• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

markysimmo said:
More lies, deceit and fraud

View attachment 20420
Click to expand...

Must admit, really disappointed about the Angela Rayner story this week. Personally, I'm sick of "landlords" of single second properties getting so much dog abuse. Whether she was being just ignorant or deviously deceitful doesn't matter so much to me. It's more that once again we're only seeing half the story on the buy-to-let industry. Landlords are painted as the villain.

Let me tell you what I've been going through this year.

In my mind, I've always been a good landlord for the last 10 years. I'm not a registered company like the large volume. I was just someone that made an investment and paid my taxes and worked through a letting agent. I paid the stamp duty and I fully supported the different governments policies to make sure the buy-to-let market wasn't a license to print money. They increased stamp duty to make the entry point harder and they took 5 years to make sure you paid tax on the entire rent, not just the profit. That was massively significant in my mind. Once house prices flatlined then I was at the point where there was no money being made. After letting agents fees, tax to HMRC, running costs like ground maintenance and repairs I was probably making a small loss each year. Still though, if my tenant had a problem it would be solved within days.

So I decided to sell and that is where the brick hit the fan. My tenant stopped paying rent as soon as the for sale sign went up. Now I had no income and all the costs. I had to serve what is called section 21 to get him out. Fortunately he moved of his own accord but leaving a trail of debt. That was in the £7-10k range just for me. He left all his possessions and I had to clear the property and then completely redecorate and get it saleable. I only had 5 weeks deposit in a holding company as my own access to money.

The worst part for me was that I had landlord's insurance and had paid it for 10 years. As part of this, there was legal cover so theoretically I would get supported to reclaim all my rent arrears. I processed my claim and immediately detected a scam. In everything I was reading, there was this wording that the "legal team" had to believe that I had >50% chance of winning. Now bear in my mind that I had taken this case via the letting agent back to my ex tenant. I had even got to the point where he had offered a payment plan on a reduced amount (£5k). However the insurance company / legal team collaboration decided I didn't have a >50% chance of winning. So I asked them to provide me with their data of how many landlords had been successful in getting legal support in the last year. They refused to send me any data. So even though I had practically won the case without legal representation I had clearly identified a legal scam. In other words I had been mis-sold insurance for 10 years. So I'm now in the unfortunate position where I'm taking these companies to the financial ombudsmen to expose the scam.

The moral of this story is that if you ever get a perception through the media that "landlords" are evil just think about the bigger picture. There are so many like me that scraped together a 25% deposit and aligned into a government policy led scheme of being a landlord. I've watched over the years every right a landlord have disappear. Tenants actually have all the power and the system supports them. Just like a friend of mine who has had to go to court to evict his tenants because the council advised them to stay put and keep paying. That is 6-9 months of paperwork and legal processes just to get what is rightfully his back.

Fingers crossed, I will get my contracts exchanged and completion done very soon on the sale. I'll then be paying the capital gain part within the next 6 weeks and drawing a close to this chapter.
 
Muttley said:
Must admit, really disappointed about the Angela Rayner story this week. Personally, I'm sick of "landlords" of single second properties getting so much dog abuse. Whether she was being just ignorant or deviously deceitful doesn't matter so much to me. It's more that once again we're only seeing half the story on the buy-to-let industry. Landlords are painted as the villain.

Let me tell you what I've been going through this year.

In my mind, I've always been a good landlord for the last 10 years. I'm not a registered company like the large volume. I was just someone that made an investment and paid my taxes and worked through a letting agent. I paid the stamp duty and I fully supported the different governments policies to make sure the buy-to-let market wasn't a license to print money. They increased stamp duty to make the entry point harder and they took 5 years to make sure you paid tax on the entire rent, not just the profit. That was massively significant in my mind. Once house prices flatlined then I was at the point where there was no money being made. After letting agents fees, tax to HMRC, running costs like ground maintenance and repairs I was probably making a small loss each year. Still though, if my tenant had a problem it would be solved within days.

So I decided to sell and that is where the brick hit the fan. My tenant stopped paying rent as soon as the for sale sign went up. Now I had no income and all the costs. I had to serve what is called section 21 to get him out. Fortunately he moved of his own accord but leaving a trail of debt. That was in the £7-10k range just for me. He left all his possessions and I had to clear the property and then completely redecorate and get it saleable. I only had 5 weeks deposit in a holding company as my own access to money.

The worst part for me was that I had landlord's insurance and had paid it for 10 years. As part of this, there was legal cover so theoretically I would get supported to reclaim all my rent arrears. I processed my claim and immediately detected a scam. In everything I was reading, there was this wording that the "legal team" had to believe that I had >50% chance of winning. Now bear in my mind that I had taken this case via the letting agent back to my ex tenant. I had even got to the point where he had offered a payment plan on a reduced amount (£5k). However the insurance company / legal team collaboration decided I didn't have a >50% chance of winning. So I asked them to provide me with their data of how many landlords had been successful in getting legal support in the last year. They refused to send me any data. So even though I had practically won the case without legal representation I had clearly identified a legal scam. In other words I had been mis-sold insurance for 10 years. So I'm now in the unfortunate position where I'm taking these companies to the financial ombudsmen to expose the scam.

The moral of this story is that if you ever get a perception through the media that "landlords" are evil just think about the bigger picture. There are so many like me that scraped together a 25% deposit and aligned into a government policy led scheme of being a landlord. I've watched over the years every right a landlord have disappear. Tenants actually have all the power and the system supports them. Just like a friend of mine who has had to go to court to evict his tenants because the council advised them to stay put and keep paying. That is 6-9 months of paperwork and legal processes just to get what is rightfully his back.

Fingers crossed, I will get my contracts exchanged and completion done very soon on the sale. I'll then be paying the capital gain part within the next 6 weeks and drawing a close to this chapter.
Click to expand...
Just FYI the >50% of success criteria is a pretty standard clause and its based on actually SRA conduct guidelines where solicitors shouldn't take claims through the courts on behalf of clients unless they believe there is a reasonable prospect of success. If you read up on SLAPP cases you will see the dark side of allowing legal claims to procede with low merit.

This is not only based on the arguable case in law but the ability to actually recover any damages awarded.

I imagine it was quite likely that the means of the tenant to pay damages was a bit part of why the insurer declined your claim.

Saying that I fully emphasise as I was in the same boat as yourself as a private landlord. In my case it wasnt out of choice I just couldnt sell my property when I bought a house together with my wife and so i ended up having to rent it out until property prices recovered after the financial crash to the point where I wasn't in negative equity. I sold it in 2015, but was making a loss on it. Just things like the annual gas safety check rack up and the government as you said gradually cut the costs of things you could offset against your self assessment to the point where I was paying HMRC for the privilege of making a loss!
 
Rorschach said:
I like what I hear from Zack Polanski . He seems to be one of the very few who call out Reform for what they are.
Click to expand...
Isn't he a bit of a crank? There's a tonne of stuff coming out about his previous life as a hypnotherapist where he claimed he could reduce a patient's breast size and i'm sure there will be more to come now he holds a higher profile.....
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Just FYI the >50% of success criteria is a pretty standard clause and its based on actually SRA conduct guidelines where solicitors shouldn't take claims through the courts on behalf of clients unless they believe there is a reasonable prospect of success. If you read up on SLAPP cases you will see the dark side of allowing legal claims to procede with low merit.

This is not only based on the arguable case in law but the ability to actually recover any damages awarded.

I imagine it was quite likely that the means of the tenant to pay damages was a bit part of why the insurer declined your claim.

Saying that I fully emphasise as I was in the same boat as yourself as a private landlord. In my case it wasnt out of choice I just couldnt sell my property when I bought a house together with my wife and so i ended up having to rent it out until property prices recovered after the financial crash to the point where I wasn't in negative equity. I sold it in 2015, but was making a loss on it. Just things like the annual gas safety check rack up and the government as you said gradually cut the costs of things you could offset against your self assessment to the point where I was paying HMRC for the privilege of making a loss!
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was only a rent arrears legal support that I could really claim for. Ironically that is the piece I seem to be getting back on my own, at least at the moment. He could stop that monthly payment at any point.

Anyway, thanks for the advice on the arguable case. With a background in tech I do understand the difference between consent and informed consent. If we can make one change in these mis-sold policies is make the insurance companies lift key topics into informed consent. Make that a legal requirement like we have done with things like GDPR. I'm sure somewhere in the small print they will mostly have their arses covered. I have them bang to rights in a couple of areas already though where the due diligence trace process came back with false data and they used it as a reason not to support. Companies don't like it when the ombudsmen comes knocking. We'll see where it goes.

I guess my general point is that the media give the general public a massive perception that landlords are the problem. Guy like me have endorsed every policy through parliament to tighten the process over multiple governments. I'm all for capitalism, but the system before was so biased to the landlord making money. It was too easy 20 years ago. I'm glad they made the changes which will be good for future generations. However, the changes have consequences today and that is why we see landlords getting out of the system. That perspective needs to come into the media equation.

Btw, my tenant was Chelscum. I found the littluns baby grows in the loft.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Isn't he a bit of a crank? There's a tonne of stuff coming out about his previous life as a hypnotherapist where he claimed he could reduce a patient's breast size and i'm sure there will be more to come now he holds a higher profile.....
Click to expand...
No clue but if he can hypnotise people into voting for him the UK will be all the better for it.
 
yiu have to wonder if the stamp duty collection is fit for purpose if even the minister can try and sidestep it.

How many btl portfolios have been built without paying the correct stamp duty I wonder?
 
Gutter Boy said:
Id guess eco-populism will be stuff pushing fossil fuel phase-out as a national mission to reach the future. And promoting nationalisation to the under 50s, who have never been allowed it, like Corbyn successfully did
Click to expand...
I think everyone wants to phase out fossil. So that's not as radical as is made out. The only gradient you get from left to right is the pace of phase out and how much risk you are willing to carry re: energy costs and network stability in the transition. Also whether you're willing to continue actively exploring fossil while it is being phased out (i.e. the right such as Reform are in favour of new drilling and mining to max supply and economic growth and keep energy costs lower while the transition occurs).

I also think eco populism or extremism can have unintended consequences e.g.

UK: "we've closed down all our mining operations, aren't we green?"
Bolivia: "we've got more demand for exports of fossil materials to the UK, quick, chop down more of the amazon to get those mining operations expanded!"
 
Reyner is toast. Her explanation doesn't add up: ok, you say you had legal advice that you didn't have to pay the higher rate of stamp duty. Did that legal advice also tell you to declare the property to be your main residence on the tax declaration and to remove youself from the title deeds of your main residence just before? Who gave you the legal advice? Saul Goodman?
 
Muttley said:
Must admit, really disappointed about the Angela Rayner story this week. Personally, I'm sick of "landlords" of single second properties getting so much dog abuse. Whether she was being just ignorant or deviously deceitful doesn't matter so much to me. It's more that once again we're only seeing half the story on the buy-to-let industry. Landlords are painted as the villain.

Let me tell you what I've been going through this year.

In my mind, I've always been a good landlord for the last 10 years. I'm not a registered company like the large volume. I was just someone that made an investment and paid my taxes and worked through a letting agent. I paid the stamp duty and I fully supported the different governments policies to make sure the buy-to-let market wasn't a license to print money. They increased stamp duty to make the entry point harder and they took 5 years to make sure you paid tax on the entire rent, not just the profit. That was massively significant in my mind. Once house prices flatlined then I was at the point where there was no money being made. After letting agents fees, tax to HMRC, running costs like ground maintenance and repairs I was probably making a small loss each year. Still though, if my tenant had a problem it would be solved within days.

So I decided to sell and that is where the brick hit the fan. My tenant stopped paying rent as soon as the for sale sign went up. Now I had no income and all the costs. I had to serve what is called section 21 to get him out. Fortunately he moved of his own accord but leaving a trail of debt. That was in the £7-10k range just for me. He left all his possessions and I had to clear the property and then completely redecorate and get it saleable. I only had 5 weeks deposit in a holding company as my own access to money.

The worst part for me was that I had landlord's insurance and had paid it for 10 years. As part of this, there was legal cover so theoretically I would get supported to reclaim all my rent arrears. I processed my claim and immediately detected a scam. In everything I was reading, there was this wording that the "legal team" had to believe that I had >50% chance of winning. Now bear in my mind that I had taken this case via the letting agent back to my ex tenant. I had even got to the point where he had offered a payment plan on a reduced amount (£5k). However the insurance company / legal team collaboration decided I didn't have a >50% chance of winning. So I asked them to provide me with their data of how many landlords had been successful in getting legal support in the last year. They refused to send me any data. So even though I had practically won the case without legal representation I had clearly identified a legal scam. In other words I had been mis-sold insurance for 10 years. So I'm now in the unfortunate position where I'm taking these companies to the financial ombudsmen to expose the scam.

The moral of this story is that if you ever get a perception through the media that "landlords" are evil just think about the bigger picture. There are so many like me that scraped together a 25% deposit and aligned into a government policy led scheme of being a landlord. I've watched over the years every right a landlord have disappear. Tenants actually have all the power and the system supports them. Just like a friend of mine who has had to go to court to evict his tenants because the council advised them to stay put and keep paying. That is 6-9 months of paperwork and legal processes just to get what is rightfully his back.

Fingers crossed, I will get my contracts exchanged and completion done very soon on the sale. I'll then be paying the capital gain part within the next 6 weeks and drawing a close to this chapter.
Click to expand...

Sorry to read this, and what an awful tenant. Disgraceful behaviour on their part.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Reyner is toast. Her explanation doesn't add up: ok, you say you had legal advice that you didn't have to pay the higher rate of stamp duty. Did that legal advice also tell you to declare the property to be your main residence on the tax declaration and to remove youself from the title deeds of your main residence just before? Who gave you the legal advice? Saul Goodman?
Click to expand...
Completely untenable, this is the second time she’s done a tax dodge, blamed it on her advisors, and also used her family as human shield.

I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt the first time. She says she’s “set the record straight “ but she’s not even accepted any responsibility or accountability.

Good bye
 
Crab.C.Nesbitt said:
Completely untenable, this is the second time she’s done a tax dodge, blamed it on her advisors, and also used her family as human shield.

I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt the first time. She says she’s “set the record straight “ but she’s not even accepted any responsibility or accountability.

Good bye
Click to expand...
They are lurching from one disaster to another, they are a total clown show
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back