Haven Property Consultants Ltd

01/08/2025

Flat refresh - Can be yours now.

24/07/2025

02/07/2025

Haven Property Consultants Ltd are proud to extend their services to include in house maintenance as well.

If you have a rental property then rest assured that Haven Property Consultants Ltd will look after it as if their own with consultation with the landlords.

Be it End of Tenancy cleaning, Communal Cleaning for a block of flats, maintenance in terms of residential flats or communal blocks etc, Haven Property Consultants Ltd are your go to place.

Being in the property industry for the past 11 years here in the UK, and the new Rental Rights Bill legislation due to come our, there has never been the right time to save money because even with your lettings and management fees, there is no additional VAT that you have to pay with Haven Property Consultants Ltd and you can save that extra money and put it towards something else.

The added benefit of having Haven Property Consultants Ltd is that you will be dealing directly with the director themselves and hence no misunderstanding in communication takes place.

11/04/2018

HMOs disappearing in some locations By LandlordZONE - 6th April 2018

HMO Reverse Conversions:

HMOs have often been a preferred option for many landlords wanting to maximise their returns, as packing more tenants into one property always gives a high yield. The problem has always been getting planning permission to convert larger properties, and sometimes commercial properties, into HMOs. There have also been fears that in some locations HMOs have been overdone and the market is becoming saturated with them.

Most addresses where reverse conversations are taking place are for a return to single family dwellings, a move which is obviously beneficial and more profitable for the owners, when the demand for houses is there. Generally, no planning permission is required for a change of use back to a single dwelling. In such cases, landlords would not be required to submit any application,” a council the spokesperson said.

Based upon this planning policy, in 2017 Waltham Forest Council did not grant any planning applications for HMOs that resulted in the loss of housing.
This is not the case though, particularly in some other parts of London. As a recent report from Inside Housing says, “Houses in multiple occupation are often far from ideal lodgings – but a trend to convert them to more profitable houses is leaving residents with few options.”

HMO living is often a compromise for tenants; they provide a less expensive option for those people who can’t afford a place of their own. The compromise paying lower rent for living in shared accommodation, and in London where rents are at their highest, and when people are not eligible for welfare assistance, this is often the only option for them.
These properties are predominantly owned by private landlords and a good proportion of them house social tenants, something that takes a large burden off the local authority. This type of housing is “far from perfect”, says Inside Housing, but it is obvious that local authorities will really struggle to find enough places for people to live.

Linda Wade, Liberal Democrat councillor for Earl’s Court, is on a mission to stop houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) in her ward being converted for other uses. She tells Inside Housing:
“Within my ward there are about eight of these types of applications in the pipeline. I’m faced with potentially 80 to 90 people at risk of being made homeless because of planning applications to convert HMOs into self-contained units. HMOs are not perfect but they do in some cases represent an affordable option for low-paid workers.”

There is a policy to try and protect HMOs in the borough, and private landlords need a licence to operate an HMO, but in practice these rentals are still being lost to the borough through conversations away from HMOs.

A Freedom of Information Act request to all the London boroughs, plus Newcastle, Birmingham and Bristol, by the publication found out just how common it now is for HMOs to be converted:

Karen Buck, Labour MP for Westminster North, told said that some councils have planning policies to protect HMOs, but there was one case in 2016, when a former hostel in Bayswater, run by the housing association Viridian, closed, when “Sixteen occupants were left homeless. Westminster housing did try to assist with keeping the hostel open as it recognised there is a shortage of this type of accommodation. “Cities thrive when they offer a range of housing options suitable to the variety of needs of their populations,” said Ms Buck.

The Freedom of Information Act request showed that recent planning applications granted for works on HMOs in Westminster for 2017 did not result in any losses to housing. These works were simply to increase or reconfigure the units, the figures showed.

However, in some locations the loss of HMOs is putting existing tenants under a great deal of stress, with the constant threat of a move to lower cost areas, further away from their employment.

09/04/2018

HMOs disappearing in some locations By LandlordZONE - 6th April 2018

HMO Reverse Conversions:

HMOs have often been a preferred option for many landlords wanting to maximise their returns, as packing more tenants into one property always gives a high yield. The problem has always been getting planning permission to convert larger properties, and sometimes commercial properties, into HMOs. There have also been fears that in some locations HMOs have been overdone and the market is becoming saturated with them.

Most addresses where reverse conversations are taking place are for a return to single family dwellings, a move which is obviously beneficial and more profitable for the owners, when the demand for houses is there. Generally, no planning permission is required for a change of use back to a single dwelling. In such cases, landlords would not be required to submit any application,” a council the spokesperson said.

Based upon this planning policy, in 2017 Waltham Forest Council did not grant any planning applications for HMOs that resulted in the loss of housing.
This is not the case though, particularly in some other parts of London. As a recent report from Inside Housing says, “Houses in multiple occupation are often far from ideal lodgings – but a trend to convert them to more profitable houses is leaving residents with few options.”
HMO living is often a compromise for tenants; they provide a less expensive option for those people who can’t afford a place of their own. The compromise paying lower rent for living in shared accommodation, and in London where rents are at their highest, and when people are not eligible for welfare assistance, this is often the only option for them.
These properties are predominantly owned by private landlords and a good proportion of them house social tenants, something that takes a large burden off the local authority. This type of housing is “far from perfect”, says Inside Housing, but it is obvious that local authorities will really struggle to find enough places for people to live.
Linda Wade, Liberal Democrat councillor for Earl’s Court, is on a mission to stop houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) in her ward being converted for other uses. She tells Inside Housing:
“Within my ward there are about eight of these types of applications in the pipeline. I’m faced with potentially 80 to 90 people at risk of being made homeless because of planning applications to convert HMOs into self-contained units. HMOs are not perfect but they do in some cases represent an affordable option for low-paid workers.”
There is a policy to try and protect HMOs in the borough, and private landlords need a licence to operate an HMO, but in practice these rentals are still being lost to the borough through conversations away from HMOs.
A Freedom of Information Act request to all the London boroughs, plus Newcastle, Birmingham and Bristol, by the publication found out just how common it now is for HMOs to be converted:

Karen Buck, Labour MP for Westminster North, told said that some councils have planning policies to protect HMOs, but there was one case in 2016, when a former hostel in Bayswater, run by the housing association Viridian, closed, when “Sixteen occupants were left homeless. Westminster housing did try to assist with keeping the hostel open as it recognised there is a shortage of this type of accommodation. “Cities thrive when they offer a range of housing options suitable to the variety of needs of their populations,” said Ms Buck.
The Freedom of Information Act request showed that recent planning applications granted for works on HMOs in Westminster for 2017 did not result in any losses to housing. These works were simply to increase or reconfigure the units, the figures showed.
However, in some locations the loss of HMOs is putting existing tenants under a great deal of stress, with the constant threat of a move to lower cost areas, further away from their employment.

09/04/2018

RLA calls for crack down on tenants as well as landlords

Deposit Cap:
Amid all the talk about cracking down on (rogue) landlords, the responsible landlord’s voice is often drowned-out – what about those rogue tenants who the media seem to think have ceased to exist?
The RLA claims that a move to cap deposits at 6 weeks’ rent could end up helping rent cheats.
As any experienced landlord knows, it’s a common practice that, at the end of a tenancy, some tenants will cheekily stop their last month’s rent payment. Fearing the landlord may retain their deposit, these tenants think they’ll get their move in first and stymie the landlord in this regard, leaving the landlord with no protection for any damage that may be revealed when the tenants leave.

What makes matter worse is that often the landlord does not even hold the deposit money as it’s placed in a custodial deposit protection scheme and won’t be released until the tenant agrees to it. So not only does the landlord “sing” for the last month’s rent, he’s lost his deposit damage protection – the whole idea of a damage deposit in the first place.
This is the reason most landlords ask for at least 6 weeks’ rent deposit, and sometimes 2 months (in case there are additional risks like pets), so that the amount does not exactly equal a month’s rent. This does at least give some protection.
Furthermore, The Sun newspaper claims to have seen a leaked copy of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee‘s report into the government’s Draft Tenant Fees Bill, which recommends that the maximum security deposits be reduced from the planned six weeks to just five weeks.
Taking more than two month’s rent does have some legal consequences as it can be interpreted as giving the tenant authority to assign (most ASTs bar this) should the tenancy be or become a contractual periodic tenancy.
The cap, set to be introduced in the Draft Tenant Fees Bill, could be seen as a “charter for rent cheats”, says they RLA, which it claims is supported by their research showing how 40% of private landlords have reported their tenants not paying their final month’s rent, in the past three years.
This Bill is designed to make renting fairer and more affordable for tenants. Other measures being proposed include having a lead enforcement authority in the Private Rented Sector, and allowing tenants to see all fees and costs upfront before they rent a given property.
But by reducing security deposits, the RLA says, landlords will suffer financial losses if faced with tenants fail to make regular rent payments, and those who leave properties in disrepair.
David Smith, policy director for the RLA, says:
“It is not unreasonable that landlords should have the security to know that funds are available to cover the unacceptable practice of those tenants who do not pay their rent at the end of the tenancy and, in some case, leave the property in an unacceptable state.
“In a quest for quick popularity, the government’s plans risk becoming a missed opportunity for fundamental reforms to improve tenants’ ability to access rented housing.”
The RLA would like the cap for security deposits to be set at eight weeks as opposed to the suggested six. It also thinks that the current deposit system should be overhauled so that deposit funds can be transferred from one private rental property to another landlord, if the tenants move house, rather than tenants having to raise a new deposit and await the repayment of their last one.

By LandlordZONE -

9th April 2018

19/03/2018

Mandatory 5yr electrical checks - consultation

Thursday, March 15, 2018
Mandatory 5yr electrical checks - consultation


The DPS
‏
The_DPS
The government has launched a consultation on introducing five yearly mandatory electrical installation checks for private rented properties, and whether other safety measures should be encouraged as good practice.
21 comments:

Gordon Brown said...
When the government have driven all the landlords out of the PRS with even more cost and regulations how will they house the 9 million renters who will no longer have a home?
March 16, 2018 at 11:00 AM

Anonymous said...
Exactly. Cutting off nose.
I would rather have empty property than rent to council ever again.

Just raise rents with every extra gratuitous piece of legislation that comes in.

I personally wouldn't rent to anyone who doesn't have a stable job. .banks don't so why should we??
March 16, 2018 at 12:31 PM

Media7ify said...
Exactly my thoughts!
March 16, 2018 at 2:19 PM

Gilly said...
I disagree with the Working Group in part. I am a landlord of several years standing (17 years) and because of recent Legislation I have had to sell two properties to bring me under the ridiculous tax limits. Thus I have reduced my overall income by £1000 per month, which I always paid tax on, so in effect the Government has lost that tax from me and many other landlords also selling up.

I invested in property to fund my old age. Not for personal gain but to look after myself and my husband instead of calling on the State, but since Section 24 and the new Taxation laws, I have effectively been hit with a sledgehammer!

New legislation seems to appear almost every month! I invested in brand new or almost new properties in 2001-2005. None of which require Electrical checks. Not will they do so for many years to come. My suggestion is that only landlords with properties OVER 30-40 years old need to comply with an electrical check of any kind.

I cannot find an electrician under £400 for electrical check certificates having done a thorough search. This would mean I would be paying £2000 or over for my 5 properties. This is a sum I cannot afford due to already high maintenance and repair bills each year. I cannot make this amount up by raising rents.

I would simply have to sell all 5 houses, and this would mean when my money runs out, which it will due to the new tax laws, I would have to fall back on the State to supplement my Pension and keep me alive!

I am not the only landlord by far in this position. I would effectively be putting 5 sets of families out of a home.
March 16, 2018 at 3:43 PM

Anonymous said...
Did a full electrical check on my Gateshead property a year ago (property was meant to be a do-up-and-sell-on in 2007 but we all know what happened and I am still in negative equity, hence am a reluctant landlord). Agree that Govt policy in general is discouraging landlords and there will be a shortage of rental properties in the future.
However the 2017 electrical safety check showed up some appalling, unsafe work done by my builders in 2007 (they have now gone out of business!), and am very glad I paid the £600 for the check, and extra money to make safe. Would rather spend the money than end up in prison after my tenants died in a house fire...
March 16, 2018 at 3:54 PM

Anonymous said...
I think there are many things at play here

1) for insurance purposes its good to have a fixed wiring test
2) most electrical fires are really due to misuse of appliances or appliance faults. This is remedied by Portable Appliance Testing
what PAT will miss is the tenants electrical items unless you do them free of charge
3) like with most things prices for electrical testing will come down as soon as it seen as a revenue stream for electricians...I do all my properties in one go and include my home. As a result I can negotiate better rates.
March 16, 2018 at 5:17 PM

Anonymous said...
You can get electrical checks done for around £130 +vat round our way - that's about £30 a year over a five year period and its tax deductible so lets not get over-excited about this and think a bit about the safety of people above profits all the time. Im not saying every property would immediately needs checks especially if they are new or have had a recent full re-wire, A sensible legislation would be that they only need an inspection say 15 years after a new full installation has taken place then every 5 years thereafter - it would be similar to cars not needing an MOT for the first 3 years then every year after. 60p per week isn't too much to ask is it?
March 16, 2018 at 6:28 PM

Anonymous said...
They are working for greedy big biz, to squeeze out and muscle in on small LL.
They don't want people to be independent, they want slavery
March 16, 2018 at 7:34 PM

Anonymous said...
Typical Government idiocy. Landlords are not to blame for Government incompetence.
March 16, 2018 at 8:47 PM

Krissie Turner said...
I dont disagree with legislation because I would not want to live with unsafe electrics. I would not forgive myself if someone died for the sake of a couple of hundred pounds.
March 17, 2018 at 8:00 AM

Anonymous said...
This proposed legislation make perfect sense. Surely every responsible landlord wants to be sure, as far as possible that his/her property is safe for tenants. I'm surprised to see comments about the 'burden' on landlords - and the added cost. I've made electrical installation testing an essential part of my property management - and would feel irresponsible if I didn't.
I think it needs to be shown that the same standards also apply to the public sector (social housing) - then perhaps we'll get retain only responsible private landlords - and filter out those whose motivation is too financially biased
March 17, 2018 at 9:50 AM

Anonymous said...
Electrical safety certs are Cicars £70-£100 not £400 by a professional registered Electrcian
I own over 40 properties and have had them all certified Avery five years for the last 20 years as a responsible landlord and they are now required under council lanlord schemes as well stop morning
And start protecting tenants and yourself act responsibly towards tenants
March 17, 2018 at 10:16 AM

Andrew Hill, Director said...
Fully support electrical safety checks; landlords should do it anyway, not because they're legally obliged but because they should make sure the products and services they supply are safe; as any other business owner does.

What I disagree with, however, is how this is only mandatory for PRS and not social housing? Minimum energy efficiency standards also don't apply to social housing. Surely social tenants deserve the same rights to safety as PRS tenants?
March 17, 2018 at 10:25 AM

Leicester Property Insight said...
We often hear of tenants in unsafe properties and support this move.
March 17, 2018 at 10:27 AM

Anonymous said...
One of my properties is rented o an electrician.He gets a fair rent and we get piece of mind, it's a win win😁
March 17, 2018 at 10:37 AM

Adrian Platt said...
Five year checks? Who will pay for this? I guess the tenants yet again. The stupid 3% extra duty on purchase of property, has served to increase rent beyond a level which is already obscene. The government should put their efforts into lowering rents which can be charged. They need to address this prime issue of social justice, even if it reduces their revenue.
March 17, 2018 at 11:45 AM

Anonymous said...
I think this is unfair on private landlords. However, I would agree if Local Authorities and Social Housing providers also carry out 5 year tests on their stock. The condition of some social housing is so appalling but not reported by tenants or sensationalised by the media. The so-called "Guardians" of housing need to lead in this demand for mandatory 5 year Electrical checks which they can afford as validated by the huge reserves built up by Social Housing providers, not forgetting the increase in property values of its stock!
I would also add taxation of properties sold by Social Housing Providers which can then be used to build more social housing as this is not happening currently.
March 17, 2018 at 2:37 PM

Anonymous said...
Does this private sector mean the housing associations and council property after all their houses/flats have the same electricity as the private sector.
By the time this government has finished taxing and causing numerous extra expenses with private landlords With all this extra expenditure, i feel the following will happen.
1/ Many landlords will sell up and many more will stop buying causing a glut of properties for sale driving down prices great for the buyer but not for the seller and many of these sellers will not be landlords everybody prices may drop.
2/ many landlords will put the rents to try and cover these extra government burdens, at the very least tenants with a higher income will find they have less money in their pocket where the people who are borderline may find they can not afford the increase and find them and their family evicted. again more expense for the landlord.
3/ if or when landlords put their rents up where are the people on benefits going to live when their housing benefit falls well short of their rent.Councils going to give them a flat/house where are they going to get these from. Or they could put them up in a B & B costing the council a fortune. I would love to know how the country would cope without the private landlord. This government wants to get finger out its ---- and look at the big picture before its to late.

March 17, 2018 at 10:46 PM

Anonymous said...
A scheme to run a qualified electrical test list? We all know what happened when Prescott introduced the Part P Regulations. The IET looked longingly at the prospect of plenty more work for their qualified engineers, but in the end, many long term experienced electricians were banned from doing house work, whilst kitchen fitters, double glazing fitters, petrol pump attendants et al went on a subsidised course and in a week, became experienced house elctricians with full authority to maintain, test and install.

I am a retired fully qualified electrical engineer of over 40 years, but legally, I cannot install another socket outlet in my kitchen, but a shopkeeper who has spent a week on a course can! Totally absurd.

The same will happen here, some half wit will do a 5 day course and get themselves onto the list, with full authority to charge what they like, say what they like, and have no idea what they are talking about. But legally, they will have the full authority to do so. Sounds like a council official, they are the same.
March 18, 2018 at 4:12 PM

Bernie said...
You greedy bunch of amateur so called landlords. Why dont you just take some respinsibility and get your electrical tests done like you should or get out of being a landlord.
March 18, 2018 at 8:35 PM

Anonymous said...
Too right, well said
March 18, 2018 at 8:38 PM

15/01/2018

Does a Periodic Tenancy mean a new tenancy every month?
By LandlordZONE -
8th December 2017

Periodic Tenancy:
Under English law, once a fixed period tenancy comes to an end it is automatically replaced with a periodic one, based on the rent payment period (commonly monthly), unless the original tenancy is terminated. With an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) termination would be if the tenant leaves at the end of the term, or is served a 2 months’ notice by the landlord effective at the end of the term.
The periodic tenancy rolls on indefinitely if the parties wish it to. Interestingly, a determination in a test case (Superstrike Ltd v Marino Rodrigues 2013)1, contrary to what many in the industry believed at the time, a statutory periodic tenancy is a new and distinct tenancy, not a continuation of the tenant’s previous fixed-term status.
On this basis a tenant sought to argue that a periodic tenancy is a new tenancy EVERY month. In Walcott v Jones & Jones November 2017, a county court appeal, the tenants argued that in their tenancy, which had started prior to the introduction of new rules (1st October 2015), the landlord had not complied with those new rules before serving his s21 notice, and that therefore the notice was invalid.

Tenancies commencing before the change date and up to 1st October next year (2018) do not have to comply with these new rules which were brought in under the Deregulation Act 2015 (s21A and s21B of Housing Act 1988) – meaning under these new rules the landlord must provide the tenant with a gas safety certificate (if applicable), an EPC and the DCLG “How to Rent Guide” before a valid s21 notice can be served.
Clearly, if the plaintiffs could establish that the tenancy renewed each time it could be argued that the landlord did not comply, and that was the original decision of the county court.

However, according to a note on the case on Giles Peaker’s Nearly Legal Blog, Ms W being the landlord of the Joneses, it was accepted for the purposes of the appeal that the new rules only apply to a tenancy that commenced on or after 1 October 2015 and until October 2018, including any “renewal tenancies” – where a new agreement is signed. The plaintiffs’ argument went that as the grant of tenancy was a monthly period from the start, (there was no written agreement), each month represented a new grant.
The appeal judge, Judge Hand QC, held that the grant of a periodic tenancy meant that if notice was not given in accordance with the agreement the tenancy would continue after the original term. Whether this was considered as an extension of the original term or a ‘deemed re-grant’ did not matter, as for the purposes of Housing Act 1988 (as amended), neither amounted to a ‘grant’ of a tenancy. Parliament did not intend a ‘grant’ in such circumstances. The county court judge had erred in law and the appeal was allowed.
A similar point arose recently in Leeds City Council v Broadley 2016 2 concerning council tax liability, where it was acknowledged that a periodic tenancy was a singular tenancy, as per the Law of Property Act 1925. In that case the court of appeal held that a tenancy grant for a year or six months, and thereafter a month to month periodic tenancy was indeed a single tenancy.

The conclusion to all this is that a periodic tenancy it does not result in a new tenancy each period – it is in fact a single ongoing tenancy, from period to period. But, as per Superstrike, a statutory periodic tenancy that arises at the end of an AST fixed term, is a new tenancy, not a ‘renewal’ tenancy.

- Superstrike Ltd v Marino Rodrigues 2013
- Leeds City Council v Broadley 2016
- Deregulation Act 2015

15/01/2018

Need to evict? Check these off first
By LandlordZONE -
22nd November 2017

S21 Tenant Evictions:
The decision to evict a tenant is not an easy one – even for seemingly clear cut cases such as non-payment of rent or severe damage to a property will see you facing a lengthy court process. Plus, you’re going to face scrutiny yourself to ensure you’ve complied with your legal responsibilities. If you’re considering evicting your tenant and the tenancy began or was renewed after October 2015, make sure you’ve done the following before issuing proceedings.
Here, www.Upad.co.uk provide a checklist for landlords to make sure that their eviction process is successful given the new rules introduced from 1st October 2015.
Protected the deposit?

If you take a deposit, by law you must protect it with one of three approved government schemes. But that’s not all; once it’s protected you need to ensure you’ve sent your tenant, plus any third party (such as a family member) who has contributed to the deposit, the Deposit Certificate and the Prescribed Information. Failure to do so is a breach of the regulations and you could find yourself not only paying the full deposit back to the tenant but potentially an additional 1-3 times the deposit amount. You won’t be able to serve an eviction notice until you’ve protected a deposit and if you protect it late, you’re still liable to pay out.

Provided an EPC (Energy Performance Certificate)?
This is one bureaucratic rule you’ll wish you followed if you want to gain possession of your property back. An EPC gives an indication of the energy efficiency of a property and estimated fuel costs for the year. This needs to be given to tenants before they move in, and available should they request it earlier, in order for them to make an informed decision about whether to rent the property. If you don’t provide an EPC to the tenant, you won’t be able to serve notice until you do.

Provided the ‘How to Rent’ guide?
This guide outlines what documents should be provided, what the landlord is responsible for and guidance on behaving in accordance with the tenancy agreement among other things. It’s not enough just to send the tenant a link to the gov.uk site though, you need to either print a copy or email an attachment (best to get a read receipt or reply from the tenant to confirm they’ve received it though). Also, be wary that this guide has already been updated twice, so give the most up-to-date version to your tenants to be on the safe side.
Provided a Gas Safety Certificate?
By law, you must give tenants a hard copy of the Gas Safety Certificate before they move in. A gas safety check is required every year by a Gas Safe registered engineer and the certificate needs to be given to the tenant within 28 days if they’re staying on. Otherwise, you’ll give a copy of the new certificate to your new tenants before they move in. You’ll need to keep records for 2 years. If you don’t carry out a check or fail to provide the certificate, you won’t be able to serve notice.

Taken action on a reported repair?
New rules on handling repairs were brought in to tackle retaliatory evictions: a situation where rather than dealing with a complaint about the condition of a property, the tenant is served a Section 21 notice by the landlord. Under the new rules, you must provide an ‘adequate response’ within 14 days of a tenant making a complaint otherwise the tenant can go to their local authority who in turn, can serve a formal notice under the HHSRS which will limit you serving a notice.

Not served the notice during the first 4 months of the tenancy?
Before October 2015, you could technically serve a Section 21 notice on a tenant along with the tenancy agreement, which would mean the tenancy is only for the initial fixed term and then you will get possession of your property back.
Now, you cannot serve the notice during the first 4 months of the tenancy. So if you want to end a 12 month tenancy, you must give at least 2 month’s notice starting from the 4thmonth of the tenancy. Plus, a Section 21 notice is now only valid for 6 months from the date of service and you’ll need to start court proceedings within that time.

GOV.UK - The place to find government services and information - Simpler, clearer, faster