jnm21
Posts: 441 
Likes: 167
|
Post by jnm21 on Mar 6, 2018 5:11:58 GMT
Option 3. Wait until long standing good payer of a tenant decides to move on before selling... can we have this as option 1 in all cases? I.e. the odds on favourite? EDIT: with the minor addition of "or misses a payment by more than 2 weeks".
|
|
|
|
Post by propertymoose on Mar 6, 2018 8:55:02 GMT
You have that already in effect with Option 3. i.e. keep the property going until the end of the term, at which point, and in accordance with the Key Decisions, a further vote will be raised to decide what to do with the property then.
It is not possible to move the votes around for the remaining properties as they have already been built, approved and scheduled for release. But, do remember that only 25% of investors (by share capital) need to vote for option 3 to retain the property due to the way the voting works.
For all properties there is a significant period for people to vote and they will receive reminders so we will get a clear view of the investors' decisions and there should be limited abstentions. For background, we are required to regularly complete randomised checks on abstentions and the feedback is almost always they did not vote because they wanted the relevant outcome specified.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 6, 2018 10:36:08 GMT
You have that already in effect with Option 3. i.e. keep the property going until the end of the term, at which point, and in accordance with the Key Decisions, a further vote will be raised to decide what to do with the property then. It is not possible to move the votes around for the remaining properties as they have already been built, approved and scheduled for release. But, do remember that only 25% of investors (by share capital) need to vote for option 3 to retain the property due to the way the voting works. For all properties there is a significant period for people to vote and they will receive reminders so we will get a clear view of the investors' decisions and there should be limited abstentions. For background, we are required to regularly complete randomised checks on abstentions and the feedback is almost always they did not vote because they wanted the relevant outcome specified. One of us has lost the plot. This thread is about polls as to whether to evict the tenant after a previous poll has already decided to sell the property. Eviction polls that I have received have only 2 options neither of which do some of us like.
|
|
pom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,922 
Likes: 1,244
|
Post by pom on Mar 6, 2018 10:55:27 GMT
You have that already in effect with Option 3. i.e. keep the property going until the end of the term, at which point, and in accordance with the Key Decisions, a further vote will be raised to decide what to do with the property then. It is not possible to move the votes around for the remaining properties as they have already been built, approved and scheduled for release. But, do remember that only 25% of investors (by share capital) need to vote for option 3 to retain the property due to the way the voting works. For all properties there is a significant period for people to vote and they will receive reminders so we will get a clear view of the investors' decisions and there should be limited abstentions. For background, we are required to regularly complete randomised checks on abstentions and the feedback is almost always they did not vote because they wanted the relevant outcome specified. One of us has lost the plot. This thread is about polls as to whether to evict the tenant after a previous poll has already decided to sell the property. Eviction polls that I have received have only 2 options neither of which do some of us like. There's also a whole bunch of polls (I've lost count now) for properties not yet at end of term - hence evict/inspect/improve/sell now, sell now without eviction or let it complete the original term before having another vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by propertymoose on Mar 6, 2018 12:47:22 GMT
Thanks Pom. If that is the case then there can only be two options:
(1) sell the property with tenant in place;
(2) serve notice on the tenant and sell with vacant possession.
As investors have voted to sell these properties, or the property is at the end of the term and they have not voted to retain it, we have to go through a sale process either with or without a tenant in place.
Hope that helps.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 1,735
|
Post by benaj on Mar 7, 2018 9:54:38 GMT
Hi all Just to provide some clarity as to the process if investors vote to remove tenants. All residential properties are let on a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy agreement, typically for six months but sometimes for longer periods. Following the expiry of tenancy, and assuming a new agreement is not entered into, the tenant moves to a monthly rolling term whereby either party can serve notice on the other to end the arrangement. By voting to exit a property and remove the tenant, the process is to work with the tenant to help them move out as quickly as possible. If the AST has expired, we would serve notice on the tenant and agree a date for them to move out (working with them where needed in, for example, the case of social tenants). This gives them at least 2 months notice. If the tenant is in the middle of the term of their AST, the tenant will be contacted and told that we intend to end the tenancy after the term. If the tenant chooses to leave ahead of the term, that will be accepted in view of seeking to gain possession as quickly as possible. If not, the tenant will remain until expiry of the pre-agreed term. As a minimum, the tenant will be given 2 months notice as required. The use of the word “eviction” has thrown up some queries as to the process and we hope this will clarify the proposed plan of action. We are also including some further information on the future voting pages and the relevant emails. I find it hard to make a decision without any information. Like property valuation (sales and letting) with / without tenants at the current state, time to finish completion, plan / strategy after evicting the tenant, risks of loss of rental income while achieving the same sale price.
|
|
wilja
Posts: 20
Likes: 19
|
Post by wilja on Mar 7, 2018 16:52:28 GMT
I am concerned the default option 1 is not the most favourable option but will be the action selected if no one votes. If a property has paying tenants then option one should be to do nothing and sell property later.
|
|
pom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,922
Likes: 1,244
|
Post by pom on Mar 7, 2018 16:59:35 GMT
I am concerned the default option 1 is not the most favourable option but will be the action selected if no one votes. If a property has paying tenants then option one should be to do nothing and sell property later. Depends how you define most favourable. For some of mine it has been, for others it hasn't. And that is of course based on various assumptions as to how likely they are to remain tenanted. Am hoping I don't have many more to go tho (have lost track) as the batches are becoming noticeably less fragrant
|
|
jnm21
Posts: 441
Likes: 167
|
Post by jnm21 on Mar 7, 2018 23:31:23 GMT
propertymoose, I am bitterly disappointed - the assurances that comms would improve are not materialising! Why on earth ask us to vote on serving notice on SPV66's tenant on the 6th, when they were due to move out on the 5th?
|
|
|
|
Post by propertymoose on Mar 8, 2018 15:28:00 GMT
I am sorry you are disappointed with the communication and improvements we have made. When issuing votes on over 100 properties, we are required, for each, to go through a process which includes producing emails and online voting webpages for each property, reviewing the status of each property and submitting all documents and associated evidence to our compliance team. This process takes around 5 to 6 hours per property (without any required inspections or visits) and we have been working tirelessly on this process without increasing fees to the SPVs to cover the cost and going so far as to waive all of the historic debt to ensure that we can move forward from a clear position at the next reporting quarterly period - something we saw as important to help improve communication and clarity for members. Indeed, we will soon be announcing a further change to the benefit of our members as we are listening to the feedback and making the changes. This takes time and we are trying our upmost to satisfy everyone.
The exit voting process was started before the tenant served notice and so the information used in the vote was not up to date. The relevant communications and webpages were then approved by compliance and scheduled for issue.
As you have seen and noted, the information on the website notes that the tenant has served notice and gave the relevant move out date. This was provided within days of us finding out as you previously suggested as an improvement.
I apologise that the information on the messaging system of the website does not match the information in the vote.
As you were aware that the tenant had already served notice to leave, I do hope you were not unduly put out by this difference and can vote as per the three options which would still be relevant in any event. We have added to the text on the vote to note this and updated the reminder emails.
(p.s. vote option 1 would, in light of the tenant already leaving the property, simply be to end the term early and conduct an assessment as to exit strategies to be put to the investors)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 21:37:48 GMT
I am sorry you are disappointed with the communication and improvements we have made. When issuing votes on over 100 properties, we are required, for each, to go through a process which includes producing emails and online voting webpages for each property, reviewing the status of each property and submitting all documents and associated evidence to our compliance team. This process takes around 5 to 6 hours per property (without any required inspections or visits) and we have been working tirelessly on this process without increasing fees to the SPVs to cover the cost and going so far as to waive all of the historic debt to ensure that we can move forward from a clear position at the next reporting quarterly period - something we saw as important to help improve communication and clarity for members. Indeed, we will soon be announcing a further change to the benefit of our members as we are listening to the feedback and making the changes. This takes time and we are trying our upmost to satisfy everyone. The exit voting process was started before the tenant served notice and so the information used in the vote was not up to date. The relevant communications and webpages were then approved by compliance and scheduled for issue. As you have seen and noted, the information on the website notes that the tenant has served notice and gave the relevant move out date. This was provided within days of us finding out as you previously suggested as an improvement. I apologise that the information on the messaging system of the website does not match the information in the vote. As you were aware that the tenant had already served notice to leave, I do hope you were not unduly put out by this difference and can vote as per the three options which would still be relevant in any event. We have added to the text on the vote to note this and updated the reminder emails. (p.s. vote option 1 would, in light of the tenant already leaving the property, simply be to end the term early and conduct an assessment as to exit strategies to be put to the investors) All things considered, at this point I think you're doing a much better job than before and giving us the chance to vote to exit the properties is really appreciated. I was very skeptical before about PM but now I'm happy to see how this goes before I sink back into any potential miserable mood on its prospects... Thanks for the recent changes and writing off the SPV debts.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragtagarmy on Mar 9, 2018 0:56:06 GMT
Thanks Pom. If that is the case then there can only be two options: (1) sell the property with tenant in place; (2) serve notice on the tenant and sell with vacant possession. As investors have voted to sell these properties, or the property is at the end of the term and they have not voted to retain it, we have to go through a sale process either with or without a tenant in place. Hope that helps. Not as far as I'm aware, it's called evicting tenants polls and the op makes no reference to it being specific to a second line vote. My annoyance is about an evicting tenant poll, if I'd had the chance to vote to retain I'd be less annoyed at being sold out of a property which has been rented solidly for 15 months, without a single missed payment, maintenance or misc charge... what many might think of as a success.
|
|
jnm21
Posts: 441
Likes: 167
|
Post by jnm21 on Mar 9, 2018 9:05:55 GMT
I am sorry you are disappointed with the communication and improvements we have made. When issuing votes on over 100 properties, we are required, for each, to go through a process which includes producing emails and online voting webpages for each property, reviewing the status of each property and submitting all documents and associated evidence to our compliance team. This process takes around 5 to 6 hours per property (without any required inspections or visits) and we have been working tirelessly on this process without increasing fees to the SPVs to cover the cost and going so far as to waive all of the historic debt to ensure that we can move forward from a clear position at the next reporting quarterly period - something we saw as important to help improve communication and clarity for members. Indeed, we will soon be announcing a further change to the benefit of our members as we are listening to the feedback and making the changes. This takes time and we are trying our upmost to satisfy everyone. The exit voting process was started before the tenant served notice and so the information used in the vote was not up to date. The relevant communications and webpages were then approved by compliance and scheduled for issue. As you have seen and noted, the information on the website notes that the tenant has served notice and gave the relevant move out date. This was provided within days of us finding out as you previously suggested as an improvement. I apologise that the information on the messaging system of the website does not match the information in the vote. As you were aware that the tenant had already served notice to leave, I do hope you were not unduly put out by this difference and can vote as per the three options which would still be relevant in any event. We have added to the text on the vote to note this and updated the reminder emails. (p.s. vote option 1 would, in light of the tenant already leaving the property, simply be to end the term early and conduct an assessment as to exit strategies to be put to the investors) Removed by jnm21 I am sorry that you feel effectively 'no harm done' as I was aware that the tenant had already served notice - having taken PM at their word that comms would improve, I increased my investment & maybe in my younger days I may have remembered which of my invested SPVs' tenants had served 'notice', but not now. I only knew that this was wrong because I opened the page - something I could not do with the SPV 14 vote since the main site was down last night. Could i suggest that all votes are extended on account of the site being down & therefore members are unable to double check the facts from the voting page? In a previous answer you stated that where there is no option to retain the property that members have voted to sell; could you confirm if that is the case for SPV 14 & SPV 40, and if so when those votes were as i have not seen anything of either.
|
|
jnm21
Posts: 441
Likes: 167
|
Post by jnm21 on Mar 9, 2018 9:14:57 GMT
Thanks Pom. If that is the case then there can only be two options: (1) sell the property with tenant in place; (2) serve notice on the tenant and sell with vacant possession. As investors have voted to sell these properties, or the property is at the end of the term and they have not voted to retain it, we have to go through a sale process either with or without a tenant in place. Hope that helps. Not as far as I'm aware, it's called evicting tenants polls and the op makes no reference to it being specific to a second line vote. My annoyance is about an evicting tenant poll, if I'd had the chance to vote to retain I'd be less annoyed at being sold out of a property which has been rented solidly for 15 months, without a single missed payment, maintenance or misc charge... what many might think of as a success. I agree - I am in SPV40, which looks like making a capital loss, but is returning reasonable rent & may over time improve on the capital loss. I do wonder if there is a fear that on BTL, by & large, most of them go wrong from a tenant or maintenance viewpoint sooner or later, so let's get out now approach. That said I have been in SPV 40 since last March, have my SM buy & partial sale emails, but no previous vote emails.
|
|
|
|
Post by propertymoose on Mar 10, 2018 8:37:02 GMT
ragtagarmy - thanks for bearing with us as it has now clicked as to the issue you have been referring to (apologies I have been slow to take the point!). The properties have been individually assessed and then, depending on their status, placed within several "buckets" which have relevant voting options. Generally, there are two types of votes, the first where the property is not yet at the end of the term and that has three options to vote (one of which is to retain until the end of the term and then deal with it in accordance with the key decisions). The other, which I was discussing with Pom, was were the property had already had a vote to sell so there were just two options (and no retention).
Now that jnm21 has kindly flagged the two relevant properties that he has also seen the issue in, I have been able to check those and the wider votes, and can see what the issue is.
There are five properties that have not included the option three to retain the property when they should have which I am hoping is why you are not seeing the relevant votes. From our review, this relates to SPVs 40, 20, 14, 42 and 43. Could you please let us know if you are referring to one or a number of these properties or any others?
I will work on the relevant documents to re-issue these over the weekend so we can raise fresh votes on the affected properties on Monday which will include an option three.
Apologies for the mis-understanding here and thanks for continuing to raise the point so we can get to the bottom of the issue. If there are any other issues, please do consider giving us a call or emailing chloe@propertymoose.co.uk to arrange a call back from me so we can discuss and find a solution to any issues for you.
Jnm21 - the website was down from around 5pm (when we were informed) until 12:05am and I'm happy to extend the votes for you if you require for an additional day. I have also emailed you directly regarding your other messages.
Have a good weekend all.
|
|
