pranksters blog tonight

MothballsWallet

bazster wrote: »

As for the timing and the "effective immediately", maybe the government is positioning itself to take some action should the unthinkable happen and PE wins at the CoA.

Or not.

One thing is for sure though, the civil servants at Pickles' department will not be in the pockets of the BPA. And perhaps the BPA will now be wondering about the wisdom of their latest piece of Monday Malice, which contained gems such as these:

We have Eric Pickles to thank for this of course. The Communities Minister recently went on the radio to tell all about his cunning plan and how it came about. Apparently he became ‘obsessed’ with changing Britain's parking laws after a ‘dreadful’ experience with a traffic warden made him a very bitter person and twisted his mind. Was he even in a fit state to even make a decision in the first place?

Is this really what Mr. Pickles and his government wants and do they properly understand the issues?

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Blog/monday-musing-grace-periods-10-minutes-that-will-improve-your-life/771

Way to go BPA! This man has the power to make the lives of your members very difficult indeed, so it's obviously a great idea to describe him as "bitter and twisted" and accuse him of not knowing what he's doing!

Would it be fair to say that the BPA's blog writer was last in the queue when the brains were being handed out?

matttye

esmerobbo wrote: »

Eric Pickles I believe wishes all parking enforcement, civil and private should allow 10/15 mins before any sort of enforcement action. I believe he thinks this will help local shops.

Maybe he believes moving it to his department he can take some action.

PPC's reducing their parking times by 10/15 mins in 3..2..1..

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

As a landlord, I know very little about LAs charges to tenants. However, I am familiar with what they charge me. £500-600 for finding a tenant, a bit more for collecting rent, £1000 - 1500 + actuals for full management, all plus va.t. All tax deductible.

I prefer to use an LA because if things go wrong I can sue them, also they can organise inventories, check ins and outs, deposits etc. Good tenants can negotiate with LAs, those who get ripped off are usually not the sort I want in my properties anyway.,

I don't use LAs, complete waste of money and they rip you off for things like gas safety certificates, and maintenance. Also the exorbitant charges they make to tenants mean you're less likely to get tenants.


I advertise in the local paper, vet the tenants myself, and do all the tenancy agreements, inventories etc. using forms which you can download for free online. I've got trusted handymen, plumbers, electricians etc. who can do repairs at short notice if needed.


Never had a problem with non-payment of rent or damage to property, and the longest any property was unoccupied was three days.

The_Deep

Also the exorbitant charges they make to tenants mean you're less likely to get tenants.

Not in central Reading you are not. I have one flat, on the river, 10 minutes walk to the station, (23 minutes to Paddington), that has not been void since 1989.

I cannot do self management as I spend 4-5 months of the year in Spain

bazster

Last time I let a property the agent was utterly incompetent. I got a 'phone call in Australia requesting permission to call in an electrician because there was a problem with the meter, and it took me (a mere amateur at letting property) to explain to the agent that the meter is the property of the electricity company and it's down to the the account holder - the tenant - to sort it out with them. I daresay if I hadn't been on the ball the agent would've called in their favourite electrician to charge me hundreds of pounds to tell me exactly that.

And then the agent handed back the entire deposit to one vacating tenant without even noticing the holes in the kitchen flooring that the tenant's brats had evidently made with a sharp object. And yes I know T.D. will say that you shouldn't let to tenants with brats, but when you are letting a substantial family house that would rather limit your market.

Agents, parasitical scum the lot of them, PPC's are merely the worst of a bad bunch.

The_Deep

I agree, it is not always the tenant who gets ripped off.

I had an instance not too long ago, the LA assured be that the couple had no children. When they moved in it turned out that they had one child and a second was on the way.

I told them that I was not prepared to let the flat at that rent, that they could sue me, that I would sue the letting agents, and the letting agents would probably sue them.

In the end it was agree that they would lodge a three month deposit, and pay another £50 a month.

BlackSpangle

Herzlos wrote: »

From what I've heard (no first hand experience) the credit check fees are enormous (£100+) for what can't cost them anywhere near that and seems to be virtually extortion because you need to do it to get the lease.

As both a landlord and tenant, I know that the credit checks are normally around £80-£90; God only knows what they involve - checking for CCJs/bad debts and the like, I assume (prob takes 2 minutes tops). And checking for regular income (which could easily be done by just asking for 3 months pay slips at time of check). The notion that it actually costs £80 is strange. One wonders what comeback the landlord/LA has if the credit check turns out to be worthless.

What amazes me is that for each LA that one goes to, they insist on a separate credit check (at £80 a pop). Wouldn't life be simpler if I could just get a "good tenant" stamp, valid for 6 months, and present that to any potential landlord?

I remember when I first moved to Cornwall, I offered a lump sum of 3 months rent up front, to short circuit the credit check nonsense (because I wanted to move quickly); but no - better to charge £80 and get a 90% guarantee than charge nothing and get a 100% guarantee. Somehow.

Fergie76

The_Deep wrote: »

I agree, it is not always the tenant who gets ripped off.

I had an instance not too long ago, the LA assured be that the couple had no children. When they moved in it turned out that they had one child and a second was on the way.

I told them that I was not prepared to let the flat at that rent, that they could sue me, that I would sue the letting agents, and the letting agents would probably sue them.

In the end it was agree that they would lodge a three month deposit, and pay another £50 a month.

And this has what to do with parking?

You want this forum - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16

enfield_freddy

www.wehateLAs.com/blogspot

patman99

The Deep, there is no need to bring in any rules giving Councils the power to set private rental fees. There is already one in place.

How do I know ?. My friend has rented his property since 1988 and in the early '90's considered his rent was higher than he could afford, so approached the Council. They reffered him to the Rates Board. Since then, they have set the rent that his LL can charge. This works well, as it means that his LL has to approach the RB every year to negotiate rent increases. Some years they are allowed to raise it, some years they aren't.