x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button

msec's  Personal Profile View my company profile

icon
msec S
Director
3567  Profile Views

About Me

Electrician, plumber and property investor

my expertise in the industry

In construction for 21 years and property investment for 3 years

msec's Recent Activity

msec S
2 initial points; Families in need won't be any more helped by a council house being tenanted rather than owned. It will still be occupied. London is an anomoly. Please don't use it as an example of what policies we should set for the whole of our society, because that would be absurd. Onto my main points; What tenants do with their properties after they've bought them is wholely irrelevent to the issue of RTB. If local authorities did what they were supposed to do, managed their stock efficiently and engaged in a program of continuous and consistent building, then we'd have no problems. As it is, people such as yourself are using RTB as a political weapon to bash people who had the foresight and aspiration to buy their property, and quite rightly do what the hell they want with it. Basically the old 'you have something so should feel guilty for those that don't' mantra. THAT is messed up socialist thinking and virtue signalling nonsense. It says more about you than it does about anything to do with RTB in the real world. I was a council tenant in 2004 when the Labour Wakefield council actively and deliberately lied to tenants in order to manipulate a vote to sell off their housing stock. My rent went from £39 a week, to £74 overnight. The reason they gave for the sell off was to fund the regeneration of the city centre. In 2006 building started on the regeneration and then promptly stopped as they ran out of money (later revealed to be millions spent on consultancy fees). Private investment was found and the work completed in 2008. Last year, less than 10 years later, the regeneration sites are being sold off for private development as the regeneration has been a commercial failure (due to high business rates and the destroying of the previous thriving market and market house). On the other side of the city, a building that the council invested £4m into as an arts and leisure venue has gone into administration. The money from selling the council stock has gone up in smoke, the city centre has been ruined, and hundreds of small business owners who had plyed their trade for years have had their lives turned upside down. It's now down to the private sector to bail us out again. I've done my research.. there are countless examples of stuff like this up and down the country. Less than 3000 properties have been sold in Wakefield over the course of almost 40 years. So with everything I've just said, you tell me... how would the housing situation in Wakefield be helped in any significant measure if RTB had never exisited?

From: msec S 27 December 2019 11:24 AM

msec S
Absolute nonsense. Cutting people off at the knees for having a little aspiration will achieve what for our society? How will it help the housing stock? The people who would buy their homes under RTB will simply have to stay in them, the council will only get them back once the tenants are dead, or they have to move them into another property. Hardly a sustainable strategy. The housing stock hasn't fallen in any significant measure due to RTB, it has fallen due to the inefficiency of local authorities to handle their stock. They have failed massively to build new housing in any significant number and were bailed out of loss making situations by housing associations.

From: msec S 27 December 2019 10:59 AM

msec S
The 'blissfully ignorant' landlord is hardly an untapped market. If they wanted to use an agent, they would have done. In my experience, the majority of self managing landlords see everything as a cost, think agents are a rip off and think they know the lot. Many others simply don't care about legislation because they think it's box ticking that is never enforced, and as they've been lucky enough to get away with before, it won't affect them in the future. These are people who spend all day driving around looking for the cheapest paint and paintbrushes, then bodging the job themselves rather than getting a painter, so they can save 100 quid. They don't understand the meaning of time value, or passive income. All they see is cost and need to control. Even if you could convert this 'untapped' market into clients, I don't think I'd want them.

From: msec S 02 October 2019 18:32 PM

msec S
What a load of utter flannel.

From: msec S 18 September 2019 21:56 PM

msec S
I have 21 years experience in construction and the writer of this article is completely uninformed. EU labour is no cheaper than domestic labour on building sites, and the vast majority of materials aren't imported, so your politically biased argument on those points is dead in the water. Please just stick to giving us facts instead of political opinion.

From: msec S 31 August 2019 10:38 AM

msec S
You can't take away 'all circumstances' in which a criminal act could occur. To do that would require such monitoring and enforcing that it would be completely impractical and unaffordable. You could say the same about any business in any industry. Even with the legislation in place, bad agents and criminals prey on the ignorance of tenants and landlords. They see weak people and take advantage. This is true in all walks of life and is never, ever going away. At the the end of the day, what barriers to entry should there be? It's a free market. The last thing you want to do is stop competition. That would hurt landlords, tenants and existing good agents. ALL you can do is make sure contingencies are in place to protect client money to a sufficient degree. That is ALREADY in place, with the property redress scheme, deposit protection and the requirement for all agents to have PI insurance. That's enough, this is as protected as any client needs to be in the real world. Criminal cases are few and far between, they are rare, certainly not the norm, and normal, hardworking agents who do a good job shouldn't have further work and cost heaped onto them because of the actions of a few.

From: msec S 22 July 2019 19:20 PM

msec S
'These people know their stuff' 😂 Are you kidding me? Just because they're in the industry and not MP's doesn't make them any better at designing legislation. They have an agenda, like everyone else. When will the Government and industries learn?.. you can't force cowboys out of any industry with legislation. You can't enforce personal integrity on people. ALL you can do is try to protect customers and put contingencies in place. We already have that to an appropriate degree. Whatever gets put in place won't be enforced and it'll just be an added cost. The property redress schemes and protection of clients money have made lettings as tight a ship as it needs to be. There is no need for further 'qualifications'. 20 years as an electrician competing in the domestic and commercial market, and a decade in property have shown me a few things, and I've seen nothing in lettings to suggest it is any different; Qualifications prove nothing more than a person can pass a test under prepared conditions. Any person with an average IQ can do this. The top people in any field, have knowledge, experience (not the same thing) and personal integrity. People who place disproportionate value on qualifications usually have their self identity, ego or earnings attached to them. Legislation is rarely fair, it is financially or politically motivated. Legislation is rarely enforced on a day to day basis. It needs extremes or financial motivation to even start to move. People who want to lie, cheat and steal will. They will ignore legislation and take the piss, just as they did before. The vast majority will get away with it.

From: msec S 21 July 2019 09:10 AM

msec S
There wasn't a single thing 'right wing' about this article.

From: msec S 29 May 2019 17:20 PM

Breaking News
MovePal MovePal MovePal