Retirement funded by BTL - Reality after 1 year.

[drainbrain]

A year ago, aged 63, I was kinda forced into 'retirement'.

Fortunately I have two pension annuities.

Unfortunately their combined income is just under £800 a year.

Fortunately I invested in property. Apart from the two aforementioned pensions and a couple of waste-of-time endowments, exclusively in property. No other investments at all, except of time in other businesses. Which were anyway in turn initially seeded by profit from the property investment. Being serially 'lucky' with business, some of the profits from these 'other businesses' plus the btl business itself has often been used to invest in even more property. And so on and so forth.

One thing worth mentioning is that saving for retirement in endowments and pensions and ISAs etc etc doesn't really seem to produce any benefit until they mature. Then they produce the retirement income. Whereas a BTL portfolio provides income from day one as well as continuing to provide it in retirement. This is pretty important when you think that the pension-saver is taking an enormous gamble that they'll live long enough to enjoy the fruit. Whereas the property collector's enjoying the fruit along the way which will be just as fruitful on retirement.

This first year of retirement's been perfectly ok. Everything's (bills and luxuries) been paid for, and cash surplus has bought 4 more properties over the year now adding another £1200 a month to the pot. In fact the one problem is of finding anything apart from more property (boring) which is worthwhile investing in. 10% income return's the benchmark. Growth is unimportant.

For a laugh I've started an ISA. One of Ginger's Fiver-a-Day things. The idea is to keep funding it for 10 years. Obviously I don't know if I'll still be here in 10 years (which I suppose makes it a hugely risky shot-in-the-dark) but it'll be interesting to see how it develops. I keep wondering how the hell people can live with these paper investment things. They make you nothing you can spend, and you literally have no idea if you'll ever live to enjoy their fruits. (By the way if the same amount had been invested into my 'lucky' property ventures, after 9 years I'd have taken out about £100k and be generating about £1800 pcm).

So, folks, in conclusion after a year I am one happy 'retired' BTL bunny.

[drainbrain]

Cheib said:

Interesting post. Are you getting your 10% yield investing in BTL's this year?

My view on retirement has always been diversity is your friend. We have a couple of BTL properties, a SIPP, occupational pension scheme and ISA's. The problem is particularly where tax legislation is concerned you never know what the rules will be like when you retire...so in my view best not to have all your eggs in one basket...that said if you have expertise or an asset class that you understand best that is always a good thing to concentrate on!

Yes the income return on this year's meets the "10% rule". I've just had a look at the 'real figures' and found: 406 and 408 Bellshill Rd. Paid £25.5k for each and am accepting the rents of £350 for each (which is generous of me) from the existing tenants. 20 Hillfoot St G31 is a shop whose tenants have been my neighbours for some years. Cost £32k rent £300pcm. 22 Hamilton Rd G73 is also a shop. Was owned by my lifelong friend for 20 years. The next door neighbour (actually his sister) is the tenant. Cost £20k rent £275pcm. So £103k out for £1275pcm

I can see some argument for diversity but an equally strong one for specialisation. As to tax concerns, sorry. Disagree. I remember years ago my then accountant listened to me ranting and raving about tax and said to me: "I'll pay your tax". Really!! "Yes, if you give me your profits". Touche! I employ a decent tax accountant and to be fair sometimes run pretty close to the edge with strategies. But I've always found the best answer to paying too much tax is to make even more money! Honest to goodness I'm never that bothered about whopping tax bills for one very very good and obvious reason. I'm also so used to tax inspections and investigations including some pretty serious ones that I've no fear of them. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. And if you feel you're right then there's always the Tribunal to run to who in my opinion are pretty fair.

The thing with your investments into SIPP pension and ISA is that they don't produce any running income, do they? Yes we all know you can withdraw from an ISA but that defeats its point as an investment doesn't it? I'll find out with my Fiver a Day Parmenion thing, but I doubt very much that many folk are investing in an ISA and drawing an income from it. And if you ain't withdrawing any income from these investments how do you know you're going to live long enough to enjoy them?

[drainbrain]

768 said:

Bloody hell, a property round here that would sell for 10x that value rents at less than 3x what you're getting.

Yeah well maybe they aren't really great BTL properties. Great BTL properties make the most income for the least expenditure. They aren't necessarily the same properties you'd buy-to-sell. But then the hint's in the name. bt….L. Many an ignoramus wants to bring growth into the picture. But btl portfolios are for income not growth.

[drainbrain]

Robbo66 said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

drainbrain said:

saving for retirement in endowments and pensions and ISAs etc etc doesn't really seem to produce any benefit until they mature.

Do you understand how an ISA works? Income and capital gains gross up tax free from the outset and anything can be withdrawn at any time. To say there is no benefit until maturity is simply wrong. There is tax free benefit all the time and there is no concept of "maturity" at all.

drainbrain said:

a BTL portfolio provides income from day one as well as continuing to provide it in retirement.

Although there is always the risk the risk of voids and bad tenants. Income tax and capital gains tax regimes apply from Day 1. With enhanced rate CGT acting as a tax on inflation as well as real world growth the assets become increasingly illiquid.

drainbrain said:

the pension-saver is taking an enormous gamble that they'll live long enough to enjoy the fruit. Whereas the property collector's enjoying the fruit along the way which will be just as fruitful on retirement.

There is nothing unique about property in this regard, the same applies to every form of income-producing investment. You have your money "tied up" in property. That appears no different from having money tied up in anything else. See also the illiquidity point above.

drainbrain said:

This first year of retirement's been perfectly ok. Everything's (bills and luxuries) been paid for, and cash surplus has bought 4 more properties over the year now adding another £1200 a month to the pot.

£1,200 a month from 4 properties is a paltry £69.23 per week per property. Doesn't sound much at all.

drainbrain said:

10% income return's the benchmark. Growth is unimportant.

If each of your properties is returning £300 a month that's £3,600 p.a. And if that is a 10% return at the gross level it appears you have been able to buy each property for £36,000.

If that 10% return is at the net level then it looks as though you have been buying properties at, say, £25,000 each.

drainbrain said:

In fact the one problem is of finding anything apart from more property which is worthwhile investing in.

Stock markets are up 15% since April and deliver in income of, say, 3% a year on top. All tax free and accessible if it's in an ISA. All tax free and heavily discounted (tax relief on contributions) if it's in pension.

drainbrain said:

For a laugh I've started an ISA. One of Ginger's Fiver-a-Day things. I keep wondering how the hell people can live with these paper investment things. They make you nothing you can spend, and you literally have no idea if you'll ever live to enjoy their fruits.

That's simply not correct.

drainbrain said:

So, folks, in conclusion after a year I am one happy 'retired' BTL bunny.

It's refreshing to hear a satisfied BTLer who's not complaining about increased taxes on buying, financing and selling their properties.

You mention that you are already 63 years old. What arrangements do you have in mind for long term management of your property portfolio? Family to help out or take over? Managing agent?

Have you given consideration to Inheritance Tax planning? You will be aware that CGT is payable at 28% on sale of properties and IHT is payable at 40% on a significant estate upon death. If you become a seller of properties to release cash or reduce hassle as the years pass you could end up paying 28% CGT plus 40% IHT and will be warmly thanked by the Treasury. Upon death no CGT is payable.

You say you are not interested in growth but you would be well advised to keep it under review because the long term tax implications for someone in your situation are likely to be significant.

All good stuff when it works out.

Superb.

Y'see this is the thing. It isn't "superb". It's nonsense. Raving nonsense about "tax" and "growth" and "IHT planning". Take the latter for example. IHT. How much do you guess my wife will pay if I die before her? And how much will the charity pay which will cop the lot on second death? As to "growth", are you in the right thread? This thread is about retirement funded by BTL. Who gives a monkeys about funding growth in retirement? As it happens its surplus has actually created a bit of growth. About £14k a year's worth. And while it ain't a king's ransom, it's what a an annuity of about £250k would produce. And it wasn't even sought. How many pensioners do YOU know whose annuity income has gone up by £14k this year? And very likely to do the same or better next year too.

And mate, this is the real world. 'voids and 'bad tenants' aren't 'risks'. They're certainties. No one in the world operates a portfolio of even dozen properties without encountering a bad tenant or a void at some time. Amateurs should expect to pocket 60% of the full occupancy rent pre-tax. Experienced pros closer to 85-90%. Commercial, 95-100%.

There is probably more rubbish written about btl on PH (and elsewhere) than any other subject or topic. This is good in some ways because it discourages people who would become competitors from getting into it or encourages people who shouldn't go near it to go for it. But believe me, properly executed there are few investments and certainly none on offer in this forum which come anywhere even close to property as a long term performer.

If I told that, say, 50% of my portfolio cost me NOTHING you wouldn't believe it, would you? Because then you'd have to accept that half of this very comfortable retirement income cost not 1 penny to obtain. Not a penny. Set that beside the taxman's theoretical tax bonus in a pension plan and ask yourself which you'd prefer?

[drainbrain]

technodup said:

've said this before. Glasgow has some very cheap property with relatively large yields.

You can buy outright for the cost of a deposit elsewhere. Which makes BTL a very different proposition. Even more different if you can secure government guaranteed rent, as is (or was) possible for 20 months at a time.

You're exemplifying part of the well-known Location Myth.

Three of the 4 properties I mentioned above aren't in Glasgow. EVERYWHERE has some very cheap property as a look round even good ole' Rightmove or a few auction sites can tell you. And HB is payable all over UK for an indeterminate period.

But property investment for income isn't really about cheap or expensive property. It's about what it costs YOU. Some people have very expensive property they got for nothing. It rents for Xpcm. Other people paid an expensive price for the expensive property next door to it which also rents at Xpcm.

I'm only adding unburdened property because I've no passive income alternative. In fact it'll probably take more than 10 years before I even have my cost prices back. If you think that's good then stick with the day job or save in a pension. Some pensionistas won't be seeing a penny back for decades. In fact the earlier they started the longer it'll be. And some won't see a penny back at all!! Oh dear!

[drainbrain]

randlemarcus said:

What happens if they put a hard cap on HB? You either accept the lower yield, thus ruining the point, or you kick them out, and find new tenants, with the associated voids etc.
I can see there being a bit of a backlash about people exactly like you "exploiting the hardworking classes".

"What happens if…..". Aha! This is from the well known Risk Myth school of thought. "What happens if….." hmmm. How many things could I finish that sentence with. What do you reckon? A thousand? A million? Unfortunately in business you have to work with what IS rather than what might be. You anticipate change with adaptation. Which prevents you having to really care about "what if" style imaginary risks. As the Wise One said, "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof". Deal with today's problems rather than stressing about what MIGHT happen tomorrow.

And just so you know, apart from a colossal minefield of legislation to prevent it, "exploiting the hardworking classes" isn't how successful BTL (or anything else) operates for anything other than the shortest measure. In reality it's the opposite. Providing the hardworking person with a decent facility or service at a decent price is how to keep the tills ringing and the referrals coming in. The day there's a backlash against that is a long long long way off.

[drainbrain]

NickCQ said:

drainbrain said:

Unfortunately in business you have to work with what IS rather than what might be.

That is simply untrue.

Arguable possibly for some (clairvoyants for example). But for the most part what'll happen tomorrow, never mind in 10 years time, is a guess and capable of endless potential permutation and outcome. All you can really know is the now. A poster above asks "what if there's a hard cap on HB"? Why would that possibility affect someone's decision to accept an HB tenancy today? Or affect their ability to adapt to it if it happened? Change is endless. It's not a risk it's a certainty. In fact change is as certain as death. Surviving change requires adaptation. But adapting to possible change which has yet to come is a bit silly rather than getting on with dealing with the changes that are currently in effect.

[drainbrain]

DonkeyApple said:

All I would add is that it's prudent to spread your exposure over more than one asset class even if it means a lower income. Especially if at the age when sourcing an alternate income is difficult. I would certainly look to plough excess income into something else as a prudent hedge rather than increasing exposure in the one class. You don't want to be 75 and dealing with margin calls and sitting tennants should there be a downturn or a significant change in taxation or laws etc.

There's only a certain "prudence" in risk spreading as general slumps/recessions teach. The same lesson's learned by betting every horse in a race or buying a thousand lottery tickets instead of one or putting money on every number or both colours on the wheel. But there are so many 'species' of property and options within it that a truly massive spread can be achieved within this single asset class. And I don't see age as a barrier to sourcing alternate income. Incapacity, maybe depending what it is. And inability certainly, because no-one my age is likely to be playing professional football for example. But age in itself is no barrier to earning. That's a pension-salesman's fallacy. Loads of us old duffers work. Many of us even enjoy it. Some even do quite well out of it. I certainly enjoyed it and may even go back to it if The Real Boss permits. Margin call is about dealing with the wrong type of lender in the wrong type of agreement and sitting tenants are an old school 'risk' that I didn't know in the AST age even existed any more. Even significant negative tax change or law is highly unlikely. Turkeys- even pretty stupid ones- don't vote for Xmas. And anyway, once again, being any particular age isn't of any significance. st happens. Like I said, it ain't a risk, it's a certainty. Brings three options. Adapt, exit, or fail.

But…spreading risk and thereby deliberately lowering income on the CHANCE of some future negative event…..don't think we'd make very good business partners. To me that's a bit like saying serious road accidents happen every day so I won't go to work today and earn any money in case I'm knocked down and killed. Yeah well, maybe.

[drainbrain]

technodup said:

o, you're splitting hairs, for all intents and purposes for most on this forum they are all Glasgow or thereabouts.

And it's just not true that property is that cheap everywhere. Try finding anything anywhere near London for less than £50k that isn't a garage, some sort of shared ownership or whatever.

But hey, what do I know, you're clearly the expert.

Well you've certainly got the last part right. I AM an expert. A provable expert. But the rest of your post is just rubbish.

Motherwell isn't Glasgow. Nor is Rutherglen. They are in 3 separate council districts. They could be in any 3 separate areas anywhere in the UK. In HB terms their LHAs are all completely different as are their interpretations of legislation.

What's "cheap" is only in one sense relative to area, but if you think no property dealer in London can find cheap property then you're very very much mistaken. And why are you excluding garages? Or shared ownership property?

Listen, 'cheap' ends at no cost. For nothing. Do you think it's impossible to own property anywhere, including London, that costs you NOTHING? And if it's costing you NOTHING what does it matter what it's market value is? Well it is impossible. For you. But like you said, "what do YOU know"?

[drainbrain]

Zoon said:

Whilst this is great in your example it's simply not achievable today.
.

…as people have been saying since the dawn of time.

Nonsense, tho. People are starting up btl businesses at this very moment. They may all be "Doomed I tell ya" but they may not be. My money's on 'may not be'.

[drainbrain]

eldar said:

That sounds like puff for some magic money making scheme. Amazing returns, no risk.

Risk? Certainly there's risk. The risk is that time is wasted trying something that makes no or insufficient profit to justify itself never mind 'amazing returns'.But if your ownership costs you no money then there is no money at risk.

[drainbrain]

technodup said:

y point was you don't have a clue who I am, what I've done, not done, been party to or anything else. Your initial boast doesn't impress me.

Thing is I agree with much of your basic premise but you're coming across as a monumental bellend so I'll leave it there.

Silly person.

[drainbrain]

DonkeyApple said:

Of course it is. Slumlandlording in Glasgow, minicabs and blaming the lender for not understanding risk. There can be only one!

Y'know I don't know where this 'slumlandlording thing came from but that's a dreadful and wholly unjustifiable slur. And the minicabs has gone! Funded by the btl 'empire',started in recession, built for 8 years. Sold! Actually I've an offer to buy another and bigger one. It's got to be one of the safest and easiest businesses on the planet. Even I managed to get 'lucky' with it. There is currently an opening for a third (sleeping) partnership in this new one, but if you want to start the 'what if' type "risk analysis" 'elf and safety' approach then I don't think this stunningly simple and easy to profit from investment would be for you. It'd make buying a property and renting it out seem positively safe by comparison! And we all know the dreadful panoply of 'risks' buying a property and renting it out can bring! LOL!

And as to lenders, fortunately there are many who DO understand risk. They're currently fast replacing the ones who don't who are - as far as I know- still pretty well bust now. Not the best advert for 'risk analysis' are they?

Anyway, we're far from the point. The point is, despite the best efforts of the "doomed I tell ya!" brigade, this is a happy btl funded retiree announcing that 1 year in it's absolutely fine.

[drainbrain]

Zoon said:

drainbrain said:

…as people have been saying since the dawn of time.

Nonsense, tho. People are starting up btl businesses at this very moment. They may all be "Doomed I tell ya" but they may not be. My money's on 'may not be'.

25% deposits are normally required on BTL mortgages.
So to get into your position someone would need say 100k cash.
Without a business to sell or a large chunk of savings to generate this then it can't be done.
So whilst there are people doing it, the deposits alone would be what you actually paid for your properties outright.

Then deduct mortgage payments from the rents - voids - damage/maintenance - tax.
And all of a sudden it doesn't look very attractive.

Of course when you own a property outright with no mortgage the returns are much better.

Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time there was this bloke - let's call him Joe -who needed a job. So he became a letting agent. Some 10 years later the owner sold the agency. One day, the bloke got a call from the ex-owner who said 'Me and Bill are going to start a new letting company. As you know, we own a few hundred flats between us and will be acquiring more, plus as soon as they hear we're doing business loads of our amigos will want us to manage their lets and portfolios as well. So from day one the company will be comfortably profitable, albeit only charging us as owners 5% instead of the token 10. Thing is, Me and Bill want to spend our day doing buy-to-sell and really won't be keen to spend any time doing any hands-on letting business though if you need anything we'll be there for you. So here's the deal. We know you well, Joe, and you know the letting business very well too. We want you to run the letting biz as its operating boss, and, apart from a good wage, we'll give you 20% of the company for doing it. Obviously that 20% will only be as good as your operating skills. Five years later Me and Bill decided BTSell was done and we agreed to go our ways. The company bought Bill's shareholding which Joe and I split between us. So Joe now owned 40% and I owned 60%. Late last year in our 20th year together I asked Joe if he'd be ok if I chucked it. Hadn't really been hands-on for a few years anyway. He said he didn't have the money to buy my shares. I said, don't worry I'm good for a payup using the company's profits. So he now owns 100% of the company. Which has required him to trouser NOTHING. The company Joe owns which has cost him nothing owns 14 unburdened properties. And that's the tale of a chap who is, right now, the sole shareholder of a company which owns a pretty damn good letting agency and 14 properties without any of it costing him a single penny.

Property for nothing? Not really a magic trick, is it?

Other people inherit it.

Other people get 100% finance for it. That takes a certain amount of buying skill (or in my case, luck) and time to unburden, but there's no rush, is there?

etc etc etc

[drainbrain]

DonkeyApple said:

Groak, it came from you when you described your high leverage btl model in Glasgow renting to DSS ten years ago that came a cropper a couple of years later when your lender changed the terms of their business.

I'm glad you're back but your original post seemed imply that you had no prior experience or capital and had just built a pyramid of properties within 12 months out of nothing. Obviously, once I realised who you were I appreciated that you have decades of experience, cash and an extremely obtuse view.

" Came a cropper??????" I beg to differ. The LENDER 'came a cropper', all that happened for me was I took to expanding with cash instead of borrowing so expansion slowed. I tried to explain to them that the world may have gone into recession but not in my bit where, if anything, business was booming. I also tried to explain to them that they shouldn't destabilise businesses which were making them profit. But to no avail. Actually in the end they entirely refused the renewal of my facility this July which was the 4th reneging on their own arrangements they'd done since 2009, but all that meant was doing a bit of selling to buy out the debt. I'm just at the very last stage of that just now and as I write another missive is concluded for settlement Monday and the last one settles on 14th November. And it's bye bye Royal Bank! 'Came a cropper' indeed! That business plan (which is why a far far better corporate manager funded it) had fully accounted for a facility withdrawal, and the only party who really lost anything from its withdrawal was RBS. Silly people. No wonder they're bust. Incidentally, at least half a dozen sales were for less than I paid which was very helpful for the mitigation of CGT which I'm glad to say is looking like being pretty tiny. Overall, including rental income, not one single unit was not profitable.

I must be writing funny. In the original post I was trying to say that the cash surplus from the portfolio over the last year has added another 4 to the hoard. And I think another one's on the cards for Dec.

It's also probably fair and right to say that RBS funding contributed hugely to building up the portfolio. Especially the 3 year period when they funded 100% of the purchase price which means that those properties have really cost me nothing which is quite an ROI!!

[drainbrain]

227bhp said:

Thanks for your interesting insight, i'm no expert (internet or otherwise) but i'm inclined to agree with you.

My financial adviser sorts out mortgages and pension plans for people on a daily basis, you know where he's got his own money invested? BTL.

Funnily enough, mine too. Good bloke. Next week he and I and my ex-taxi partner are off to look at a fixer-upper aka 6 month cash-flow nightmare. I actually ENJOY these which makes me a good partner for the other two who can't be assed with the restoration/renovation hassle. Haven't done a buy-to-sell for a good while, but I don't suppose it's changed much. In this case it'll be for sale to occupiers rather than landlords. Last time I did that market I just got out by the seat of my pants in a fast-dropping market. The buyer got a lurvly house, tho, which is a sort of warm and fuzzy feeling.

Properly executed buy-to-sell is much more lucrative than buy-to-let in my experience. Most of the skill (luck in my case) is in the buying. Get that right and the rest's really simple. Love the 3-man team approach. Sourcer, sorter, seller. But it is a cash-flow bh until you get the leapfrogging in line.

(Plus I can do it discreetly enough so she doesn't find out I'm 'working' again. )

[drainbrain]

Zoon said:

Whilst in the real world not many people set-up a property letting company and run it for 20 years in order to be given 14 properties?
100% finance for property, who with?
You talk as though you are one of the Candy brothers yet own 4 properties of relatively small value producing modest rental incomes?

Unless I have misunderstood your posts, and you are the mysterious letting agent who now has 14 properties?

I started a letting company which I sold. Then started another which has ended up in the hands of a guy who has paid not one personal penny to own it. One of its assets is an unburdened portfolio of 14. He is the sole shareholder of a company which owns the properties. He has therefore obtained these properties for nothing.

I am not a Candy Brother never mind a Livingstone Brother. There are probably no better living examples of how property business can be done than Los Livingstones. They are Premier League. I'm Conference League division 3. This year the cash surplus from my portfolio - after paying its dues debts and my living and luxury expenses has allowed for the purchase of 4 small and modest properties.

The point I am making is this: It is perfectly possible to allow retirement to be funded by a BTL investment without any supplementary pension, SIPP, ISA, or anything else at all. Not in theory, in practice. For 1 year at least. Maybe next year some doom will overtake it and next year's reality check will be of how I wished I had an annuity instead of a btl portfolio to provide retirement income. So far, this is not the case.

Often it is suggested that BTL on its own is a risky way to fund retirement. I never really understood why anyone would think that and the reality of matters is that it ain't. It's turned out - after 1 year - to be a great way to fund it. So if you're thinking of doing it yourself, believe me it's not only possible but relatively easy.

[drainbrain]

768 said:

I feel better about myself having worked out how much 14 £25k properties is. I could swap my house for a whole street in some suburb of Glasgow an independent council area not near any recognisable city name.

LOL!! Actually in our pomp me and the buy-to-sell partner must have peaked at about 1000 units in our names or via companies we controlled. He ended up with about 600 and me with 200. Don't even know how many buy-to-sells we did. Certainly hundreds. Having bought back my debt I'm now down to about 75 unburdened on which I'm hoping to drawdown £150k by year end.. It should be 120 units with a 1.5M debt but RBS reneged on our deal. Some of them are higher values. A couple of the commercials reach to the 200-250k level. But my favourites are always the real cheapos and the ones I've got for nothing.

It's weird to think about what you said. Folk in unburdened 3 bed flats in SW10 worth £3M or £4M who could be living in a mansion on an estate here and living off a 100 property portfolio bringing them 10k a week yet prefer not to. Bizarre really.

[drainbrain]

Broccers said:

Sounds to me that you arent retired and are just doing what you always did.

Well I don't go to work anymore and the two main trading companies have been sold. The properties are under full management and the passive interests don't require more than a short quarterly meeting. That's retired, isn't it? Do what I like with the day etc. Mind you I have to do pretty intense rehab for at least another 6 months I'd guess which is, I suppose, a sort of work. Plus I still get involved in the odd thing that I'd once have called work, but purely voluntarily. I dunno but it certainly seems like retirement and very different from the old routine.

[drainbrain]

FredClogs said:

Broccers said:

Sounds to me that you arent retired and are just doing what you always did.

Ha ha that was my thought, along with "worst I'm a golden gen baby boomer who loves Peter Rachman thread ever".

Well that makes 2 thoughts you've had.

If you're enjoying thinking then think about this and help me with it. In these days of mountainous compliance and regulation and scrutiny and enforcement especially in a socialist-governed state at both local and national level as Scotland is , how would it be possible to get away with decades of Rachmanism or Hoogstraatenism and still retain registrations and licences from the regulatory authorities who for some time have proactively searched for antisocial business conduct and who react fiercely to public or client complaint?