Evictions report “misleading and distorted” claims RLA

admin    Uncategorized     agents

A row has erupted over figures produce by a Joseph Rowntree Foundation report claiming that landlords are evicting tenants without good reason.

Writing in The Guardian Newspaper, Dan Wilson Craw, Director of Generation Rent, blames the “no fault” Section 21 eviction process for a rise in tenant evictions:

“Unfortunately, there is no official explanation for this [the rise in evictions], because private landlords don’t need to give a reason when they ask tenants to leave… [The] Joseph Rowntree Foundation attributes 80% of the recent rise in evictions to this “no fault” process.

“This process is enshrined under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. The other eviction route is section 8, where evidence of a breach of the tenancy is required. Section 21 evictions are therefore easier,” writes Mr Craw.

Homelessness charities have long campaigned for the abolition of the no fault section 21 eviction process, introduced in the Housing Act 1988, a mechanism which many argue was the salvation of the PRS in the UK, which had dwindled to almost nothing following the Rent Acts of the 1950s and 60s.

Following its publication, the JFR report has caused alarm and anger among the landlord community, especially as the social landlord aspect of the private rented sector (PRS), housing mainly low income tenants, is a relatively small proportion of the industry as a whole, and because the vast majority of landlords want to encourage good tenants to stay as long as they want to.

In response, the RLA chairman Alan Ward has written an open letter to new JRF CEO, Campbell Robb (formerly CEO of Shelter), asking him to explain how he came to the conclusion that the number of evictions was greater in the PRS than in the social sector, when official figures recently produced by the Ministry of Justice clearly show the exact opposite to be true?

Mr Ward writes:

“…Whilst the RLA is well aware of the impact of recent welfare reforms, we are seriously concerned about the potentially misleading and distorted presentation of official statistics on repossessions. I should therefore welcome an early response to a number of questions.

Possession Statistics

The report notes that “the number of tenants evicted by private landlords exceeded the number evicted by social landlords for the first time in 2014.”

As you know, the Ministry of Justice’s Mortgage and Landlord Possession Statistics break landlord possessions into three groups:

• Social landlord repossessions;
• Private landlord repossessions; and
• Possessions using the accelerated procedure which can be used by both private and social sector landlords. The Ministry of Justice data does not distinguish between which types of landlord use the accelerated procedure.

Table 7 of the Ministry of Justice’s January-March 2017 mortgage and landlord possession statistics show the number of landlord possession claims in the county courts of England and Wales by type of procedure and landlord. Since 2014, the results have been as follows.

These results clearly show that in every year since 2014 social sector landlords have made more claims to repossess a property than private sector landlords.

This would be the case even if every claim using the accelerated procedure was undertaken by private sector landlords.  I would therefore be grateful if you could provide an explanation as to how JRF has arrived at the conclusion that “the number of tenants evicted by private landlords exceeded the number evicted by social landlords for the first time in 2014”.

The press release to accompany the JRF’s report noted too that “Over 40,000 tenants were evicted from their homes by landlords in 2015.” It later goes on to say that: “Of the 40,000 evictions, there were 19,019 repossessions in the social housing sector, and 22,150 in the private rented sector.”

Such a statement cannot however be made based on the figures in the MoJ’s statistics tables accompanying the January-March 2017 mortgage and landlord possession statistics.

Table 8 provides the mortgage and landlord possession workload in the county courts of England between1999 – 2017. For those repossessions that led to the courts sending bailiffs in, the figures are as follows.

This data very clearly shows that since 2014, more bailiffs have been sent to repossess properties in the social rented sector than in the private rented sector.

The only way that it could be shown that there were more bailiffs involved in repossession cases in the private rented sector would be to assume that every accelerated procedure was for the private rented sector which as well as being undocumented is unlikely given the documented balance between private and social landlord evictions. I would be grateful therefore if the JRF could make clear where its figures have come from

English Housing Survey and the NAO

I should finally be grateful for an explanation as to why, in a report on security of tenure, the JRF has failed to note that, accordingly to the English Housing Survey for 2015/16, the average length of time a tenant has been in their current private rented property is now 4.3 years.

Likewise, the survey showed that 73% of private sector tenants had moved from their previous property because they chose to, 11% said that their landlord or agent ended the tenancy and just 2% said it was because of a rent increase by their landlord.

Likewise, the JRF report failed to report that the National Audit Office has noted that “since 2006, the cost of private rented accommodation has broadly followed changes in earnings across England”, whilst social rents have “increased faster than earnings since 2001-02.”

Given the clear public interest in this issue, I am publishing this letter on the RLA website, and copying in Sir Andrew Dilnot as Chair of the UK Statistics Authority. I look forward to receiving a swift response.”

• Ministry of Justice, Mortgage and landlord possession statistical tables: January to March 2017, 11^th May 2017, available here
• National Audit Office, Housing in England: overview, 19^th January 2017, page 7, available here
• The JFR Report, Poverty, evictions and forced moves available here
• The Guardian article by Dan Wilson Craw Landlords are turfing people out of their homes without reason – and it’s completely legal available here

The post Evictions report “misleading and distorted” claims RLA appeared first on LandlordZONE.

View Full Article: Evictions report “misleading and distorted” claims RLA

Please give us feedback on our new website design

admin    Uncategorized     agents

This time last week we unveiled a fresh Property118 website design and new functionality to improve Navigation, searching and the general user experience.

Inevitably there were a few initial Bug Fixes to deal with and we are extremely grateful to members who took the time and effort to point these out to us. Hopefully, these have now all been rectified.

Nevertheless, there may still be things you spot which are slightly annoying or could be improved upon further, hence we would very much like you to tell us what these are.

Please leave comments below and rest assured that we take all user feedback very seriously and will do whatever we can to continue to improve your user experience.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Neil Patterson – Managing Director of Property118 Limited

The post Please give us feedback on our new website design appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Please give us feedback on our new website design

Excessive leasehold charges on new-build homes to be banned…

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Problems with Long-leasehold:

The Conservatives have said that they have plans to ban the “feudal” practice of builders selling houses on long leases with excessive charges.

Leasehold is a form of time limited ownership which gives the freeholder the right to charge an annual ground rent. Whereas leasehold is a necessary provision in the case of flats and apartment blocks, individual houses do not necessarily need this encumbrance; something that some building companies have been taking advantage of to charge unsuspecting buyers exorbitant ground rents and fees.

Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary, is to rush through changes that will result in a ban on all new-build houses being sold as a leaseholds with high charges, in a bid to stop the this exploitation of home buyers.

The consultation on the ban, which could be in place in as little as 8 weeks’ time, does not propose reforms to address reforms for existing leaseholders, however, it will address this issue as well, and will ask what measures could be considered.

Javid (pictured) will pledge a crackdown on unfair annual ground rents and has outlined measures to restrict the payments on new leases on almost all newly built homes in England to “peppercorn” or near zero rates.

The review will also consider what can be done to help millions of existing leaseholders who face onerous annual payments.

Mr Javid, who has previously described the English leasehold system as “practically feudal” has said:

“It’s clear that far too many new houses are being built and sold as leaseholds, exploiting home buyers with unfair agreements and spiralling ground rents. Enough is enough. These practices are unjust, unnecessary and need to stop.

“Our proposed changes will help make sure leasehold works in the best interests of homebuyers.”

Leasehold arrangements are primarily used for blocks of flats and apartments where a landlord or property manager is a necessity. However, it is being increasingly used by developers of new-build single houses, retaining a guaranteed future income stream that an annual ground rent charge provides.

But following recent horror stories where young couples have bought properties with charges doubling every 10 years, there are concerns that landlords are fleecing families and making their properties almost impossible to sell. One recent case involved a single house where the ground rent would reach £10,000 a year by 2060.

In theory, the original conveyancing solicitors is at fault, but it has been estimated that 70% of new-build leasehold home buyers (often first time buyers) used the conveyancing solicitor recommended by the developer. These buyers, young and never having bought a home before, say they have not had these risks brought to their attention. It is possible that some of the conveyancers could face legal claims, being accused of conflicts of interest and failing to warn buyers of the danger.

Buying any property with a lease, be it a single house or a flat, needs a dose of due diligence on the part of the buyer and his or her solicitor. Leases can have onerous clauses and restrictions, leading not only to high ground rents and service charges, but restrictions on uses, subletting and alterations. The length of the lease is important for mortgage and selling purposes as too short a lease means that finance will be unobtainable.

Failing to make payments such as ground rents and service charges can have serious consequences for the leaseholder as ultimately the freeholder (landlord) can bring a valid case against the leaseholder, for which he will be charged legal costs, and ultimately the freeholder can be really heavy-handed and forfeit the owner’s lease.

A leaseholder is effectively a tenant, beholden to the rules and regulations set by the freeholder who owns the building and the ground it sits on. Even if the leaseholder has a share of freehold, there is often a group or owner’s committee that makes all the decisions: this can result in difficulties when a leaseholder wants to make changes, sub-let or when the lease is sold.

Buy-to-let investors should really scrutinise the head lease granted by the freeholder to make sure that sub-letting is allowed and that permission will be given. For leasehold flat owners, the fees charged by freeholders (ground rents and service charges) are often a source of ongoing argument and discontent and buyers should make sure there are no serious disputes in train.

A sub-letting licence is usually required for those buy-to-let owners who are renting out their leasehold properties. However, despite a Land Tribunal ruling in 2013 that the fee should be no more than £40 plus VAT, some agents report freeholders charging several hundred pounds.

Service charges are another expense that landlords need to be aware of and budget for. Standard annual charges may be no more than a few hundred pounds for management, cleaning and groundwork etc, but exceptional charges for major repairs and maintenance could be in the thousands.

Landlords of leasehold flats seriously need to know what is in the lease, or some nasty surprises may await, as flat owners in Canary Wharf know all too well.

Insurance is another issue leaseholders need to be aware of. The freeholder’s cover is usually for the structure of the building, and leaseholders are responsible for insuring contents and public liability. However, it’s not always that straightforward, so all the lease, management contract and the insurance documents should be thoroughly checked.

Freehold, Shared Freehold and Leasehold 

The post Excessive leasehold charges on new-build homes to be banned… appeared first on LandlordZONE.

View Full Article: Excessive leasehold charges on new-build homes to be banned…

Shelter and their abandonment of social tenants

admin    Uncategorized     agents

If there is one thing that Grenfell Tower has taught us it is that it often takes a catastrophic event for people’s serious concerns to be listened to; before the Grenfell fire, the tenants’ were forced to dice with death on a daily basis while their reports of the danger they were in went unheeded by their incompetent local authority landlords and also by ‘the left’ in general.  Indeed, there is no evidence that the organisations and individuals on the left who would normally be seen as their ‘protectors’ and advocates did anything at all to help them.

This refusal to listen to social tenants can only be explained as stemming from a misguided idealisation of council and Housing Association housing; a politically-correct vision of it as the preferred tenure for the poor (the ultimate dream of getting a council flat); in contrast to the portrayal of the private rented sector (PRS) as some kind of hell hole. Indeed, a new report out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation also follows the politically-correct (but factually incorrect) line of assuming the PRS is a uniquely problematic tenure, whilst the social sector is deemed to be Nirvana.

We now see how this this simplistic and false dichotomy has cost people’s lives; it diverted attention from recognising and dealing with incredibly dangerous housing and shone the spotlight instead on housing which, despite its faults, was not putting its tenants’ lives at risk.

The ‘homelessness charity Shelter’s’  role has been especially pernicious in this. As all landlords know, this organisation has single-mindedly led the charge to demonise private rented housing whilst promoting the idea of social housing and more recently, following the Tory agenda, of owner-occupation, as the only tenures with a legitimate role to play in solving the housing crisis.

This is now beginning to unravel. Last week we saw Shelter and John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Housing, vying to get in on the act and talk about shoddy conditions in social housing. They will try and portray themselves as though they have been the champions of social tenants over recent years; they have not.

Even for weeks after the fire Shelter was semi-mute about it (possibly because they were frantically trying to work out how to explain the fact that one of their Board members was the sole shareholder of the company which had supplied the cladding to Grenfell Tower); perhaps they also found the switch to criticising the social sector too far out of their comfort zone.

Maybe they don’t see how utterly scandalous their ideologically-driven agenda of recent years has been. Given that additional information in the latest English Housing Survey (EHS) has confirmed that social tenants are more dissatisfied with their housing than private tenants are (data collected before the fire) how do they think they might justify this extremely poor prioritisation of resources?

Other key questions to be answered include:

• Did Shelter ignore tenants’ groups’ warnings that they were being put in life-threatening situations because of a conflict of interest with their Board member supplying the cladding?
• Where is the evidence that they were ‘advocating’ for social tenants across the country in general? (what proportion of their resources was spent on this?)
• And why did they see their main role as pursuing private landlords to the near-exclusion of all else?

A glance at Shelter’s Facebook page over the months preceding the Grenfell fire reveals that it was spending a significant amount of time and resources during this critical time highlighting things like ‘mould and condensation’ issues in the PRS (often caused by occupants’ lifestyles – a fact Shelter does not like to acknowledge) and focusing its energies on pushing for private landlords to grant minimum 5-year tenancies, when tenancies last an average of 4.3 years anyway, according to the EHS. It gives a terrible new meaning to the phrase ‘fiddling while Rome was burning.’

The damning fact of the matter is that not only has Shelter not protected social tenants with its annual £60 million budget; not only has it relentlessly harassed private landlords (and supported George Osborne’s insane fiscal attack on private landlords which is an attack on private tenants as much as on landlords – a punitive fiscal attack on landlords can only lead to higher rents), but it has also not provided one roof over anyone’s head during all the time it has been undermining those of us who do.

I think many members of the public, including those who donate to the ‘charity’ would be surprised to know that despite the assumption behind its name, it provides no shelter.

Incredibly, notwithstanding all of this, somehow Shelter’s reputation has remained intact. Indeed their former Chief Executive Campbell Robb (now heading up the Joseph Rowntree Foundation), who presided over this catastrophic mismanagement, has also escaped scot-free and into another lucrative position in the voluntary sector, leaving Shelter in what can only be described as a moment of existentialist crisis.

What does it now stand for? Who should it be helping? And how should it be doing this?

These are fundamental questions which its new Chief Executive, Polly Neate, who is about to take up her post, must urgently address. If she cannot drastically re-frame Shelter’s priorities so that it helps rather than hinders in solving the housing problems of this country, then I suggest Shelter shut up shop as it is not fit for purpose.

Dr Rosalind Beck

Dr Beck is a porfolio landlord based in South Wales, who has written a critique of the Government’s ‘fiscal attack’ on landlords: Click Here

The post Shelter and their abandonment of social tenants appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Shelter and their abandonment of social tenants

Record Month For Number of Landlords Incorporated

admin    Uncategorized     agents

July 2017 has seen Property118 Limited help more landlords using the Beneficial Interest Company Transfer “BICT” structure to obtain HMRC non-statutory clearance for relief under s162 TCGA 1992 than ever before .

Non-statutory clearance in respect of using the BICT structure provides ‘peace-of-mind’ to landlords who want to be certain of being able to roll capital gains in their property portfolios into shares in the company they are transferring beneficial interest of their assets into whilst avoiding the costs associated with refinancing.

Advantages of incorporation from a tax perspective are that companies are unaffected by legislation which progressively precludes finance costs incurred by individual landlords being claimed as a business expense. Furthermore, incorporation using this structure re-sets the value of properties for the purpose of calculating tax on capital gains to the current value which is also indexed in a company structure. This enables landlords to trade their properties without having to worry about personal CGT.

There are now many ‘copy-cat’ structures being offered by tax-planners but many of them do not obtain non-statutory clearance. We have mystery-shopped some of the copy-cat companies and it is very clear that they are offering extremely dangerous advice in that the structures they are promoting fall short of delivering all of the promises they make. For example, some are transferring beneficial interest using a Deed of Trust but are completely overlooking the importance of a Business Sale Agreement and a Clearing Agency Contract between the company and the mortgage borrower. Many lenders will not accept mortgage payments from companies, hence the payments are being made to the landlord who in turn pays the mortgage. This is fine in principle, but there could be major tax consequences if the paperwork is wrong. We suspect many of the landlords using these ‘copy-cat’ schemes will find that their mortgage payments will be deemed to be income paid to the initial borrower by the company and taxed accordingly by HMRC, which is very worrying indeed.

We think one of the reasons Property118 Limited has been so successful of late has been due to our fee charging structure in regards to assisting with non-statutory clearance applications. Our fee is just £1,500 + VAT but that is refunded in full if clearance is declined.

Incorporation using the BICT structure is only one of the tax planning strategies recommended by Property118 Limited. This is because there is no ‘one-size-its-all’ solution. For this reason, an initial consultation is required to establish the current position and future aspirations of clients prior to an analysis and a detailed written report being prepared and followed up with a telephone or Skype based Q&A session. Clients of Property118 Limited are encouraged to include their accounts in this process and this in turn often leads to those accountants referring more of their clients. The fee for these consultations is £400 and comes with a guarantee of total satisfaction or a full refund.

The legal work associated with the implementation of BICT incorporation is always referred by Property118 Limited to Cotswold Barristers where clients own properties in England & Wales. For clients in Scotland, an Edinburgh legal firm provides additional assistance in regards to preparing the paperwork and dealing with LBTT returns, which are invariably nil for business partnerships.

Mark Smith, Head of Chambers at Cotswold Barristers said; “we are delighted with the symbiotic relationship with Property118 Limited and the work flowing therefrom. We fully anticipate the number landlords using the BICT strategy for incorporation to continue to increase”

Mark Alexander, founder of Property118 said; “this news will be very welcomed by many landlords and is one in the eye for critics of the BICT strategy”

Show Tax Consultation Booking Form

The post Record Month For Number of Landlords Incorporated appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Record Month For Number of Landlords Incorporated

Rent to Rent Operator Prosecuted and Fined

admin    Uncategorized     agents

A Rent-to-Rent operator called Arthur Zurvskij has been found guilty by Willesden Magistrates Court of illegally sub-letting a five bedroom house to seven tenants.

The owner of the property, who lived in the United States and had legally handed over control of his property to Ludlow Thompson, believed that the property was being rented out to a single family. Willesden Magistrates Court heard that Zurvskij had not sought written permission from the landlord to let the house to more than one household.

Instead of securing a House in Multiple Occupation licence from Brent council, Mr Zurvskij (a director of Skyline Property Management) which he had subsequently changed to to Enox UK Ltd, had rented the property and then illegally sublet it to seven individuals. He was ordered to pay £2,250 in fines while his company Enox UK Ltd, had a £8,000 fine.

The Council enforcement officer said: “Breaching the law on HMO is very serious. If found guilty, the landlord or person in charge of the property is left with a criminal record. The potential fines are now unlimited.”

The maintain council’s zero tolerance policy which includes prosecuting tenants who illegally sublet.

The post Rent to Rent Operator Prosecuted and Fined appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Rent to Rent Operator Prosecuted and Fined

Is rent in advance a deposit?

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Advance Rent: Piggot v Slaven and Johnson v. Old

There are two important cases here which clarify the position on landlords accepting rent payments in advance. One concerns the accepting of the final two month’s rent in advance, a common device used by some landlords who thought, misguidedly, it was a way of avoiding the deposit protection rules, and one that was advised by some experts at the time the deposit protection legislation came in to force in April 2007.

The second case involves the taking of a lump sum rent payment for, for example the whole of 6 or 12 months.

This article applies primarily to English law. Although tenancy laws are similar in other jurisdictions, there may be significant differences. Always seek professional advice before making or not making important decisions.

It is common practice for some tenants to offer rent in advance, for example 6 months’ rent up front. This occurs particularly with students coming to the UK from abroad, where wealthy parents are paying the rent, but it is also a feature of cannabis growers paying in cash, so beware!

In a competitive landlord’s market, where good rental accommodation is scarce, tenants will sometimes offer landlords several months’ rent in advance to entice the landlord into letting to them rather than another prospective tenant.

On the other hand, when a tenant appears to be a bit of a risk, with a low credit score or other affordability issues, landlords will sometimes accept an upfront payment of the first six months’ rent in advance, paid by a parent, for example.

It is custom and practice that landlords to demand the first rent period’s rent up-front in any case, so for a typical 6 month tenancy, with rent paid monthly, the landlord would be looking for, at the outset, the first month’s rent of, for example, £1000 and a deposit equal to 6 weeks rent at £1384.62 (£1000 x 12 divided by 52 and times by 6 = £1384.62), so in total £1000 + £1385 = £2385.00

Under common law, providing the landlord gives a written tenancy agreement rent is payable in advance, otherwise a landlord cannot demand it, with no agreement the tenant can demand to pay in arrears.

In the Grimsby County Court case of Piggot v Slaven [2009] it was held that asking a tenant to pay money that would count as the final two months’ rent under the tenancy would effectively amount to a deposit.

However, this case was overruled in the Appeal Court ruling in Johnson v Old [2013] where a tenant paid 6 months’ rent upfront for a 6 month tenancy. When the landlord decided to apply for possession of the property, issuing a section 21 notice under the Housing Act 1988, the tenant argued in defence that the 6 months’ rent she had paid amounted to a deposit, and furthermore it had not been protected in one of the approved Deposit Protection Schemes.  The section 21 notice was therefore defective according to the tenant’s defence.

It was held that the 6 months’ rent that had been paid upfront could not possibly constitute a deposit because the purpose for which it had been paid was rent for the property. Had the tenant been asked to pay an additional month’s rent on top of the previous payments, then she could have argued otherwise, questioning why she had to pay more than the rent amount.

The decision in Johnson v Old, being an Appeal Court ruling, settles that it is reasonable for landlords to request rent in advance and this will not necessarily constitute a deposit if it can be shown the intention for the payment is purely to pay rent that the tenant would not expect to pay again.

The Judge said:

“…there are various ways of dealing with the perceived risk that a tenant who is the subject of an inadequate credit reference will not pay his rent month by month; and one of those ways is to require payment of the rent ‘up front’.

It seems to me plain that that is what the landlords, perhaps on the advice of their agents, decided was the appropriate way to deal with the perceived risk in the present case. The fact that they chose to deal with the risk in that way – rather than taking a guarantee or a rent deposit – is no reason for refusing to give effect to the terms of the tenancy agreement.”

So by paying rent in advance the tenant was meeting a core obligation of the tenancy in itself, not the payment of a security against it. It was very clear to both parties from the start that there was no intention for the rent money to be returned to the tenant, so it could in no way be seen as a returnable deposit.

According to the Housing Act 2004, the definition of a tenancy deposit is:

[A] “tenancy deposit”, in relation to a shorthold tenancy, means any money intended to be held (by the landlord or otherwise) as security for—

(a) the performance of any obligations of the tenant, or

(b) the discharge of any liability of his, arising under or in connection with the tenancy.

However, landlords and agents need to be careful in the way their tenancy agreements are drafted in that rent payment periods have a bearing on giving notice. When a tenancy becomes periodic, a six months’ tenancy would require a 6 months’ notice to quite. The tenancy agreement should make it clear that rent is due, for example, monthly, even though a large payment is made in advance.

See also: New Section 21 Rules

The post Is rent in advance a deposit? appeared first on LandlordZONE.

View Full Article: Is rent in advance a deposit?

How many of these ‘business’ hallmarks can you tick off the list?

admin    Uncategorized     agents

If you are hoping to incorporate your rental property portfolio and to roll CGT crystallised into shares in the company you are incorporating into then you will need to qualify for relief under s162 TCGA 1992. The main qualifying criteria for this relief is that HMRC accept that you are running a business.

How many of these questions would you feel comfortable answering if an HMRC inspector was to ask:-

What is your business name?

Does your business have its own Unique Tax Reference number “UTR”?

Do you have a bank account in your business name?

Do you have business letterhead?

Do you have a business telephone number?

Does your business have a website?

Do you have a business email address?

Does your business have an office?

Do you have business cards?

Does your business have any employees?

Does your business have a balance sheet produced regularly?

Does your business produce management accounts?

You don’t have to have all of these things in place to qualify for incorporation relief but if you have none of them HMRC are more likely to consider that you are curating an investment portfolio than running a property rental business.

I’m not saying they are right but perceptions could prove to be important if you are hoping to incorporate your rental property portfolio and claim incorporation relief to roll CGT crystallised upon incorporation into shares in the company you are incorporating into.

If you are considering incorporation or you need some guidance on the optimal tax structure for your business please click on the button below.

Show Tax Consultation Booking Form

The post How many of these ‘business’ hallmarks can you tick off the list? appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: How many of these ‘business’ hallmarks can you tick off the list?

HMRC perceptions, how many of these business hallmarks can you tick off the list?

admin    Uncategorized     agents

If you are hoping to incorporate your business and to roll CGT crystallised into shares in the company you are incorporating into then you will need to qualify for relief under s162 TCGA 1992. The main qualifying criteria for this relief is that HMRC accept that you are running a business.

How many of these questions would you feel comfortable answering if an HMRC inspector was to ask:-

What is your business name?

Does your business have its own Unique Tax Reference number “UTR”?

Do your have a bank account in your business name?

Do you have business letterhead?

Do you have a business telephone number?

Does your business have a website?

Do you have a business email address?

Does your business have an office?

Do you have business cards?

Does your business have any employees?

Does your business have a balance sheet produced regularly?

Does your business have management accounts?

You don’t have to have all of these things to qualify for incorporation relief but if you have none of them HMRC are more likely to consider that you are curating an investment portfolio than running a property rental business.

I’m not saying they are right but perceptions are important if you are hoping to incorporate your rental property portfolio and claim incorporation relief to roll CGT crystallised upon incorporation into shares in the company you are incorporating into.

Show Tax Consultation Booking Form

The post HMRC perceptions, how many of these business hallmarks can you tick off the list? appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: HMRC perceptions, how many of these business hallmarks can you tick off the list?

Tenant blackmailing to allow viewings?

admin    Uncategorized     agents

We have had rented out our apartment for just over a year now, the tenants have been an absolute nightmare and we have spent a small fortune on redecorating, installing fans, plastering walls etc etc, so we have decided to serve the tenants notice.

We have instructed a new agency as we feel the old agent’s property management could of handled the tenants expectations a lot better. The new agent has since contacted the tenants regarding viewing times and has received the following:-

“Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to you regarding your request for viewings.

As it is currently longer than 28 days, you as letting agents have no right to request.
You, as a representative of the landlord cannot guarantee or promise a pre-contract/contract to any prospective tenants for a start date to commence circa 2nd September as you are in no position to assure your prospective tenants that the flat will be available on the aforementioned date ie. Eviction processes/court proceedings might or might not be months in the making. It would be unwise for yourselves to allow viewings for this premises before the legitimate lease end date (2nd September 2017). Neither the landlord nor yourselves representing the landlord may ‘derogate from their grant’.

I appreciate that you are aiming for a seamless transition between us (the tenants in situ) and the prospective tenants so as not to lose the landlord monies.
However, as we are legally entitled to stay ‘undisturbed’ in ‘quiet enjoyment’ of this property until the 2nd of September we put this proposal to you:-

‘That we hereby promise to ensure reasonable and mutually agreed availability for viewings to this premises so as to help facilitate your search for prospective tenants between now (22/07/2017) and the lease end date (02/09/2017) based on the conclusion of a 50% discounted final month’s rent (£585.00p).’

We feel this is a fair amount when you consider the inevitable void of monies that would exist if you were to only allow viewings after our departure date.

Kindly confirm your position by return, this response via email.”

Now we know legally they do not have to allow access although the tenancy agreement somewhat states otherwise, but what they have responded with is clearly blackmail.

Is there anything I can do regarding this or will we just have to let the tenancy expire and wait for them to leave to begin viewings.

Clearly this is not ideal but I would rather lose money then allow my tenant to bend us over backwards like this.

If anyone can provide any advice it would be deeply appreciated.

We have contacted our property management company and they suggest waiting for the tenancy to expire.

Ignazio

The post Tenant blackmailing to allow viewings? appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Tenant blackmailing to allow viewings?