Don't have to be a weatherman...

Guy_Montag

It's not about advising you, it's about advising your potential tenants. Now I might be interested in your "character" property, but then be put off when I see it's class G. In reality if I wanted to rent a house from 1880s I'd probably expect it to cost more to heat & be prepared for that, it's when you get into say 1950s+ (??) property that the tenant doesn't know what has been done to improve it or how it was built in the first place.

It's an incentive for landlords to improve their properties - the good ones (energy efficient) will get let more quickly at a higher price than the poorer quality stock encouraging their owners to upgrade.

jyonda

thesaint wrote: »

If a landlord is forced to make his property more energy efficient he would pay for it through the increased rent he would charge you for letting the government [strike]tax raiser[/strike] energy inspector in.

:money:

Well if a landlord could increase the rent willy nilly then they would have already done it! The market will decide what a property is worth pcm. True this would affect all of the market but some LL's would be able to absorb any costs better than others so a uniform increase would not necessarily happen if at all.

Anything that drives out the Johnny come lately, easy money brigade and forces LL's to be responsible professionals can only be a good thing. IMO.

TJ27

liz545 wrote: »

Personally, I'd welcome some kind of compulsory qualification for landlords, even if it's just a short course/test, so that they're aware of their legal obligations and rights. There are so many people, both here and on landlordzone that this would help, and it would protect both landlord and tenant.

We often provide training events for landlords, although we don't ask them to sit exams. The HMO licensing regs say that you can actually require landlords to attend training, so we include it in our licensing conditions. (Although I suspect that condition is a little difficult to enforce I have to admit.)

You will find that many councils provide training events. However, the landlords who attend are usually those who least need to do so. The bad landlords can't even be bothered to provide fire alarms, so I doubt they'd get off their bums to go to school.

A mandatory qualification??? Hmmmmmm. Perhaps I'll pass tht idea up the line to the people who could make it happen.

thesaint

Guy_Montag wrote: »

It's not about advising you, it's about advising your potential tenants. Now I might be interested in your "character" property, but then be put off when I see it's class G. In reality if I wanted to rent a house from 1880s I'd probably expect it to cost more to heat & be prepared for that, it's when you get into say 1950s+ (??) property that the tenant doesn't know what has been done to improve it or how it was built in the first place.

It's an incentive for landlords to improve their properties - the good ones (energy efficient) will get let more quickly at a higher price than the poorer quality stock encouraging their owners to upgrade.

If it's not about advising me (landlord) why am I paying for it?

So I expect my 1880's property to be exempt, and save my tenants money?

thesaint

jyonda wrote: »

Well if a landlord could increase the rent willy nilly then they would have already done it! The market will decide what a property is worth pcm. True this would affect all of the market but some LL's would be able to absorb any costs better than others so a uniform increase would not necessarily happen if at all.

Anything that drives out the Johnny come lately, easy money brigade and forces LL's to be responsible professionals can only be a good thing. IMO.

I have explained about costs before. Landlords (me anyway) charge rent according to current costs. I will increase the rent when this 'green tax' comes in, why would I try and factor it in now? My rent would be artificially high and only come in line to others when this tax comes into play.

If the base rate goes up tomorrow, some lenders will absorb it, but they will raise their rates sooner or later in a few months in line with the ones that raised at the outset.

Guy_Montag

thesaint wrote: »

If it's not about advising me (landlord) why am I paying for it?

So I expect my 1880's property to be exempt, and save my tenants money?

1) Because it the way the rules work & it makes much more sense for it to be done once by the LL rather than every time by the tenant.

2) Why should your 1880s property be exempt? Which properties should have exemptions? Better not to have any.

thesaint

Guy_Montag wrote: »

1) Because it the way the rules work & it makes much more sense for it to be done once by the LL rather than every time by the tenant.

2) Why should your 1880s property be exempt? Which properties should have exemptions? Better not to have any.

Which properties should have exemptions? My 1880's property should be exempt because there is not anything that can be done that justifies paying a government tax raiser £200 to snoop.
The house is in a conversation area anyway, and little is allowed by the council.

Stamp duty exemptions exist for houses under the value of £125k and all properties in certain areas, so they have the technology.

Guy_Montag

thesaint wrote: »

Which properties should have exemptions? My 1880's property should be exempt because there is not anything that can be done that justifies paying a government tax raiser £200 to snoop.
The house is in a conversation area anyway, and little is allowed by the council.

Stamp duty exemptions exist for houses under the value of £125k and all properties in certain areas, so they have the technology.

A better analogy is my car, which is zero rated (not exempt) for road tax, but still requires an MOT before it can be legally used.

thesaint

A car Vs house analogy is better than a house Vs house one
I feel a poll is in order.

TJ27

thesaint wrote: »

The house is in a conversation area anyway

Is that an area where the neighbours talk a lot???