TGOHF said:

OchEye said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

OchEye said:

Pulpstar said:

I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ?
Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?

Probably every black cab driver in London....

Isn't "prominent businessman" almost a contradiction in terms? How many famous UK-based businessmen can you think of? I can get to around, er, two. I'm sure that people who work in the City can name dozens, just as we could name dozens of MPs, but Joe Bloggs would probably struggle with either.

There’s one household name who lives in the Caribbean with form

We will have to wait until the story hits the news media in the US (or Scotland, but I suspect that horse is firmly locked in the stable) and I would suggest that putting or even naming possibles on this site might be dangerous fot OGH

The person hinted at above does not match the frame of the black outline on the Telegraph.

The black outline / shadow gives it away IMHO.

Is the silhouette actually of the person?

williamglenn said:

TGOHF said:

OchEye said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

OchEye said:

Pulpstar said:

I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ?
Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?

Probably every black cab driver in London....

Isn't "prominent businessman" almost a contradiction in terms? How many famous UK-based businessmen can you think of? I can get to around, er, two. I'm sure that people who work in the City can name dozens, just as we could name dozens of MPs, but Joe Bloggs would probably struggle with either.

There’s one household name who lives in the Caribbean with form

We will have to wait until the story hits the news media in the US (or Scotland, but I suspect that horse is firmly locked in the stable) and I would suggest that putting or even naming possibles on this site might be dangerous fot OGH

The person hinted at above does not match the frame of the black outline on the Telegraph.

The black outline / shadow gives it away IMHO.

Is the silhouette actually of the person?

That would be a brave move by the Telegraph.

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

You may remember I had a friend at No.10 at the time (now long gone) who texted me at 9.40pm on the day of the election that they (the friend was part of May's team) still expected a 40-70 seat majority. That friend made it clear to me in no uncertain terms that the idea that a large majority would mean she could face down the ERG to be absolutely not the case.

Happy to discuss views of what it all means and will mean, but that is not a discussion point.

The problem with that view is that it ignores the reality of the negotiating position. Unless the government was going to authorise massive infrastructure spending to create the capacity for a hard Brexit, then it could only ever be a bluff intended to intimidate the EU, who wouldn't have changed their position just because May had a bigger majority.

I agree with you on infrastructure but the crucial thing is that they’d have known the British Government could have passed through a raft of emergency “no deal” legislation to deregulate and undercut them, which would have been a credible threat.

First Soros....

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1055085190446505986?s=20

Richard_Nabavi said:

IanB2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

O/T: I see the Guardian are majoring on 'rogue landlords' again. Has the Guardian ever in its history run an article critical of feckless tenants?

The rather obvious difference being that landlords have all the power.

Really? What power do they have if the tenant trashes the place and leaves without paying the last three months' rent?

Report them to the credit file people ?

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

I think one interesting counter-factual is what would have happened if Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill were still on the scene. It's reasonable to assume Timothy wouldn't have supported whats happened, so would May have forced him out after he'd served his purpose of burnishing her Brexiteer credentials?

Yes, that is an interesting one. Hard to know how he would have reacted if he were in on the negotiations rather than sniping from the sidelines.

I’d argue Nick Timothy is most directly responsible, if not accountable, for where we are now.

I'd argue Theresa May is most directly responsible for where we are now because she uncritically accepted bad advice from Nick Timothy.

NickPalmer said:

OchEye said:

Pulpstar said:

I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ?
Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?

Probably every black cab driver in London....

Isn't "prominent businessman" almost a contradiction in terms? How many famous UK-based businessmen can you think of? I can get to around, er, two. I'm sure that people who work in the City can name dozens, just as we could name dozens of MPs, but Joe Bloggs would probably struggle with either.

A corollary of this is that "prominent businessmen" aren't genuinely businessmen. Some, like Philip Green, only become famous when they fall short of normal standards of behaviour, or are egregiously grasping. Mainly, though, they are celebrities who monetise their public image as tycoons. Sugar is a TV personality who plays the role of a businessman on a scripted reality show. This fools the show's fans - and also Gordon Brown, oddly, who gave him a role in government. Branson is a self-publicist who licenses his brand and his notability to ventures run by real businesspeople.

Prima facie, the Telegraph would not spend eight months building up a #metoo case against anyone who could be trusted with a FTSE250 concern.

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

IanB2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

O/T: I see the Guardian are majoring on 'rogue landlords' again. Has the Guardian ever in its history run an article critical of feckless tenants?

The rather obvious difference being that landlords have all the power.

Really? What power do they have if the tenant trashes the place and leaves without paying the last three months' rent?

Report them to the credit file people ?

Not going to help the landlord concerned, though.

There's a useful discussion of the German system here:

https://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/lessons-from-germany-jan17.pdf

One big advantage for tenants is that in Germany they usually have security of tenure, subject to various conditions such as paying the rent. It seems to me that it would be good to aim eventually for something like that, provided (a) that rogue tenants can easily be chucked out if they break the contract, and (b) the landlord can regain possession with reasonable notice if the property is needed for his or her own use (as is the case in Germany).

The problem in the UK is that, after the utter disaster of the 1970s Rent Acts, which effectively killed off the rental sector altogether, it's going to be very hard to maintain supply if the legal framework is changed in favour of tenants.

IanB2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

O/T: I see the Guardian are majoring on 'rogue landlords' again. Has the Guardian ever in its history run an article critical of feckless tenants?

The rather obvious difference being that landlords have all the power.

LLs do not have all the power. You need to stop believing this stuff !

During a tenancy the T has exclusive possession, can change the locks at will and exclude the LL. The landlord entering the property without permission, emergencies excluded, is a criminal offence.

If the T has been harrassed or evicted without cause, that is also a criminal offence.

To carry out an eviction through the Courts routinely takes up to 6 months; usually money that will never be recovered.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

IanB2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

O/T: I see the Guardian are majoring on 'rogue landlords' again. Has the Guardian ever in its history run an article critical of feckless tenants?

The rather obvious difference being that landlords have all the power.

Really? What power do they have if the tenant trashes the place and leaves without paying the last three months' rent?

Report them to the credit file people ?

Not going to help the landlord concerned, though.

There's a useful discussion of the German system here:

https://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/lessons-from-germany-jan17.pdf

One big advantage for tenants is that in Germany they usually have security of tenure, subject to various conditions such as paying the rent. It seems to me that it would be good to aim eventually for something like that, provided (a) that rogue tenants can easily be chucked out if they break the contract, and (b) the landlord can regain possession with reasonable notice if the property is needed for his or her own use (as is the case in Germany).

The problem in the UK is that, after the utter disaster of the 1970s Rent Acts, which effectively killed off the rental sector altogether, it's going to be very hard to maintain supply if the legal framework is changed in favour of tenants.

Almost every tenant in the UK is on an AST which allows for possession under the accelerated procedure for breach (about a two month process) and/or on two months' notice for own - or any other use.

Your disaster tenants are breaking the law, you can't change the law to fix that.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

IanB2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

O/T: I see the Guardian are majoring on 'rogue landlords' again. Has the Guardian ever in its history run an article critical of feckless tenants?

The rather obvious difference being that landlords have all the power.

Really? What power do they have if the tenant trashes the place and leaves without paying the last three months' rent?

Report them to the credit file people ?

Not going to help the landlord concerned, though.

There's a useful discussion of the German system here:

https://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/lessons-from-germany-jan17.pdf

One big advantage for tenants is that in Germany they usually have security of tenure, subject to various conditions such as paying the rent. It seems to me that it would be good to aim eventually for something like that, provided (a) that rogue tenants can easily be chucked out if they break the contract, and (b) the landlord can regain possession with reasonable notice if the property is needed for his or her own use (as is the case in Germany).

The problem in the UK is that, after the utter disaster of the 1970s Rent Acts, which effectively killed off the rental sector altogether, it's going to be very hard to maintain supply if the legal framework is changed in favour of tenants.

Almost every tenant in the UK is on an AST which allows for possession under the accelerated procedure for breach (about a two month process) and/or on two months' notice for own - or any other use.

Your disaster tenants are breaking the law, you can't change the law to fix that.

But that's the point. At the moment, landlords have a reasonable expectation that, even in the worst case, they'll be able to chuck out the rogue tenant with notice or at the end of the (rather short) tenancy, so the risk is manageable and we have very good supply. But that means that good tenants don't have any security of tenure. The conundrum is: how to you improve things for the decent tenants without wrecking the market altogether? Hint: Not like the 1970s!

https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1055092535411068928

Richard_Nabavi said:

O/T: I see the Guardian are majoring on 'rogue landlords' again. Has the Guardian ever in its history run an article critical of feckless tenants?

On a rapid reading, it's a non-story.

The Guardian and ITV seem to have discovered:

1 - That no LLs are yet on the Rogue Landlord Database in a timeframe when the time for necessary legal procedures have prevented any getting right through the process.

2 - That LLs declared not to be fit and proper people continue to rent out houses by being the owner who appoints a Property Manager to run the lettings, who then has responsibility. ie they have discovered that the law is operating in the way the law was designed to operate.

If that hands off management were not possible, then the properties would be sold and all of the other tenants would be homeless. Surprised that even the Guardian is *that* stupid.

Divots and dunderheads, all.

OneArmedBadger said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1055092535411068928

Survation doing the poll, with 20,000 people "spoken to", according to the C4 press office. Survation normally poll around 1,000. There has to be some fall-off in accuracy when a pollster takes cash to scale up their normal activity 20-fold.

They don't do the regular polls for free.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Badger, welcome to PB.

A Channel 4 discussion reminds me of when they had one on the Danish cartoons about a 7th century warlord. The studio audience was polled on whether they wanted to see the cartoons. A majority said yes. Jon Snow pulled an envelope from his jacket pocket. The letter within was from Channel 4 executives effectively saying they weren't showing the cartoons anyway.

And they say he knows nothing.

Thanks for the welcome.

IanB2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

O/T: I see the Guardian are majoring on 'rogue landlords' again. Has the Guardian ever in its history run an article critical of feckless tenants?

The rather obvious difference being that landlords have all the power.

Not always. In a rough area (eg the area covered by Edmonton County Court) it can take months to evict a tenant who decides to fight you all the way (as well as costing a considerable amount in legal fees)

Sean_F said:

IanB2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

O/T: I see the Guardian are majoring on 'rogue landlords' again. Has the Guardian ever in its history run an article critical of feckless tenants?

The rather obvious difference being that landlords have all the power.

Not always. In a rough area (eg the area covered by Edmonton County Court) it can take months to evict a tenant who decides to fight you all the way (as well as costing a considerable amount in legal fees)

One thing I've noted is that yield heads north at the lower end of the housing spectrum. I assume it is because this sort of risk increases.

Sean_F said:

IanB2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

O/T: I see the Guardian are majoring on 'rogue landlords' again. Has the Guardian ever in its history run an article critical of feckless tenants?

The rather obvious difference being that landlords have all the power.

Not always. In a rough area (eg the area covered by Edmonton County Court) it can take months to evict a tenant who decides to fight you all the way (as well as costing a considerable amount in legal fees)

If the tenant is compliant with the terms of the lease, and we are talking about a s.21 scenario, then the landlord is receiving rent for that period.

If the tenant is not compliant, then that is part of the business risk here. I think part of the problem has been the rise in DIY buy-to-let landlords, for whom the risk is effectively greater because one bad apple makes the difference.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

IanB2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

O/T: I see the Guardian are majoring on 'rogue landlords' again. Has the Guardian ever in its history run an article critical of feckless tenants?

The rather obvious difference being that landlords have all the power.

Really? What power do they have if the tenant trashes the place and leaves without paying the last three months' rent?

Report them to the credit file people ?

Not going to help the landlord concerned, though.

There's a useful discussion of the German system here:

https://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/lessons-from-germany-jan17.pdf

One big advantage for tenants is that in Germany they usually have security of tenure, subject to various conditions such as paying the rent. It seems to me that it would be good to aim eventually for something like that, provided (a) that rogue tenants can easily be chucked out if they break the contract, and (b) the landlord can regain possession with reasonable notice if the property is needed for his or her own use (as is the case in Germany).

The problem in the UK is that, after the utter disaster of the 1970s Rent Acts, which effectively killed off the rental sector altogether, it's going to be very hard to maintain supply if the legal framework is changed in favour of tenants.

Almost every tenant in the UK is on an AST which allows for possession under the accelerated procedure for breach (about a two month process) and/or on two months' notice for own - or any other use.

Your disaster tenants are breaking the law, you can't change the law to fix that.

One of the problems here is that there are Councils up and down the country practically encouraging tenants to break the law in precisely this way.

eg one of the surer ways of being accepted as homeless is to be evicted through the Courts by a private LL. That encourages abuse, and is one reason amongst many why many LLs simply do not deal with Councils. Why would you enter relations with an incompetent organisation that has a policy to abuse you?

The German system has many problems for Tenants, as well as upsides, including that deposits can be far more than the UK, and that not having a freer system as here can make it a right sod to find anywhere. Advocates usually cherry-pick the bits they want from several count

They do not normally pick eg the German practise of having the tenant transport a kitchen and a bathroom with them to each new tenancy, since they are responsible for it usually. Said advocates then forget that the need to supply kitchens and bathrooms every few years is one factor that increases rents in the UK.

Sean_F said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

IanB2 said:

The rather obvious difference being that landlords have all the power.

Really? What power do they have if the tenant trashes the place and leaves without paying the last three months' rent?

Report them to the credit file people ?

Not going to help the landlord concerned, though.

There's a useful discussion of the German system here:

https://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/lessons-from-germany-jan17.pdf

One big advantage for tenants is that in Germany they usually have security of tenure, subject to various conditions such as paying the rent. It seems to me that it would be good to aim eventually for something like that, provided (a) that rogue tenants can easily be chucked out if they break the contract, and (b) the landlord can regain possession with reasonable notice if the property is needed for his or her own use (as is the case in Germany).

The problem in the UK is that, after the utter disaster of the 1970s Rent Acts, which effectively killed off the rental sector altogether, it's going to be very hard to maintain supply if the legal framework is changed in favour of tenants.

Almost every tenant in the UK is on an AST which allows for possession under the accelerated procedure for breach (about a two month process) and/or on two months' notice for own - or any other use.

Your disaster tenants are breaking the law, you can't change the law to fix that.

!

You're right, one answer is security of tenure without rent control.

Another is to look at the managing agents' market. Good tenants, paying their rent on time, get asked for £180 "renewal fees" to fund agents' pockets - not landlords.

Security of tenure, subject to market rents, works well in the commercial sector. What was disastrous was the law from 1965 to 1988, which combined security of tenure with "fair" rents which were anything but fair.

Paradoxically, it opened the way for the nastiest landlords to enter the market, who bought properties cheaply with sitting tenants, and then evicted them with menaces.

We don't have a conversation about rents. My landlord, with 100s of flats on the books, wouldn't know s.13 if it hit them in the face.

"Well, Mr WhiteRabbit, you're right to say that contrary to our last letter we cannot kick you out on 1 August. Instead, we are increasing your rent by 85% between that date and when we can lawfully kick you out"

(only lightly paraphrased)

Interesting study purporting to show that older Americans are worse than younger Americans at determining whether a statement is a fact or an opinion:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/older-people-are-worse-than-young-people-at-telling-fact-from-opinion/573739/?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=the-atlantic-fb-test-501-2-&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR1MoqA3EDcpNpO5sHoH-nWk4ZBA944sTBRfIO2NOdgKO5DdpeiYZ2CXvRE

Mr. Quincel, cheers for the clarification, though that still seems amateurish to me.

I don't want to post potential alternative ideas, of course, but we should be glad the bomber went that route as it enabled the bombs to be detected.

Quincel said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Saw the Clinton story on the Sky ticker just now.

Three bombs, two to former presidents. Rather alarming. Sending to offices seems a little amateurish, though, given the post is bound to be checked.

The SS statement says that the Obama one was posted to their residence, doesn't seem to say where the Clinton one went. And wasn't the Soros one in the postbox outside his house?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45969100

Guardian reporting Clinton one found 'at their property'. Which I guess could mean in the postbox.
Edit. Now saying 'in the vicinity' of. So postbox then.

MattW said:

>Another is to look at the managing agents' market. Good tenants, paying their rent on time, get asked for £180 "renewal fees" to fund agents' pockets - not landlords.

Agree with reform of this one. Ts should have a right to opt for a Statutory Monthly Periodic tenancy instead. It is a practise designed to give continuing income for Lettings Agents.

I have occasionally been asked for periodic renewals, but Ts can usually be persuaded that the £100-200 a year is better off in their pocket to spend on beer.

The Gov't is making it illegal to charge for most types of tenant fees. So Managing agents will try to charge landlords the same fees, let's see who has the stronger bargaining position then...


Also the general slowdown in the market will help return power to tenants. Fingers crossed supply continues as well, in general.

bigjohnowls said:

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

I think one interesting counter-factual is what would have happened if Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill were still on the scene. It's reasonable to assume Timothy wouldn't have supported whats happened, so would May have forced him out after he'd served his purpose of burnishing her Brexiteer credentials?

Yes, that is an interesting one. Hard to know how he would have reacted if he were in on the negotiations rather than sniping from the sidelines.

I’d argue Nick Timothy is most directly responsible, if not accountable, for where we are now.

Who appointed him?

Was TM forced to take his advice re a GE

Was TM forced to put the Granny house theft into the Manifesto.

Did NT come over all stilted and not Strong and Stable

Did NT send Amber Rudd to the leaders debate?

Did TM run the worst GE campaign in living memory pissing away a 20% lead


Or is JC just awesome.

Yes but next time round it may not be May. The next Tory leader will

i) Head to the debates
ii) Not attempt to nick Granny's house in the manifesto.
iii) Might be a better campaigner than May, or if it is May again will be better at it I think !

Pulpstar said:

@Thewhiterabbit Hopefully Fergus won't turn you into a stew for his tea too

Fergus Wilson is a character, no mistake.

A couple of weeks ago he sent a present to a Youtuber with whom he had been in dispute.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=29&v=mJGOL8FBRuM

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/fergus-wilson-sends-knitted-willy-warmer-to-youtuber-191093/

RobD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Did TM run the worst GE campaign in living memory pissing away a 20% lead


Or is JC just awesome.

The former.

Tick VG

TheWhiteRabbit said:

MattW said:

>Another is to look at the managing agents' market. Good tenants, paying their rent on time, get asked for £180 "renewal fees" to fund agents' pockets - not landlords.

Agree with reform of this one. Ts should have a right to opt for a Statutory Monthly Periodic tenancy instead. It is a practise designed to give continuing income for Lettings Agents.

I have occasionally been asked for periodic renewals, but Ts can usually be persuaded that the £100-200 a year is better off in their pocket to spend on beer.

The Gov't is making it illegal to charge for most types of tenant fees. So Managing agents will try to charge landlords the same fees, let's see who has the stronger bargaining position then...


Also the general slowdown in the market will help return power to tenants. Fingers crossed supply continues as well, in general.

What will happen is that whatever the fees were will get wrapped up in the rent, but with no downward pressure through the market, as there will be no price visibility, and the T will be paying the higher rent forever not just as a one off.

Just as happened in Scotland.

I predict a one-off rent increase of about 1-2%, and furious denials from the activists who have campaigned for it.

As far as I can see, Letting Agent fees have fallen from about £355 to £250 since the ASA enforced pre-publication of fees in 2013.

MattW said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

MattW said:

>Another is to look at the managing agents' market. Good tenants, paying their rent on time, get asked for £180 "renewal fees" to fund agents' pockets - not landlords.

Agree with reform of this one. Ts should have a right to opt for a Statutory Monthly Periodic tenancy instead. It is a practise designed to give continuing income for Lettings Agents.

I have occasionally been asked for periodic renewals, but Ts can usually be persuaded that the £100-200 a year is better off in their pocket to spend on beer.

The Gov't is making it illegal to charge for most types of tenant fees. So Managing agents will try to charge landlords the same fees, let's see who has the stronger bargaining position then...


Also the general slowdown in the market will help return power to tenants. Fingers crossed supply continues as well, in general.

What will happen is that whatever the fees were will get wrapped up in the rent, but with no downward pressure through the market, as there will be no price visibility, and the T will be paying the higher rent forever not just as a one off.

Just as happened in Scotland.

I predict a one-off rent increase of about 1-2%, and furious denials from the activists who have campaigned for it.

As far as I can see, Letting Agent fees have fallen from about £355 to £250 since the ASA enforced pre-publication of fees in 2013.

You sound like someone who hasn’t rented for a long time.

It’s better for the fees to absorbed into rent as it removes a barrier to moving. The only ‘power’ a tennnant has is to move (the free market) if a landlord is rubbish. Fees made this harder than it should as it requires a large lump sum. The limits on deposits the government is also proposing helps this.

MattW said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

MattW said:

>Another is to look at the managing agents' market. Good tenants, paying their rent on time, get asked for £180 "renewal fees" to fund agents' pockets - not landlords.

Agree with reform of this one. Ts should have a right to opt for a Statutory Monthly Periodic tenancy instead. It is a practise designed to give continuing income for Lettings Agents.

I have occasionally been asked for periodic renewals, but Ts can usually be persuaded that the £100-200 a year is better off in their pocket to spend on beer.

The Gov't is making it illegal to charge for most types of tenant fees. So Managing agents will try to charge landlords the same fees, let's see who has the stronger bargaining position then...


Also the general slowdown in the market will help return power to tenants. Fingers crossed supply continues as well, in general.

What will happen is that whatever the fees were will get wrapped up in the rent, but with no downward pressure through the market, as there will be no price visibility, and the T will be paying the higher rent forever not just as a one off.

Just as happened in Scotland.

I predict a one-off rent increase of about 1-2%, and furious denials from the activists who have campaigned for it.

As far as I can see, Letting Agent fees have fallen from about £355 to £250 since the ASA enforced pre-publication of fees in 2013.

When were you last a tenant Matt?

OneArmedBadger said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1055092535411068928

Survation doing the poll, with 20,000 people "spoken to", according to the C4 press office. Survation normally poll around 1,000. There has to be some fall-off in accuracy when a pollster takes cash to scale up their normal activity 20-fold.

So you mean if it shows Brexit is still the preferred option it's an accurate confirmation of the people's will. If it shows a remain lead it's inaccurate because of a change in methodology

bigjohnowls said:

AlastairMeeks said:

bigjohnowls said:

Pulpstar said:

bigjohnowls said:

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

I think one interesting counter-factual is what would have happened if Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill were still on the scene. It's reasonable to assume Timothy wouldn't have supported whats happened, so would May have forced him out after he'd served his purpose of burnishing her Brexiteer credentials?

Yes, that is an interesting one. Hard to know how he would have reacted if he were in on the negotiations rather than sniping from the sidelines.

I’d argue Nick Timothy is most directly responsible, if not accountable, for where we are now.

Who appointed him?

Was TM forced to take his advice re a GE

Was TM forced to put the Granny house theft into the Manifesto.

Did NT come over all stilted and not Strong and Stable

Did NT send Amber Rudd to the leaders debate?

Did TM run the worst GE campaign in living memory pissing away a 20% lead


Or is JC just awesome.

Yes but next time round it may not be May. The next Tory leader will

i) Head to the debates
ii) Not attempt to nick Granny's house in the manifesto.
iii) Might be a better campaigner than May, or if it is May again will be better at it I think !

Agreed but my point was to argue NT is more responsible than Weak and Wobbly is somewhat off the mark.

Can anyone tell me TM's strengths??

Theresa May is good at analysis, determined, conscientious, thorough and sincere.

Determined to plough on regardless.

Conscientiously trying to get a deal that satisfies nobody

Thoroughly tin eared

and sincerely autistic.

Apart from that she is marvellous.

Please PLEASE let her fight the next GE

Is the "autistic" bit a clinical diagnosis from you, or are you just a bit of a canute?

Salvini tells EU to send him as many letters as they like but he;s not changing his budget


https://www.lastampa.it/2018/10/24/italia/salvini-risponde-alle-critiche-ue-pu-mandare-letterine-fino-a-natale-non-cambiamo-la-manovra-OC0jMBrUzj2gWM1VHW0D6M/pagina.html

MattW said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

MattW said:

>Another is to look at the managing agents' market. Good tenants, paying their rent on time, get asked for £180 "renewal fees" to fund agents' pockets - not landlords.

Agree with reform of this one. Ts should have a right to opt for a Statutory Monthly Periodic tenancy instead. It is a practise designed to give continuing income for Lettings Agents.

I have occasionally been asked for periodic renewals, but Ts can usually be persuaded that the £100-200 a year is better off in their pocket to spend on beer.

The Gov't is making it illegal to charge for most types of tenant fees. So Managing agents will try to charge landlords the same fees, let's see who has the stronger bargaining position then...


Also the general slowdown in the market will help return power to tenants. Fingers crossed supply continues as well, in general.

What will happen is that whatever the fees were will get wrapped up in the rent, but with no downward pressure through the market, as there will be no price visibility, and the T will be paying the higher rent forever not just as a one off.

Just as happened in Scotland.

I predict a one-off rent increase of about 1-2%, and furious denials from the activists who have campaigned for it.

As far as I can see, Letting Agent fees have fallen from about £355 to £250 since the ASA enforced pre-publication of fees in 2013.

I doubt it - the market will set the fees and in some areas it may be possible to increase the rents to cover what was formerly added as agency fees, in other places they won't be able to...

Either way the market is changing - openrent can find you a tenant for £50 or less and that includes the referencing...

Fenman said:

OneArmedBadger said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1055092535411068928

Survation doing the poll, with 20,000 people "spoken to", according to the C4 press office. Survation normally poll around 1,000. There has to be some fall-off in accuracy when a pollster takes cash to scale up their normal activity 20-fold.

So you mean if it shows Brexit is still the preferred option it's an accurate confirmation of the people's will. If it shows a remain lead it's inaccurate because of a change in methodology

It would be the other way round for me, as it happens, but it's always good to raise trivial methodological quibbles in advance, when no-one cares, and then point back to them when the findings are revealed.

notme said:

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

IanB2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

O/T: I see the Guardian are majoring on 'rogue landlords' again. Has the Guardian ever in its history run an article critical of feckless tenants?

The rather obvious difference being that landlords have all the power.

Not always. In a rough area (eg the area covered by Edmonton County Court) it can take months to evict a tenant who decides to fight you all the way (as well as costing a considerable amount in legal fees)

One thing I've noted is that yield heads north at the lower end of the housing spectrum. I assume it is because this sort of risk increases.

And housing benefit / UC prop up a rental value to way above what is merited.

I suspect a lot of that is due to the fact your on-going costs (insurance, gas checks / servicing, decorating i.e. everything except agency fees and interest) are roughly the same regardless of the rent charged.

TheScreamingEagles said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Is the "autistic" bit a clinical diagnosis from you, or are you just a bit of a canute?

He's just channelling SeanT who regularly makes that observation.

Perhaps you've pulled SeanT up on that as well.

I'm quite happy for you to point out that BJO is "channelling SeanT". That ought to upset him more than anything I could say.

I haven't noticed SeanT's posting on the topic; I'd ask him the same question, even though I know he's a massive canute.

I do remember lefties on here howling at the same 'diagnosis' being made of Brown by more right leaning armchair psychologists. I wonder if BJO was howling here then?

RobD said:

Alanbrooke said:

Salvini tells EU to send him as many letters as they like but he;s not changing his budget


https://www.lastampa.it/2018/10/24/italia/salvini-risponde-alle-critiche-ue-pu-mandare-letterine-fino-a-natale-non-cambiamo-la-manovra-OC0jMBrUzj2gWM1VHW0D6M/pagina.html

Why does the EU have power over the Italian budget in the first place?

Because they're members of the Euro. You don't get unfettered license to set whatever bonkers fiscal policies you've decided are crowd-pleasers. This is perfectly right and proper.

TrèsDifficile said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Is the "autistic" bit a clinical diagnosis from you, or are you just a bit of a canute?

He's just channelling SeanT who regularly makes that observation.

Perhaps you've pulled SeanT up on that as well.

I'm quite happy for you to point out that BJO is "channelling SeanT". That ought to upset him more than anything I could say.

I haven't noticed SeanT's posting on the topic; I'd ask him the same question, even though I know he's a massive canute.

I do remember lefties on here howling at the same 'diagnosis' being made of Brown by more right leaning armchair psychologists. I wonder if BJO was howling here then?

I'm fairly certain John wasn't posting on PB when Brown was PM.

AlastairMeeks said:

Alistair said:

Speaking of property I have just accepted an offer on my property 30 grand below valuation.

If you remember the valuation was absurdly high given what I had paid 5 years ago and the offer we have accepted more closely matches what a "reasonable" yearly rise would be.

That said, near identical properties in the area had been going for tens of thousands over valuation not two months ago, a place across the street went for 70 grand over the offers over price of 299k.

In Edinburgh at least we may have hit a peak.

You at least have the consolation that accepted means accepted in Scotland. I accepted an offer on my flat more than a month ago and I'm still waiting to get to the point where it's legally binding.

A tale of two Alastairs/Alistairs.

I enjoyed exchanging contracts the day before my sale completed about as much as you might expect. It's incredibly stressful. I blame the government.

Gallowgate said:

MattW said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

MattW said:

>Another is to look at the managing agents' market. Good tenants, paying their rent on time, get asked for £180 "renewal fees" to fund agents' pockets - not landlords.

Agree with reform of this one. Ts should have a right to opt for a Statutory Monthly Periodic tenancy instead. It is a practise designed to give continuing income for Lettings Agents.

I have occasionally been asked for periodic renewals, but Ts can usually be persuaded that the £100-200 a year is better off in their pocket to spend on beer.

The Gov't is making it illegal to charge for most types of tenant fees. So Managing agents will try to charge landlords the same fees, let's see who has the stronger bargaining position then...


Also the general slowdown in the market will help return power to tenants. Fingers crossed supply continues as well, in general.

What will happen is that whatever the fees were will get wrapped up in the rent, but with no downward pressure through the market, as there will be no price visibility, and the T will be paying the higher rent forever not just as a one off.

Just as happened in Scotland.

I predict a one-off rent increase of about 1-2%, and furious denials from the activists who have campaigned for it.

As far as I can see, Letting Agent fees have fallen from about £355 to £250 since the ASA enforced pre-publication of fees in 2013.

You sound like someone who hasn’t rented for a long time.

It’s better for the fees to absorbed into rent as it removes a barrier to moving. The only ‘power’ a tennnant has is to move (the free market) if a landlord is rubbish. Fees made this harder than it should as it requires a large lump sum. The limits on deposits the government is also proposing helps this.

No. More like someone with knowledge of renting, and how things work, rather than just accepting what I am told. I rented in half a dozen places in London over 6 years, ending in about 2005 - so recent enough to be in the current market dynamics.

Lettings agents only have about 60% of the market (last number I saw).

>It’s better for the fees to absorbed into rent as it removes a barrier to moving. The only ‘power’ a tennnant has is to move (the free market) if a landlord is rubbish.

The tenant has far more powers than that, but I normally found out first whether my LL would be rubbish or not.

Fees are relatively small - as I say £200-£300 now on average, and the only one which is actually related to the move - the deposit is repaid from the previous rental (official dispute rate is now under 1%), and the rent on the new place is the rent that would have been paid on the old place.

AlastairMeeks said:

Alistair said:

Speaking of property I have just accepted an offer on my property 30 grand below valuation.

If you remember the valuation was absurdly high given what I had paid 5 years ago and the offer we have accepted more closely matches what a "reasonable" yearly rise would be.

That said, near identical properties in the area had been going for tens of thousands over valuation not two months ago, a place across the street went for 70 grand over the offers over price of 299k.

In Edinburgh at least we may have hit a peak.

You at least have the consolation that accepted means accepted in Scotland. I accepted an offer on my flat more than a month ago and I'm still waiting to get to the point where it's legally binding.

A tale of two Alastairs/Alistairs.

English property law helped me out in the end, pulled out of 3 houses. Though I'd have done more DD prior to purchase if under the Scottish system. Mind you on one of them a scoping application for THIS monstrosity https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/1-800-new-homes-planned-for-derbyshire-village-1-8937530 came in after I'd bought.

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1055100542484205569

WTO membership? Only globalist cucks like Jacob Rees-Mogg will accept such a blatant affront to our sovereignty.

MattW said:

Gallowgate said:

MattW said:

As far as I can see, Letting Agent fees have fallen from about £355 to £250 since the ASA enforced pre-publication of fees in 2013.

You sound like someone who hasn’t rented for a long time.

It’s better for the fees to absorbed into rent as it removes a barrier to moving. The only ‘power’ a tennnant has is to move (the free market) if a landlord is rubbish. Fees made this harder than it should as it requires a large lump sum. The limits on deposits the government is also proposing helps this.

No. More like someone with knowledge of renting, and how things work, rather than just accepting what I am told. I rented in half a dozen places in London over 6 years, ending in about 2005 - so recent enough to be in the current market dynamics.

Lettings agents only have about 60% of the market (last number I saw).

>It’s better for the fees to absorbed into rent as it removes a barrier to moving. The only ‘power’ a tennnant has is to move (the free market) if a landlord is rubbish.

The tenant has far more powers than that, but I normally found out first whether my LL would be rubbish or not.

Fees are relatively small - as I say £200-£300 now on average, and the only one which is actually related to the move - the deposit is repaid from the previous rental (official dispute rate is now under 1%), and the rent on the new place is the rent that would have been paid on the old place.

OK, this is how it worked for me:

1. Find flat on the market for £700pcm. This is the easy bit. I can compare rents at the press of a button.

2. Be presented with a sort of pre-contract whereby I agree to pay £380 to take the flat off the market. I haven't seen the tenancy agreement at this point, but pulling out forfeits my £380.

3. If I proceed, the £380 gets set against costs, itemised costs include contract fee (£180), reference fee (£120), and inventory fee (£120), plus six weeks' rent as a deposit plus the first month's rent.

4. I get a contract which doesn't reflect what we agreed, which I negotiate - but heavens knows what happens if I try and get my money back instead.

It. Does. Not. Work.

My last flat I took off someone else; they paid up their £180 "exit fee" and I got stiffed with £120 of my fees so about the same in total.

These people were above board, at least I got my deposit protected, EPC etc. My previous landlord was fiddling housing benefit and the guy before him nailed the fire door shut.

Thanks. Interesting, and I will do you the courtesy of a detailed comment. London effect? I suspect we are about to get - as so often - a national imposition of the solution to a London problem.

Parliament thinks you are being charged more than average.

2. I would expect to see the Tenancy Agreement on request, first, before anything else. Not sure if this is a legal requirement without some serious digging. It may well be an "in practice" legal requirement.

3. Some of that is dodgy. eg They could not legally charge the inventory fee if you pull out before the inventory had been done. That reference fee is about double or treble what it should be. I pay £15 for a decent credit report, and it is not rocket science to interpret.

That should be a Holding Deposit, which should probably be returned on pullout minus the value of work done for your tenancy.

Not sure what work is being done for the contract fee - unless it is your mods to the agreement. In which case you should get it back if they did not do the mods.

If it is an "admin" fee I can understand it -I set up a tenancy last week and it took the best part of 2 days work, and involved roughly 120 pages of gumf for the tenant. One page of this was a list of tickboxes to prove that the tenant had received all the other gumf, because the Govt have taken to making LL rights dependent on proving to have given the T various different bits of paper.

It is naughty to roll the Holding Deposit in with the Admin Fee.

4. Your only solution to 4 is to write modifications by hand on the spot, from the notes you made at the previous meeting, and face them down to comply with their contract.

Out of interest, what was the EPC figure? I think I have one E and all the rest are Cs or Ds; it is mainly old stock in good condition and properly renovated / ventilated.

Personally I self manage except for student HMOs, and do not charge any fees to anyone at all for anything, except if eg a cheque bounces and I get a bank fee for that. And for Court Fees if it comes to that (never has). For student HMOs we have a superb agent, but also top 20% properties. Tenant goodwill is worth far more than a couple of hundred £££ imo,

Personally I would go for the contract fee back, and probably cc the letter to the landlord - depending on your confidence level.

I will accept the no fees law. It will be coming in because TM is a Virtue Signaller, but it cost Ts more money.

I trust you reported the HB Fraudster.

Cheers