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes that not everybody knows about to make sure a tenancy is properly managed & above board.

The BBC have likened the letting industry to the wild west which isn’t entirely true. Yes, there are some bad guys out there but for each one I bet there are 10 times more good agents. But without a compulsory regulatory body, there is often little or no comeback for those who have been affected by the bad guys.

Avoid the Sting

There are ways that Landlords and tenants can avoid being left out of pocket. You should always look for the agents who do belong to a professional body. Although it doesn’t guarantee a perfect service, it does mean there are better routes to go down in the event of a complaint.

10Oct 2012

Property Landlord advice: Inventory a must for ALL rented property.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

We just as other Letting Agents must also be finding, have Landlords who are wishing to keep costs down to a minimum in these difficult times when we are all finding pressure on our margins. However, there are some areas that just do not justify cutting corners and the Inventory is one such area.

Deposit disputes in Landlords favour.

There have now been many cases of claims against Tenant deposits that have been successful, purely because of both a well written inventory and sufficient photographic evidence to back up our claim. The Tenants Deposit dispute system itself, after just one year in operation, warned Landlords that the biggest reason they were losing claims was because of an insufficient inventory.

Why?

Explained in the simplest terms, if you wish to claim against a Tenant for painting a wall black during a Tenancy without permission, if you cannot confirm that it was not black at the beginning of the Tenancy, you will lose. Similarly, if you wish to claim decoration allowed was done badly, you would also lose unless you could prove that the decoration at the start of a Tenancy was in good order. We have posted before about the importance and it is explained well in this Blog by Craig Smith

Photographic proof.

Of course photos play a massive part in this, as a house correctly recorded can easily be shown in its original condition, but that does not mean a well written version should not accompany photographs. If a written inventory confirms no stains on a carpet and there are no specific photographs close enough to confirm general level of dirt, this as well as photos confirming the current state and condition should (and have) proven to be sufficient. But of course, if you have both, then no problem should exist.

Cookers and sinks.

Cookers and sinks are the two items that cause most issues, and with experience, we know to ensure they are well photographed at the start and the end of Tenancy. (Only just in front of Gardens where the same rules apply) We have had occasions where even faced with the before and after photographs, Tenants have insisted on allowing the arbitration service to decide, but whilst this is their right and nowadays more common, we have always achieved the correct result on behalf of our Landlords.

Do not cut corners.

All of this explains why we encourage Landlords to have our Inventory as part of their Tenant check in. Of course Fully Managed properties always receive this service, so my comments are better aimed at Landlords who have either always, or in an attempt to cut costs have now decided to manage their property themselves. In the long run this will pay for itself.

Always at the house.

 It is also one of the main reasons why when checking tenants in to their new home, it should always happen at the house itself. Too many times lately we hear of Tenant’s being checked in at the Agents office. I would ask the question how an inventory can be relied upon if you do not go through it with the Tenant at the property.  If at the end of the Tenancy your Tenant objects to charges, it would be very easy for them to state the inventory was never checked in their presence. A risk I would not wish to take on behalf of my Landlords!

03Oct 2012

Property Landlord advice: Good Management means Tenants stay longer.

⋅ 2 Comments

By Steve Roulstone

One of the regular roles I undertake is contacting Landlords when Tenants give notice to leave their rented property. This is of course a worrying time for Landlords as nobody, me included, wants the risk of the property being empty when in by far the majority of cases the sitting Tenant has been settled for some time and we know they are looking after the house and paying the rent. A change of Tenant is always a stressful time for Landlords.

No change please.

So why do something that makes a Tenant think about moving? This was a thought that came to my mind when reading a report by David Salisbury, the Chairman of the National Landlords Association in the lettings section of Property Drum. The point he raised, about Tenants staying longer, along with rising instances of arrears is one that touches on my last Blog about Tenant charges, because some practises by Agents encourage Tenants to move on by making them feel uncomfortable in their role.

Tenant fees.

Practises that make a Tenant review their position cannot always be avoided, such as rent increases, which during our annual review are being looked at more and more as Tenants do stay longer in their homes. That does not mean we should avoid increases, all we can do is be fair which we always advise. But what can be avoided are unnecessary charges and in particular charging for and insisting upon a new agreement every year.

Agent practise and excuse.

You can tell we do not advocate this practise as the reason given, that it gives the Landlord security, actually backfires with the knowledge that more people move as a result of being badly treated (in their eyes yes, but after all it is their decision) We are also aware both locally and Nationally through discussion with other Castle Estates offices that even if Tenants do not move at that time, their perception changes as they see themselves being charged unfairly and then do move as soon as they can.

Consequences.

Now I know from experience that it is far better to have a happy Tenant in your home than an unhappy one. What care used be taken may not be so forthcoming when a Tenant feels aggrieved by the way they are treated and I know this personally as an Agent, Landlord and Tenant. The wider picture is far more serious for Landlords and another reason, when I have been aware of the moves by the CBA and Shelter to have Tenant fees scrapped by Law for the last Ten Years, why we do not charge Tenants additional fees that are not required. There is no doubt that such charges will be central to any campaign to enforce any change of Law.

Arrears.

This is one area where I can both understand the trend and also disagree with it at the same time, for as Agents who use a professional Referencing Agent we know how much more difficult it is to find Tenants who pass without additional requirements (Guarantors, larger deposits) But, to use any other type of referencing such as personal statements (The Magazine I was reading actually had another article on this very same subject on the same page)just does not cut muster and is asking for trouble. So in the long run and probably the reason why we are not finding arrears any more of a problem than usual using a Referencing Agency who have raised their own barrier before they issue a pass seems to be the answer and for us, we will continue to work harder to find the right Tenant understanding why.

28Sep 2012

Tenant advice: Avoiding costs by reporting problems as they occur.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Today’s subject has been a thorny one for Tenants as long as I have been a Letting Agent and longer. Problems that occur within houses if not reported can make far more damage than if reported without delay once it has been noted. The issue is who’s responsibility is the additional damage caused and who is liable for any costs in putting the situation right.

Old cases.

There are many that I could quote but I suppose the first time this happened is the one that I remember the best. This was a leak from a bathroom and the subsequent damage to a kitchen ceiling. The problem was water tracking around the side of a shower curtain and slowly soaking the plaster above the kitchen until a whole section fell off.

Tenant view.

The Tenant view was that the fault was with the shower curtain and that she could not be held responsible for the damage caused. Our view was that both the fact that it was obvious that water was finding its way through and the additional damage caused by failing to report the matter were both the responsibility of the Tenant. Just because something does not work correctly, does not mean you should keep using it ignoring the consequences.

Coverall.

Of course your agreement should ensure that it is quite clear that if secondary damage is caused under these circumstances then the cost is down to the Tenant for failing to address the issue (report it) then half of the battle is won, but we must not forget that we now have the arbitration system if Tenants disagree and I can confirm that the system has always supported us in such cases when claim has had to be made.

Long process.

Of course the knowledge that we should be proven right is not the whole and not what we rely upon, because in the first instance somebody has to pay for the remedial work and as we have found on numerous occasions, a system that does not allow for immediate resolution can annoy those who have to pay for works that they should not have to do so, and wait until a Tenant vacates before the money can be re-cooped.

Getting it right from the start.

This is why good Agents will endeavour to get resolution at the time of the incident and why Tenants may find themselves involved in lengthy discussions that they feel are invasive at the time. But as Property Managers, Agents cannot just ignore the situation.

Current case.

What bought the issue to mind is a Company let, where secondary damage is quiet severe, as a known leek from a cistern, instead of being reported, was contained in a small bowl and repeatedly emptied. The inevitable happened and the bowl was forgotten along it seems with the leak. The subsequent damage is a ruined carpet and underlay, damp walls to well over a meter high and ruined plasterwork and of course the decoration. Apart from anything else, having now dealt with the leak (The only bit the Landlord is responsible for) we now will have to wait several weeks, with the aid of a de-humidifier, before the repair work can be undertaken.

Conclusion.

This case will of course mean several difficult conversations and meetings but that is what we must do to protect the Landlord but as a clearer case I trust you can understand why the damage should not be at the Landlords expense and also understand why the Landlord should not have to stand out of pocket for works which are liable to cost anything up to £500 to repair.

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!

12Sep 2012

Property Landlords advise: Finding drugs in rented property.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Like all good Letting Agents, we carry out property visits to ensure that our Tenants are looking after the home and living in line with their Tenancy agreement. We are used to looking for evidence of unofficial Tenants, would easily spot any Tenant growing cannabis, but have found a property we manage used for the storage of drugs and that has proven to discover what the house is being used for in these circumstances is a big challenge.

First indication.

The first we knew of a problem at the house was a phone call from the local CID advising us they had suspicions concerning activity of a house in a quiet country location. This was both a heads up but also a request to allow them to go about their business following a raid at the property. They later confirmed that drugs and a large amount of money had been found and seized from the house.

Information.

This was followed up with a visit to our offices where they gathered information about the Tenant, rent payments and our knowledge of what was happening at the property. We were able to supply information which we believe was of use and hand over keys to avoid any further damage and ensure the house was securely locked.

Property inspection.

A week later, with the knowledge that little damage had been caused and confirmation from the police that the house had not been abused and was in good order, we were able to visit the property and officially check out the Tenant at their request and see for ourselves just how the drugs had been stored.

Fridge Freezers.  

Now forgive me, but I have no knowledge of how and where drugs can be stored, but as soon as we opened the fridge and freezer doors, it became evident just what the appliances had been used for. The issue for us was that we had been to carry out a property visit some two months prior and because the house was being looked after and all was clean, as you would expect, we had no indication of the problem. Because the appliances belonged to the Tenant, we would also have no intention of looking in the fridges to check how they were being used. But as soon as we opened them now, even though they had long been emptied, the smell was overpowering!

Systems.

This situation, which is subject of a review of our practises as I write this, is a warning for us all. We have no right to open fridges, washing machines, cupboards and draws or look in boxes, cases or even envelopes that are the property of the Tenant and nobody would expect us to. Cooker yes, because that is always the property of the Landlord, but we need to be aware of the possibility, for if nothing else, this incident has, to say the least, sharpened our focus.

Aftermath.

 Thankfully, the Tenant who is obviously the subject of ongoing Police enquiries (about which this is not the place to comment) was most co-operative and the property will be marketed again without delay. What we must do is build safeguards in to our system, without over-reacting to what has happened, that will ensure we keep our eyes open at all times to possible signs and the Police have been most helpful in discussing the matter with us. What it has proven though, is that ensuring a house is used for its correct permitted usage, remains as difficult as ever!

22Aug 2012

Tenant advice: Social housing lacking major detail.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

A short topic today, but a situation that has left me somewhat surprised by what I found last week when helping a Family member move in to a new rented home through a social housing organisation.

The Lady checking the Tenant in and I, with a common interest in renting, chatted about the differences between what they do in the social sector and what we do in the private sector and it was noticeable that despite the obvious difference being the nature of the Tenant, and their circumstances, the trappings of how we do our business remains the same, I pad and agreements in hand!

What we did not speak about and what I found the most dramatic difference was the standard of the house concerned and what Tenants are supposed to put up with in the social sector. Actually, it was not so much the house as the fittings or lack of them!

The property itself was fairly modern, being no older than twenty years or so, but downstairs only had laminate in the kitchen and bare concrete floors elsewhere. Upstairs the picture was the same with bare wooden floorboards and throughout, not a curtain at any window.

I can just imagine the reaction of any private Tenant should I carry out a viewing at a house and inform them they would have to carpet throughout and find curtains for every window themselves! I can assure you we would let very few houses!

There was also the question of the state and condition. The Kitchen had three walls painted red and one wall half painted (and not in a its finished type of half) the main bedroom was painted in union flag shades of red blue and white, in blocks some two feet wide, in stripes! The second bedroom in cerise pink on one wall only! Now when we check Tenants out of a property we ensure the decoration is both as it was when the Tenancy started and therefore in good order for the new Tenant and start of Tenancy. It seems clear that when people leave social housing they are not checked, or if they are nothing is done to correct or put right the type of decorating schemes that would strike us in the private sector speechless.

The obvious smack in the mouth opinion that I am left with, is that those who have little choice of where they are able to live because of their financial position ensuring they do not have choice, have to accept whatever house becomes available when it is offered and are therefore also left with the bill of being able to live with the very basics of comforts by having to purchase both carpets and curtains themselves!

This when they are where they are because of financial difficulties is a situation which does not sit well with me. Perhaps I am naive in my outlook, but it is clear the Housing authorities and Social Housing providers are happy to rely upon the charity of the wider family to enable those in dire straits to be provided with such basic comforts as curtains and carpets!

At least if the Government do manage to find a way of attracting the Private sector to social Tenants, another much wider subject of discussion, at least they will enjoy a far better standard of accommodation without the fear of how much such a move could cost them or their relatives!

16Aug 2012

Current Property news: Rents catching up with property prices.

⋅ 1 Comment

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.

14Jun 2012

Current Property News: Rental sector attacked for no reason – again!

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Once again I find myself reading a report condemning the rental sector, this time  as the background to the thrust of the actual article, which is about increasing trends in the rental sector. The reason given is financial insecurity which should come as no surprise to anybody, but the article takes the unreasonable opportunity to condemn the rental sector without providing any evidence for the statements made.

Hidden reasons.

Of course the reason why is to suggest that the Government (this is after all a left wing paper)  are forcing families down a road to unsettled and poor condition housing, when in reality, and I can only comment from what I know about, the truth is nothing like the picture painted and indication given within the report.

Bad Housing, Bad Landlords and High rents.

As a professional letting Agency, we will only take on property that is to standard and when allowed upgrade property as required. I say when allowed because only this morning I have been discussing a Tenant who will not allow access to make alterations which will vastly improve a bathroom. Equally, we always and ONLY advise Landlords of the correct path and procedures surrounding the property and their Tenants. Also, rents in Staffordshire are not rising and Tenants are benefitting from the number of properties on the market by making offers.

Source of information.

Because of this and with the knowledge that not every property or Landlord is perfect and therefore accepting that problems do exist, I would suggest that like most of what facts are listed in the article, it is the London market that is the source of the information. But it would be so much better if either the article were split into two, sticking to the point made as the reason for the increase and giving the chance for the detail behind these damning statements about the rental market instead of providing no evidence what so ever!   

Professionalism.

I would agree however, as I have stated on oh so many occasions before, that the intended route the previous Government was intending to take, to ensure all agents were approved, is still the best possible route for the Industry. For if this is still a major problem, and as I have sated I can only comment on my local market, then the Industry itself, having launched ‘Safe Agent’ cannot be blamed for doing nothing to improve standards. The problem still seems to be in the Self Managed Landlord or the Agent who ignores all professional bodies and here all Tenants have a clear choice! Ask which bodies the agent belongs to that will protect them!

Legislation.

One of the first issues that I cannot agree with is that of legislation, because if ever an industry has been targeted it is the rental industry, with every facet of what we do coming under the legislative microscope for the last few years. The comment about deposits for example is a ‘throw away comment’ which cannot be supported, because any Tenant who suffers at the hand of an Agent or Landlord who does not use the Deposit legislation can be heavily fined and the Tenant has a clear route to take.

Tenant problems.

Of course what this could refer to is the number of Tenants who have found themselves loosing when being processed through the Deposit legislation, because although most do win because of badly prepared defences by the Landlord or Agent, I know as a fact, that if the Tenant looses when going through arbitration, they still blame the Agent and talk about the cost as if they have been treated unfairly. This of course is not the case, but as the article gives no background to the statements made we will never know!

Figures.

But one bit of background I can supply is that the percentage of people renting privately has been increasing for years and particularly so over the last two years. I asked the Department of the Communities only last week if the overall privately rented % for 2011 was yet available and it is not, but I expect it to reach 20%, a rise of nearly 5% in the last two years. Therefore to state it may be 36% by 2025 (which let’s not forget is still over 12 years away) when twelve years ago it was at 9% would reflect a rate of increase through good AND bad times that at current trends will stand at 31% anyway!

Bad Journalism.

So I am afraid that overall I label this article as bad journalism, trying to score a political point without any confirmation of the statements made attacking an industry which is not represented and quoting figures, which, when you are aware of the background, are really not that surprising. But it does touch on one major factor. Unless the availability of mortgages for Buy to Let Landlords is improved, the supply of rented property will quite possibly dry up! But where I will concur, is that by failing to introduce Licensed Agents and Landlords, the standard of the current source of rented stock, namely properties that fail to sell could well continue to suffer. For without legislation, as we all know, when finances are strained, shortcuts are taken!