should we get rid of our tenants in order tosell quick?

franklee

Premier wrote: »

Now i really do know you guys are clutching at straws. If the best you guys can do to support your case is with references to wikipedia and other public forums, you really are wasting my time. I didn't learn this business by studying GCSE law, I learnt it from the bottom up with the help (& cost) of some very learned friends in the beginning.

Well as this

Premier wrote: »

But of course, never the tenants who want everything their own way, and when they don't get it start quoting various laws that they totally fail to understand the real meaning of.

was your view on tenants' opinions I thought you may prefer to chat about rights of access for viewings with landlords instead so I mentioned landlordzone as it comes up there quite a lot.

It's a shame you are not interested in that forum as it would be interesting to read your explanation to them as to why in your opinion the poster answering below is wrong.

Here's an example snippet for anyone else who is interested:

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=3977

From post #8:

superhans:
I have informed my landlord that we will need to be present by prior arrangement for any viewings but she is insisting that the term in our agreement allowing access means that she or her agent can enter the property with notice, regardless... She said the legal department at the estate agent says she only need to give 24 hours. What should I do now?

Paul_f:
She does have to give 24 hours written Notice, but that doesn't mean she has the right of entry should you withhold your permission - the only legitimate right of entry is to inspect for repairs (also only with your permission) or in an emergency, otherwise they must stay away! Anything else is a breach of the Protection from Evictiion Act 1977 and is paramount to trespass or even breaking and entering. Tell your landlord and agent they should brush up on their law. Just because something's in the TA doesn't necessarily make it enforceable

IanRR

RecoveringAlcoholic wrote: »

:T

Keep the apple tree as in three years time you will need to chop it down to keep warm during the winter.

I guess you know more about the weather in 3 years time, than you do about property values. For my part, I want to buy as many properties during this temporary glich, as I can get my hands on. People are selling them at 30% less than they are worth! The credit crunch will last until next September (2009), and by then, the rich will be even richer, and the poor will be renting their properties...... and all because they think newspapers tell the truth! Property prices actually rose last month, but that would not make a good headline, now would it? We are building 96 fewer houses, every day, than we need. We have an inefficient provider of social housing (the government), and a young culture which does not wish to own property. Guess who will be making the big bucks in ten years time? Just like in Europe-THE LANDLORDS. The rich always have, and always will, keep their money in property. Ask Alan Sugar, or better still, The Duke of Westminster. Are they rushing to sell property? Strangely, NO! They recognise trends, which for the last 50 years, despite a few odd years (like this one), have seen property rise at an average 11.74% per annum. This will quickly return, as will the money supply... How do banks make money? By lending money. They will be lending heavily, by the end of 2009, as they cannot survive,without doing so. Huge boom in prices by 2010. And yet the fools want to sell property now, because they think it is a bad investment. Anyone wanting to sell me a property at 30% less than it is worth, right here, right now? Hurry along please!

brit1234

Premier wrote: »

50%? :rotfl:

You may laugh but already properties have dropped more in value than 50%. Also may I put it to you if banks will only lend to 50% of peak value (3.5 times salary rather than 7) then prices as they are are coming down to that figure. Look at the banks press releases, they're lending criteria is set to get tighter not looser.

franklee

IanRR wrote: »

Anyone wanting to sell me a property at 30% less than it is worth, right here, right now? Hurry along please!

Ah but how do you work out what a property is worth? Buying at 30% below the current asking price presumably won't do. Buying at at 30% below what it's worth is far better. Take the new build flats selling at 50% of their original purchase price at auction recently. If that sale price represents the worth, do you want another 30% off that? That would make a flat sold in the last year ot two for 200K be 70K to you now, if you can get such a deal then buying is a good idea.

IanRR

franklee wrote: »

Ah but how do you work out what a property is worth? Buying at 30% below the current asking price presumably won't do. Buying at at 30% below what it's worth is far better. Take the new build flats selling at 50% of their original purchase price at auction recently. If that sale price represents the worth, do you want another 30% off that? That would make a flat sold in the last year ot two for 200K be 70K to you now, if you can get such a deal then buying is a good idea.

New build? No, they are not a good idea for anyone who wants to make money! Give me the standard 30 or 40 year old property anyday. Pick a town, go on Rightmove. Select one bed flats, and order them from cheapest to dearest. Negotiate on the cheapest, and buy it. 6 months later, remortgage it, but at the value of the dearest. Walk away with major profit, and all your money back. This game is all about perceptions.... I own quite a few props, and I have NONE of my money in them. I never intend to sell them, so I really dont care if the market is going up or down. When it has gone up, which it always does over time, I revisit and remortgage again. More tax free money! Every property owned is FREE!!! Simple strategy, simple game. Too simple for people to understand..... Only one small trick to it.... always make sure that you keep some money back, to cashflow any problems or rental voids. That way, you never need to panic sell, which is what the fools are doing now. I have probably just given away my secrets, but who cares? If I can help to stop a few people from making expensive mistakes, then I am happy. After all, there are plenty of props out there for the wise few, who will listen.....

IanRR

brit1234 wrote: »

You may laugh but already properties have dropped more in value than 50%. Also may I put it to you if banks will only lend to 50% of peak value (3.5 times salary rather than 7) then prices as they are are coming down to that figure. Look at the banks press releases, they're lending criteria is set to get tighter not looser.

I am absolutely amazed. You think that property values have halved? Where do you live? The USA?

In my area, they are still above 2007 levels, and may well be standing still, but there is not a sign of a drop. Some banks are lending at 90%, some 95%. Many lend 4.25 x income, some 5 x income. I agree that things will get tougher yet, as the banks have little money to lend, and will not lend to each other, due to a perception that bad debts have not yet been fully declared.After 2 full sets of results (by Sept 2009), this will all be over. If it is not, you may be right, armageddon in the banking industry! But dont worry too much about it.... banks only make money, by lending money, so I think they may just spot that little problem! Have you ever met a poor banker? I think not. They know exactly what they are doing! But I suppose Northern Rock thought that, eh?

TTMCMschine

IanRR wrote: »

Its a bit like planting an apple tree, and getting it to grow. Then just before it fruits, you chop it down, and sell it for firewood. Instant profit, but your tree has gone. Why not keep the tree, enjoy a few fruits (release some equity every few years), and plant some more pips (invest in further properties), and have an orchard that allows you to retire financially free. Still want to chop your tree down?

The trouble with apple trees (or any other kind of trees for that matter) is that they are susceptible to unforseen environmental shocks.

In the late 17th & early 18th Centuries France had a massive export trade with its walnut trees which were used to produce beautiful veneers on contemporary furniture. Unfortunately in 1709 they experienced a very severe winter where even the sea froze, & all of the fruit trees were destroyed, their walnut, apple, & everything else.

Once wiped out in this unforseen shock it took more than 20 years for new trees to grow, by which time no one wanted walnut veneers anymore, & they had been forced to buy expensively imported fruit during that time.

If you'd sold your apple trees in 1708 then you'd have been in clover, but had you decided to hang on in there you'd have been goosed by the unforseen environmental shock, in much the same way that 300 years later the value of apartments & other property is being destroyed by a hitherto unforseen economic shock.

So, 1708 or 2008 the question is, do you still want to risk keeping all of your apple trees in one walnut veneered basket?

TTMCMschine

House prices were down -2% in June making it -8% in the last 4 months, or an annualised rate of more then -24%

Is property the place to be?

Captain_Mainwaring_2

Premier wrote: »

Any carefully worded tenancy agreement would specifically allow viewings at for the purposes of finding new tenants and/or selling the property.

Quite right. However people seem to forget this little issue.

barnaby-bear

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

Quite right. However people seem to forget this little issue.

but the housing laws satutory rights overrule anything a landlord chooses to add to a tenancy and they can deny access under "quiet enjoyment" just because it's in a tenancy agreement doesn't make it enforceable you could add a carefully worded 3 seconds notice clause if you like :rotfl: