BTL insulation

Author
Discussion

rovermorris999

Original Poster:

5,195 posts

188 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Something to be aware of if you have older BTL properties although it's only a consultation as yet

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/art...

Burgmeister

2,206 posts

209 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
This is happening. From 2016 tenants will be able to demand it too...

Welshbeef

49,633 posts

197 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
rovermorris999 said:
Something to be aware of if you have older BTL properties although it's only a consultation as yet

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/art...
I'd consider this to be a key part of the initial prep of the house for rental - and have actually done so on all my BTLs which required those changes.

Its hardly big beer either plus of course CGT deduct able when you off load the premesis wink

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
I'd also consider this to be basic stuff, all of my properties have double glazing and are pretty well insulated. The double glazing is worth it just for the reduced maintenance requirements.

However, I fear this will be the tip of the iceberg if we get a Labour government. I can see them clobbering landlords. It will be done in the name of protecting tenants from dodgy landlords, but it will be the good landlords who end up paying the price, while the dodgy ones carry on regardless.

98elise

26,366 posts

160 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
rovermorris999 said:
Something to be aware of if you have older BTL properties although it's only a consultation as yet

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/art...
I'd consider this to be a key part of the initial prep of the house for rental - and have actually done so on all my BTLs which required those changes.

Its hardly big beer either plus of course CGT deduct able when you off load the premesis wink
Agreed. All mine have decent insulation, double glazing, and modern boilers. In many ways my BTL's are betterr than my own home. I want to attract decent long term tenants.

Thinking about it my BTL's all have newer boilers, kitchens and carpets than my own home!

zuby84

995 posts

189 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
Inkyfingers said:
I'd also consider this to be basic stuff, all of my properties have double glazing and are pretty well insulated. The double glazing is worth it just for the reduced maintenance requirements.

However, I fear this will be the tip of the iceberg if we get a Labour government. I can see them clobbering landlords. It will be done in the name of protecting tenants from dodgy landlords, but it will be the good landlords who end up paying the price, while the dodgy ones carry on regardless.
I agree, I think tenants get far too much protection nowadays as it is. The standards that BTL properties require are more than even in my own home. It's about time that the government starts making people responsible for their own actions, rather than always making something someone else's responsibility.

economicpygmy

387 posts

122 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
zuby84 said:
Inkyfingers said:
I'd also consider this to be basic stuff, all of my properties have double glazing and are pretty well insulated. The double glazing is worth it just for the reduced maintenance requirements.

However, I fear this will be the tip of the iceberg if we get a Labour government. I can see them clobbering landlords. It will be done in the name of protecting tenants from dodgy landlords, but it will be the good landlords who end up paying the price, while the dodgy ones carry on regardless.
I agree, I think tenants get far too much protection nowadays as it is. The standards that BTL properties require are more than even in my own home. It's about time that the government starts making people responsible for their own actions, rather than always making something someone else's responsibility.
What rights offer too much protection in your opinion?

No one owes landlords a return. There are plenty of other investments if BTL is too much hassle.


Welshbeef

49,633 posts

197 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
I take care of my BTLs they are an investment and sooner or later some will move in to become our children's first homes. Plus I've found that if you take the time with the investment the tennants look after it too.

Treat the tennants well and you'll have a great relationship with them - why you wouldn't want that kind of relationship is beyond me they are in your property and keep them sweet they stay a very long time you simply cannot lose.
Treat them like tts mug them off on "oh I'll get that fixed at some point or it was never like that before you" attitude = lots of short term lets terrible churn even if its the cosmetic damage you will get from removals ..

98elise

26,366 posts

160 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
economicpygmy said:
zuby84 said:
Inkyfingers said:
I'd also consider this to be basic stuff, all of my properties have double glazing and are pretty well insulated. The double glazing is worth it just for the reduced maintenance requirements.

However, I fear this will be the tip of the iceberg if we get a Labour government. I can see them clobbering landlords. It will be done in the name of protecting tenants from dodgy landlords, but it will be the good landlords who end up paying the price, while the dodgy ones carry on regardless.
I agree, I think tenants get far too much protection nowadays as it is. The standards that BTL properties require are more than even in my own home. It's about time that the government starts making people responsible for their own actions, rather than always making something someone else's responsibility.
What rights offer too much protection in your opinion?

No one owes landlords a return. There are plenty of other investments if BTL is too much hassle.
How about the fact that if they smash your property up, or steal the contents then its considered a civil matter not a criminal matter. If they claim HB and don't their rent its not fraud. If they don't pay the rent its very hard to get them out.

If a landlord is so much as 1 day late putting the deposit money into a protection scheme, then they are liable for upto 3x the deposit as compensation to the tenant.

My tenants owe me the rent and to keep the property in reasonable shape, thats what they agreed to.

Welshbeef

49,633 posts

197 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
98elise said:
How about the fact that if they smash your property up, or steal the contents then its considered a civil matter not a criminal matter. If they claim HB and don't their rent its not fraud. If they don't pay the rent its very hard to get them out.

If a landlord is so much as 1 day late putting the deposit money into a protection scheme, then they are liable for upto 3x the deposit as compensation to the tenant.

My tenants owe me the rent and to keep the property in reasonable shape, thats what they agreed to.
Rent guarantee insurance is a must frankly and build that into the rental price - also review them personally I've not had the damage issue however I did have one time where I'd not been close to them and instead the neighbour sent photos to me as they were concerned.

Motorbike parked in the rear garden middle of lawn
Grass rear waist high
Broken and not replaced shed windows.

I didn't bother to give then a second chance just issued the notice instantly one month contractual - my error well I was distant as planning wedding and all sorts.

economicpygmy

387 posts

122 months

Saturday 20th December 2014
quotequote all
98elise said:
economicpygmy said:
zuby84 said:
Inkyfingers said:
I'd also consider this to be basic stuff, all of my properties have double glazing and are pretty well insulated. The double glazing is worth it just for the reduced maintenance requirements.

However, I fear this will be the tip of the iceberg if we get a Labour government. I can see them clobbering landlords. It will be done in the name of protecting tenants from dodgy landlords, but it will be the good landlords who end up paying the price, while the dodgy ones carry on regardless.
I agree, I think tenants get far too much protection nowadays as it is. The standards that BTL properties require are more than even in my own home. It's about time that the government starts making people responsible for their own actions, rather than always making something someone else's responsibility.
What rights offer too much protection in your opinion?

No one owes landlords a return. There are plenty of other investments if BTL is too much hassle.
How about the fact that if they smash your property up, or steal the contents then its considered a civil matter not a criminal matter. If they claim HB and don't their rent its not fraud. If they don't pay the rent its very hard to get them out.

If a landlord is so much as 1 day late putting the deposit money into a protection scheme, then they are liable for upto 3x the deposit as compensation to the tenant.

My tenants owe me the rent and to keep the property in reasonable shape, thats what they agreed to.
There are idiots in every walk of life; which includes tenants and landlords. The protection from dodgy boilers, unfair charges on the deposit, and other ignored contractual obligations by landlords came about because of unscrupulous landlords. These obligations were enshrined in law for good reason.

As said, all investments have risks attached and BTL is no different. It is your choice to mitigate and offset that risk. If you are unhappy with the risk, choose a safer place to put your money.




zedstar

1,735 posts

175 months

Sunday 21st December 2014
quotequote all
economicpygmy said:
There are idiots in every walk of life; which includes tenants and landlords. The protection from dodgy boilers, unfair charges on the deposit, and other ignored contractual obligations by landlords came about because of unscrupulous landlords. These obligations were enshrined in law for good reason.

As said, all investments have risks attached and BTL is no different. It is your choice to mitigate and offset that risk. If you are unhappy with the risk, choose a safer place to put your money.
No doubt that rules were introduced due to unscrupulous landlords, but we're still waiting for some protection from unscrupulous tenants. The mere fact is that a tenant can decide to stop paying you rent and then you've still got a lengthy process where it might take unto 3 months just to get a possession order to get them out. If they don't leave (which they won't), you then have to pay for the bailiffs before they go. Thats another month or 2. Meanwhile any council or CAB office is telling them they don't have to go ANYWHERE until a bailiffs at their door.

In this potential 5 month process your house will be abused, sometimes this can cost thousands to put right.

More often than not if you go to court to get some redress your previous tenant will have to pay you back at a pound a week, which they won't pay. Then the council, in their infinite wisdom, will continue to pay them housing benefit directly - when really they should refuse to pay it at all given that it doesn't get paid to the landlord.

Thankfully this only happened to me once, but when you've got a nice house rented out, with no leaks, brand new boiler and brand new bathroom it tends to leave a sour taste in your mouth when you get 2 fingers in your face.


zuby84

995 posts

189 months

Sunday 21st December 2014
quotequote all
zedstar said:
No doubt that rules were introduced due to unscrupulous landlords, but we're still waiting for some protection from unscrupulous tenants. The mere fact is that a tenant can decide to stop paying you rent and then you've still got a lengthy process where it might take unto 3 months just to get a possession order to get them out. If they don't leave (which they won't), you then have to pay for the bailiffs before they go. Thats another month or 2. Meanwhile any council or CAB office is telling them they don't have to go ANYWHERE until a bailiffs at their door.

In this potential 5 month process your house will be abused, sometimes this can cost thousands to put right.

More often than not if you go to court to get some redress your previous tenant will have to pay you back at a pound a week, which they won't pay. Then the council, in their infinite wisdom, will continue to pay them housing benefit directly - when really they should refuse to pay it at all given that it doesn't get paid to the landlord.

Thankfully this only happened to me once, but when you've got a nice house rented out, with no leaks, brand new boiler and brand new bathroom it tends to leave a sour taste in your mouth when you get 2 fingers in your face.
People claim about other people becoming spongers etc..., it's precisely government policies like this which encourage it and put the concept of financial planning on someone else. I give you a safe house. You pay your rent and take care of it and everyones happy. If you don't = goodbye and you don't deserve your own home. Not the situation that has been described above, where no doubt tenant will just go and do the same thing elsewhere to another landlord. Contracts should be fair to both sides, but across society the only ones being punished are the decent folk who can't run away.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 21st December 2014
quotequote all
Some interesting points here.

I am fully in favour of basic standards for rental properties; they should be safe and kept to a sensible condition to allow people to enjoy a decent standard of living. My properties are managed by an agent and I will sign off any sensible maintenance that they recommend. I'd be happy to live in any of them.

I despair when I read of dodgy landlords and and it upsets me that the media and left wing politicians are running a successful campaign to paint all landlords as greedy and heartless people, charging extortionate rents for poor accomodation. Ironically, the one thing that may stop some of the more ridiculous laws, is that so many Labour MPs are probably landlords themselves.

My issue is whether increasing levels of legislation will have any effect, other than to punish good landlords with increased costs and bureaucracy. We already have laws which set basic standards, which the dodgy landlords already ignore, what makes anyone think they'll adhere to new laws?

Increased legislation will also lead to higher costs for landlords, who do you think those costs will be passed on to? Yes, the many thousands of good tenants who rent houses from good landlords.

Meanwhile, both the bad landlords and the bad tenants will continue to get away with it.

economicpygmy

387 posts

122 months

Sunday 21st December 2014
quotequote all
zuby84 said:
zedstar said:
No doubt that rules were introduced due to unscrupulous landlords, but we're still waiting for some protection from unscrupulous tenants. The mere fact is that a tenant can decide to stop paying you rent and then you've still got a lengthy process where it might take unto 3 months just to get a possession order to get them out. If they don't leave (which they won't), you then have to pay for the bailiffs before they go. Thats another month or 2. Meanwhile any council or CAB office is telling them they don't have to go ANYWHERE until a bailiffs at their door.

In this potential 5 month process your house will be abused, sometimes this can cost thousands to put right.

More often than not if you go to court to get some redress your previous tenant will have to pay you back at a pound a week, which they won't pay. Then the council, in their infinite wisdom, will continue to pay them housing benefit directly - when really they should refuse to pay it at all given that it doesn't get paid to the landlord.

Thankfully this only happened to me once, but when you've got a nice house rented out, with no leaks, brand new boiler and brand new bathroom it tends to leave a sour taste in your mouth when you get 2 fingers in your face.
People claim about other people becoming spongers etc..., it's precisely government policies like this which encourage it and put the concept of financial planning on someone else. I give you a safe house. You pay your rent and take care of it and everyones happy. If you don't = goodbye and you don't deserve your own home. Not the situation that has been described above, where no doubt tenant will just go and do the same thing elsewhere to another landlord. Contracts should be fair to both sides, but across society the only ones being punished are the decent folk who can't run away.
Its not that I don’t empathise with the situation but housing is primarily for use as a home, not an investment. I have twice seen cases similar to above and it is bang out of order but what exactly does anyone expect. In one case they completely trashed the house and it took a family member 4 months to get them out. This is/was the reason for the council houses as there is always going to be a percentage of people who are not fit to be in society. If S21 was extended to booting people, it could easily be abused which gets messy when children are involved. The fact is you’re not punished, its the reality of the market you have invested in. Just as choosing companies and schemes to invest in requires diligence, so does choosing tenants.






zuby84

995 posts

189 months

Sunday 21st December 2014
quotequote all
Inkyfingers said:
Some interesting points here.

I am fully in favour of basic standards for rental properties; they should be safe and kept to a sensible condition to allow people to enjoy a decent standard of living. My properties are managed by an agent and I will sign off any sensible maintenance that they recommend. I'd be happy to live in any of them.

Likewise, our properties are kept up to a good standard and are perfectly safe as per legislation. However, so what if a property isn't kept up to a certain standard (safety certs excluded) - surely tenants can just move somewhere else if they don't think it is. You'll find these so called "unscrupulous landlords" will go out of business. Isn't that what capitalism is meant to be about?

nikaiyo2

4,668 posts

194 months

Sunday 21st December 2014
quotequote all
This is just stupid, I have 2 BTLs in a grade 2 listed development, they are single glazed, because the Council/ English Heritage won't allow upgrades. What do we do? These are not st pits they are beautiful period properties that I would live in in an instant, they are not super enters efficient but they were built 200 years ago, oh and there is no gas!
I have already moved on 2 BTLs this year, with social housing tenants as they are not worth the risk/ grief and will be harder to sell if Labour get in. I was planning on moving the 2 listed on in the new year, as the maintenance on them is huge, and buying 4 or 5 places needing lots of work. I think I will sit on the cash for a bit and just see how badly the lefties wreck private renting.

economicpygmy

387 posts

122 months

Sunday 21st December 2014
quotequote all
zuby84 said:
Inkyfingers said:
Some interesting points here.

I am fully in favour of basic standards for rental properties; they should be safe and kept to a sensible condition to allow people to enjoy a decent standard of living. My properties are managed by an agent and I will sign off any sensible maintenance that they recommend. I'd be happy to live in any of them.

Likewise, our properties are kept up to a good standard and are perfectly safe as per legislation. However, so what if a property isn't kept up to a certain standard (safety certs excluded) - surely tenants can just move somewhere else if they don't think it is. You'll find these so called "unscrupulous landlords" will go out of business. Isn't that what capitalism is meant to be about?
No they wownt due to demand, that is why state intervention is required. Not to mention that some tenants cant afford to move, or, are naive or vulnerable.

What type of capitalism do you mean as its an umbrella term. You may get more than you bargained for with some variants.

zuby84

995 posts

189 months

Sunday 21st December 2014
quotequote all
economicpygmy said:
No they wownt due to demand, that is why state intervention is required. Not to mention that some tenants cant afford to move, or, are naive or vulnerable.

What type of capitalism do you mean as its an umbrella term. You may get more than you bargained for with some variants.
There are always rental places to move into no matter what part of the country you're in. Yes a tiny fraction will be truly "vulnerable" but that shouldn't be an excuse to make a blanket set of laws. Maybe if the government feel so strongly about it; they should have a "moving fund" for these vulnerable tenants. Since when should it be the governments/my responsibility to help tenants move. No one forces them to sign a tenancy agreement - whatever happened to "buyer beware."

It should be a free market; it doesn't have double glazing - you're not forced to take it. You think living room needs a lick of paint, but landlord doesn't think so - don't take it. Landlord is a tt - move somewhere else.

There definitely needs to be a more of an alignment made between tenant and landlord rights to make it fair for BOTH parties.

economicpygmy

387 posts

122 months

Sunday 21st December 2014
quotequote all
zuby84 said:
economicpygmy said:
No they wownt due to demand, that is why state intervention is required. Not to mention that some tenants cant afford to move, or, are naive or vulnerable.

What type of capitalism do you mean as its an umbrella term. You may get more than you bargained for with some variants.
There are always rental places to move into no matter what part of the country you're in. Yes a tiny fraction will be truly "vulnerable" but that shouldn't be an excuse to make a blanket set of laws. Maybe if the government feel so strongly about it; they should have a "moving fund" for these vulnerable tenants. Since when should it be the governments/my responsibility to help tenants move. No one forces them to sign a tenancy agreement - whatever happened to "buyer beware."

It should be a free market; it doesn't have double glazing - you're not forced to take it. You think living room needs a lick of paint, but landlord doesn't think so - don't take it. Landlord is a tt - move somewhere else.

There definitely needs to be a more of an alignment made between tenant and landlord rights to make it fair for BOTH parties.
On balance, it is fair for both parties. Don't forget the hundreds it costs to move as a tenant; how many can afford to keep doing that everytime they discover problems? Legislation minimises this. TBH I cant believe your moaning about some insulation, checking the boiler doesn't gas someone to death and the TDS. Hardly a massive issue and if it is, maybe being a landlord isn’t for you.

If you want free market, all housing benefits to those in work and out of work, and all tax payer funded subsidies relating to supporting the housing market need to be withdrawn. You are benefiting because the market is not free market.