Episode Transcript
[00:00:11] Speaker A: Let's Talk Lets, an original podcast from the Lettings Hub. Hello and welcome to the latest episode of our podcast, lets talk Lets. I'm Heidi, the CEO of the Lettings Hub, the tenant referencing business that got good at tech. Lets Talk Lets is our regular roundup of news and views on a whole range of subjects spanning the private rental sector. So today we're joined by two very familiar and friendly faces from our podcast series. We have Jen from advocats and Ben Parker from Battersea Cats and Dogs home. They've both been strong supporters of allowing pets to live in rental properties, and they have been informing all about rental reform over the last year and gave evidence to support this change. Ben and Jen will last with us in November 2023, and they are with me again today to give us an update on what's happening now, particularly because things seem to be hotting up after the recent change in government. So thank you both very much for joining me again today. And for those that may be new to the podcast or didn't listen to the previous amazing episode, can you just reintroduce yourselves?
[00:01:17] Speaker B: My name's Jen. I founded the voluntary organization advocates in 2018 specifically to help tenants and landlords with pet related issues in rented properties.
[00:01:30] Speaker C: And hi there. I'm Ben Parker, public affairs manager at Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, and we've worked on this issue through our pet friendly properties campaign since 2018, primarily because housing issues remain the second most common reason that people choose to give up animals to Battersea.
[00:01:50] Speaker A: Okay, right. Thank you both very much. Now, this is actually one of my. Well, this is a bit of a pet subjects, literally. It's my favorite thing to talk about and I'm hugely passionate about it. And for the first time, I've got the dogs in the room with me today and I don't even mind if they make a noise because they feel like they're part of it and they can join in. And Jen's got a cat on her knee, so we're all good. So I'm going to dive straight in. Since we met the renters, reforms have been on quite a journey with the bill reaching agreement in the House of Commonsense, and it began its process through the Lords and was looking really likely, actually, that the bill would become law later this year. Then all halt. General election was called. Bill did not make it in the wash up process, which I think was obviously cute. Disappointing. But with Labour now in power, what does it really mean for pets in lets and the new bill, renters rights. Jem, can I come to you first, please.
[00:02:48] Speaker B: You can. Well, it's obvious that Labour were going to move on this pretty quickly because part of their campaign was the banning of section 21 evictions as soon as they came into power.
I think, though still, the speed with which they announced the bill gave it its first reading. I think it's really showing their commitment to pushing this through. And I think because they've had to do a few other things which they weren't necessarily expecting to have to do, they're very keen on the, or even more keen to push renters rights through to show that they're coming true on their election promises.
[00:03:24] Speaker A: Wow. So, Ben, obviously, just give us the kind of the over, the overarching kind of. What are the new rules in the bill? And obviously, what's your initial first take on how it sounds? Is it going to solve the problem?
[00:03:39] Speaker C: Well, I think it's a little bit a case of meeting the new boss, same as the old boss being honest, because the bill looks to largely have been kind of copied over from what was in the renters reform bill. Certainly in terms of the pet measures, I think, firstly, we should say, I think we're really grateful that those pet measures have been included. There wasn't a guarantee that they would be carried across. And already they have made improvements from Battersea's perspective, at least in terms of reducing the deadline within which landlords will have to respond to a pet request from a tenant, down from 42 days, as it was in the old bill, to 28 days in the new bill. But other than that, I will be honest, the measures are largely the same as they were being proposed in the old bill. So as you've touched on already, landlords will not be able to unreasonably refuse a request from a tenant to keep a pet in the property. And also, the bill makes moves towards introducing that insurance option. So where landlords and tenants may be struggling to find agreement on allowing a pet in a property, that the bill will hopefully encourage more of an insurance market to deliver products that would come cover against potential damage that a pet may cause in a property as well. As you say, it's making good progress already. Second reading is next week, and so we're really busy right now encouraging all of our supporters to email their mp's, ask them to attend the debate, speak in a debate supportively of the pet measures, but also to highlight a few areas where we want to see things sharpened up as well, and happy to run through those in a short while, too.
[00:05:13] Speaker A: Yeah, okay, great. So just for anybody that isn't totally familiar with the bill. The key thing that I struggle to get my head around a little bit in terms of logic is the fact that it isn't going to, it doesn't really come into force for people that are moving into a new tenancy at the beginning of that tenancy. It's not like you can ask to take your pet in and the landlord, as you say, can't unreasonably refuse. This is once you're in the property, you have the right to request a pet to come and live with you. And that just logistically seems a little odd. If you're obviously going to get a brand new pet, I understand that could work, but a lot of people already have one. And obviously when they're choosing a property, they're going to want to find a property where they're going to be able to, obviously, to move in with their pet. So let's just have a kind of a discussion about that point first. And I just wonder, Ben, if I come back to you, whether that's obviously one of the things that you're looking to try and change in the bill or you think that that maybe is a step too far and the government aren't going to make that change at this point in time.
[00:06:18] Speaker C: So I think it's unsurprisingly it is one of the issues that we're looking to push on when the bill comes forward at committee stage.
So obviously, as you highlight, that feels like quite a significant potential loophole.
The bill definitely does represent a positive step forwards, as it's written right now for renters with pets. But as you say, the prospective point needs addressing. So we're investigating. The renters rights bill already includes measures to prevent discrimination against would be tenants for renters with children or for those in receipt of benefits.
So we're wondering, to align with that intent, could we extend similar protections to pet owners, and that would ensure that the bill's goal of kind of preventing that pretenency discrimination is comprehensive and effective. So that's something we'll be looking to raise at committee stage, because, as you say right now, it's, I think from the same day that the tenancy starts that you can make that pet request. And without it, as we know, it's a really squeezed rental market. And for those with pets at the moment, they still risk being left low down on the list in terms of being chosen by landlords for a prospective tenancy. So it's definitely something we need to address.
[00:07:31] Speaker A: And just on that point, do you know, at all why pets were left off that discrimination list, because that does seem a fairly obvious point, doesn't it, in the fact that you're trying to kind of bring in parts to the bill where pets should be allowed, but then pets, and there's a specific discrimination point.
Is there any kind of feedback that you've had on why they have not been aligned?
[00:07:54] Speaker C: So we haven't had specific feedback. My, I guess, expectation is that they're just trying to do that balancing act of providing increased rights for tenants where they can, but also recognizing some of the pressures that are on landlords and they're trying to kind of tightrope walk, I think, through things. It may also be being honest that they just haven't thought through that loophole themselves. These things happen. They slip through the net. So obviously it's our job, Battersea advocats others to highlight them and hopefully make the point that we can make that changing at committee stage. But I suspect they're just trying to balance all of the different forces at play and find a way through it. But as I say, we'll certainly be pushing when the bill comes to committee stage.
[00:08:38] Speaker A: Okay. And for you, Jan, what would you love to see changed?
[00:08:42] Speaker B: Well, I think you're right. I think it's a huge disconnect between the main problem of the moment and the perceived solution in the renters rights bill.
Ben said earlier that the surrendering of pets to rescues is a huge problem for rental reasons. It's the second biggest reason why animals are given up to rescues. So, yes, it's great that people will be able to request a pet for the first time, but we're looking also at responsible pet owners, those who already have a pet and are looking to move between rental properties, and it's not right that they should be discriminated against.
I wonder if the fact that it hasn't been included in the, in the children and the receipt of benefits section is because we're qualifying the type of pet.
They couldn't necessarily say only families with well behaved children will be allowed to rent. So they probably don't think they can say only families with well behaved pets or responsible pet owners. And rather than saying responsible parents, I think it's all in the wording there and the difference between children and between pets, although, of course, to a lot of us there, there isn't really that much difference at all. I would like to see that changed. I would like to see more thought put into that, and I'm grateful to the work that Battersea are doing to try and draw attention to these loopholes and get solutions.
[00:10:17] Speaker A: So let's come to that, then, because you guys have been so busy. I know you've both been out on the road, as it were. Let us come back to you, Ben, and just kind of talk about what are some of the things that you've been doing, what events have you been attending and what is kind of high up on your agenda at the moment.
[00:10:34] Speaker C: Yeah, so we have been really busy. We've just been at the political party conferences this autumn, and I guess the centerpiece of our work was an event at Labour party conference alongside our partners at Mars Petcare, who were also really heavily invested in kind of delivering on the pets and housing agenda. So we had a panel session there with our chief executive, with Lorna Catling from Mars, and we were joined on the panel by a councillor from Camden Council, but also Oliver Ryan, the new MP for Burnley, who spoke very passionately in support of allowing pets in more houses. And actually, where we ran through some of the improvements that we wanted to see to the renters rights bill was also very supportive of those. So we'll absolutely be getting in contact with him again and hoping that he can act as a bit of a champion for us. But I think it was really pleasing to have such a packed room for that session because it showed that people really do care about this issue. And in fact, our fringe event was, I think, the only one on the pets and housing agenda, but made it all the more important that we were there talking about it.
And also, I think, at such a busy conference, as you'd imagine, the first conference back with labor and government for a very long time now.
Really important to have that issue on the agenda there that demonstrates that people care about it, voters care about it, and therefore the government should really invest in hopefully listening to us in helping shape the bill, too.
[00:11:59] Speaker A: Excellent. And jen, you're a busy lady as well. So advocates have been out and about, haven't you? Tell us all the things that you've been involved in recently.
[00:12:10] Speaker B: Yeah, well, straight away after the general election result, we sort of did a soft relaunch of our heads for Tails campaign, which is what originally called for the change to the Tenant Fees act to allow a landlord to request pet damage insurance.
And we ran a thing called call to arms, which we put through our new website and across social media. We were encouraging people to write to their mp in support of the Heads for Tails campaign and the measures that had been in place on renters reform and would hopefully be put back into place with whatever Labour we're going to come up with.
We've never really stopped trying to gain additional support for that campaign and the general ethos of what we do. And we were very pleased to sign up pet plan to Bacchus. And they actually did a good mailing exercise based on call to arms.
We also, and this was amazingly effective. We had Larry, the number ten cat, retweet our call to arms post.
[00:13:14] Speaker A: Oh, wow.
[00:13:15] Speaker B: Which was fantastic. And I sort of fangirled about that for a few days.
We got lots of traction off the back of that and a few new supporters yet to properly come into place, but definitely willing to talk to us and to use their databases to get the message out there. We have a new mp here where advocats is based. He is very, very pro what we do. Having rented himself in the past and not been able to have pets, he's offered all sorts of support to us going forward. So that's great. And we were all ready to republish the heads for tails report and send it to the new housing minister, Matthew Pennycook, when they announced the renters rights bill anyway, and I think took everybody a little bit by surprise. But how quick that was, that was coming through. So we've been really pleased so far with both locally and nationally, how they seem to be engaging more with pet owners. But there are, as we've discussed, there's tweaks that need to be made, there's loopholes that needs to be closed.
[00:14:19] Speaker A: Okay. And I think, as well, you know, the renters rights bill is a real. Seems to be a passion, doesn't it, of the Labour government. And they obviously especially want to get the section 21 no fault evictions, as they call it, removed. And actually maybe pets and the other things that are kind of in with the bill to get kind of swept up along with it because it is such high on their agenda, is actually potentially, you know, really good for both of your campaigns. Definitely. Ben, you mentioned before that you would encourage people to, you know, raise a committee stage, you know, make points known. How do people do that? How do people kind of share their views and now kind of add their comments to support what happens next.
[00:15:06] Speaker C: Yeah, so we're really encouraging people to engage with us and I think just sharing their stories of where they may have struggled to find places that allow them to keep pets is always really important in helping us make the argument to politicians as well. We've obviously got the second reading of the renters rights bill imminently, and we've been asking our supporters, as I say, to contact the local mp and encourage them to speak in the debate. But I think we'll also be reaching out to the wider public as well, around kind of report stage and third reading. Again, we're going to need that engagement to show that the pet measures in the bill are not just an afterthought, they're an important part of the bill, and they need to be shaped and developed in the right way to make sure that they, they deliver on what is ultimately quite a welcome intention.
I just think we've got a couple of areas where at the moment there risks being some unintended consequences, just not having thought through some of the potential loopholes. And as I said earlier, it's our job to help inform and shape those, those as we go. A couple that I'll just mention now. So in addition to the point around preventing pretenency discrimination, something that we had, I think was a challenge with the renters reform bill as well, is clarifying reasonable refusal. So much of this legislation, the crux of the pet decision is going to come down to what constitutes landlords having reasonable refusal on a pet request.
And obviously there's potential for ministers to define that through secondary legislation. Having clear guidelines from the outset would reduce that ambiguity and prevent potential disputes. That would obviously be costly in terms of time and certainly financially for a tenant in terms of taking it through to a court case if it went that route. So I think we're really pushing for the bill to outline specific scenarios where that refusal would be deemed unreasonable to help give some shape to that, and secondly, ensuring that decisions are upheld throughout the tenancy. Once that permission has been granted by the landlord to keep a pet, it should remain in place for the duration of the tenancy. And that might seem like an obvious point, but the way that the bill is written right now, that isn't defined there. So again, at committee stage, we'll be raising that point and hopefully getting some security around that, too.
[00:17:25] Speaker A: Okay, excellent. I hadn't thought about that.
Just going back to the point that you raised before that, do you have a recommended list? Like, is there, is there a list anywhere? Does anybody have a list of what is a reasonable list of reasons, or has that not yet been drawn up? And I know when we kind of held the forums before, we were talking about things like, okay, if the dogs listed on the dangerous dogs list, for example, that could be a valid reason.
I'm going to talk about head leases very quickly and I'm going to kind of throw it to you, Jen, in a second, because I know that's a point that you feel hugely passionate about, but obviously, if the Headley says that pets aren't allowed, that potentially is a valid reason. Are there any others that have been discussed that really should make the list and others then kind of, I suppose the campaign is to make that list as short as possible so that it can be a yes no type answer.
[00:18:22] Speaker C: It's a really tricky one, as you'd imagine, and it's very hard to come up with an exhaustive list, but what we've been doing with our partners is trying to come up with the. The list of what would constitute an unreasonable refusal. So obviously that could be potentially quite broad. But even putting things down definitively around a landlord can't decline a request based on a personal opinion of a tenant based on a personal opinion of dogs or cats, or declining a pet request based on a generalized fear of damage to the property without that being evidenced. So I think it's hard to be exhaustive on that point. But I even think adding some definition around that list right now, some potential examples help inform how decisions are taken, because I think our fear at the moment, the way that the legislation is worded, is that it leaves it too open to interpretation, and that ultimately that would lead to cases having to be tested either by the ombudsman or by the courts, which might still be the case. But why can we not try, and at least whilst the bill is going through, offer a more definitive list?
[00:19:27] Speaker A: Yeah, and Jen, talk to us about head leases and why that is still such a big problem. It's going to be a big problem for so many people.
[00:19:35] Speaker B: Well, it's actually that the head lease or superior lease is actually detailed in the guidance notes that have come out for the renters rights bill. And it does say that would be an acceptable reasonable reason to refuse. Now, what a head lease is, or a superior lease, they tend to apply to leasehold properties, and where those are flats or apartments, there is often a head lease or a superior lease that covers the whole building, not just the individual flat.
If that stipulates no pets, and quite a few do, then at the moment, under current legislation, and even under renters rights, when it comes through, it's game over, because the leasehold legislation is superior to the renters legislation. Now, what that basically means, it sounds like a complete lot of gobbledygook, but if you have bought a flat which is in a building which has a head lease which prohibits pets, you are not allowed to have a pet there. And that's whether you then let out, you become a landlord and let out that property or whether you're living in it yourself. Whoever resides in that flat is subject to the conditions of the head lease.
It's something that really isn't very well known at all. We recently attended the cat show live at Birmingham NEC and they had something like just over 3000 people there during the day. I was there with three other advocates, volunteers and we were talking to people solidly the whole day about renters rights, about head lease, because we have got a specific banner about head leases to try and get that information through to people. Because at the moment, if a tenant doesn't already think that it is the law already, and a lot of people do, then they're going to think, oh, well, there isn't a reasonable excuse because I can't think of anything. So I'm allowed to have my pet and I'm worried that a lot of people will go and get pets or move into properties with pets and find that they come up against that. I've had several emails in the last few months through our website from people saying I'm now in this property and I'm being told I can't have my pet. And I just think people need to know. But I think once people do know, it could open a whole new can of worms.
[00:22:11] Speaker A: It's a real hard situation in the catch 22, isn't it? Because what we're really saying is tenants need to try and pick their home wisely. That is a home that's obviously suitable for the animal, of course, but also the one that's likely to allow a pet afterwards. And actually, if they don't know whether there is a head lease, I just wonder if long term it will end up coming on like a portal kind of requirement when properties are advertised, whether there is a master head lease and it kind of states on there whether that would prevent a pet potentially.
[00:22:46] Speaker B: They really need to look at the portals because at the moment portals are yes, pets or no pets. And very few landlords are willing to say yes, pets. All welcome. Come and rent with me. And I think once the renters reform, sorry, renters rights bill goes through, they really need to look at the portals and have no pets. And that would be down to something like a head lease. And that needs to be explained within the property details or pets considered.
[00:23:17] Speaker A: Yeah, sure.
[00:23:18] Speaker C: I think it's worth just quickly adding as well that we are expecting the government to introduce a separate leasehold bill at some stage too.
So that might be the vehicle through which we can best influence some of this, too.
[00:23:32] Speaker A: Yeah, absolutely. I was going to mention that. So thank you, Ben. But I suppose I.
In a. In a very sad way, I have been lucky enough to benefit from two dogs that we have rehomed over the last couple of years. Both of their circumstances are because their owners have had to give them up because of moving into a rented home. The first was a fairly young lady who had two dogs. She had one very small one, and Paddington is massive, really. And she thought, in all honesty, she could sneak one in and the other one she definitely couldn't. So she had to give him up. We were very lucky enough to pick him up and have him. But again, her attitude was, I'm going to take my other dog in until I found out, really, because I actually think I can get away with it. The second one, buster, he arrived with us in March this year, and he was from a relationship breakdown, actually. And the lady knew that she was going to have to go and find a rented home without her husband, and knew the chance of her finding a home were so slim with a dog that she gave him up before even starting the process to look. Which, again, I find, you know, again, we're lucky we've got a fantastic dog. But it's such a sad situation when we kind of turn to the situation of people having to make a choice, move into a home and not knowing if they're going to be able to take their dog and assume people are going to be very honest. Ben, do you see kind of a surge of people wanting to kind of turn to charities like yourselves to say, look, can you look after my pet for 28 days type scenario to know whether I am going to have to rehome them at the end of that time because my landlord says no, or I obviously can have them back, because, as you mentioned before, it's the second most common reason people give up pets. And actually, if we can stop that and obviously have less pets in animal shelters, that's going to be such a brilliant thing? Everybody.
[00:25:29] Speaker C: Yeah, I mean, we absolutely get a huge number of cases of people coming to us, you know, on a daily basis of, you know, having to take that heartbreaking decision to give up an animal to us. And I think that's part of the reason I would say that it's really welcome. The government has listened to us when Matthew Pennycooke was shadow minister around some of the changes we wanted to see to the previous legislation in terms of reducing that timeline within which landlords have to make a decision about a pet request down to 28 days, because part of our issue with the longer limit before was that it doesn't help people who are in that situation or nor does it help rehoming processes, frankly, for organizations like Battersea and others too. I still think, though, this comes back to that pre tendency discrimination point. Until we've resolved that, that loophole remains a challenge for cases where people are in that state of limbo, I guess for want of a better phrase, where they're looking for a new property, they already own a pet, what are they going to do in that intervening period? So again, I think it's a bit of a watch this space to see how effectively we can hopefully lobby the government to try and close that loophole when the bill comes to committee stage.
[00:26:37] Speaker A: Yeah, and also turning to the point now of insurance, obviously this is also our domain. You know, probably I'm definitely not quite as passionate about insurance. That would make me sound really dull as I am with pets. But as a business, we can provide really great protection and obviously it is our intention to build a really great policy that protects both the tenant and the landlord in the eventuality. Now, again, with renters rights, it's a funny thing because some things obviously can be implemented ahead of time if agents wanted to. And there's some things that unfortunately can't be implemented to the day off because it becomes illegal before and illegal if you don't on the day off, if you see what I mean. And I guess pet damage policy is going to potentially fall into that category. So although a tenant could willingly at the moment purchase one, that would be totally down to their choice, and though the tenant would be the beneficiary of that policy in the new world, in reality the tenant will pay for the policy, but the landlord will be the beneficiary should there need to be a claim. And going back to another kind of potential issue of a tenant moving into a property, if it all could happen before they move in, they would at least be able to understand the cost, understand the cost of that policy, understand what the policy protects them against, and the landlord feel kind of safe and secure. Actually, that's going to kind of be a little bit the wrong way around. And if the landlord agrees, and then a policy that needs to be put in place, that's going to be the first time that the tenant finds out about the cost, which is another factor, because obviously one of the main things of the bill is to keep renting affordable for tenants. But coming back to this policy originally and I'm going back several years now. We obviously hoped that when it came into force, it would be a monthly paid policy by the tenant that is looking less likely to be an option, especially for the first part of the tenancy or maybe for the first twelve months, because we also know that a key part of the bill is a tenant can have free right to reside if they want, but also right to leave should they want, by giving two months notice. And although we don't think it's going to be a common place where a tenant is going to move in and move out two months later, that can happen. And that's still got to therefore be considered when a tenant's moving in with a pet. Because as we know, if there is a reason for pet to cause damage, moving to a new environment is always going to create some stress, potentially for some pets. And the landlord is therefore as at risk in the early days, potentially more than long, long term.
So it looks like there's potentially going to have to be an upfront charge. Can I just kind of get your views, Jen and Ben, on how you see that working and any kind of requests, I suppose, to the lettings hub or anybody else that is out there going to kind of create a solution in the market of what you really would like to see in a policy.
[00:29:41] Speaker B: At advocates, we actually advise tenants that if they're taking out pet damage insurance in order to try and persuade a landlord to choose them, that they do actually offer to pay the first year's premium in full, because that signals a good intent to the landlord rather than a paid monthly policy, which some landlords are saying, well, they could just cancel the policy a couple of months in. I think if a tenant is able to pay the whole first year's premium upfront, it's a goodwill gesture, it's a note to the landlord that they're taking this seriously.
[00:30:25] Speaker C: Yeah, I think you've raised some valid concerns, I think risk of sitting on the fence on this one. I think we may also need to see how this plays out once the bill. The bill is going to be further shaped, as we've talked about, as it goes through committee and through the House of Lords as well. And obviously we also need to see how the insurance market is going to respond to the measures in this bill, too. We know that, for example, specific policies, products, I should say, that cover against the potential risk of pet damage are actually few and far between on the market. We don't know if that's the route to go down in terms of hopefully more of those will come to market, or whether you're looking at bolt ons to existing products such as contents insurance.
But I think you raise a really valid point around finding that balance, because from our perspective, it's critical that premiums remain affordable for tenants as well, and that this doesn't price them. This particular issue doesn't price them out of being able to keep a pet in a rented property too. But I wonder if there might be a bit of a watch this space as we head into the next legislative phase on this, because I think there will certainly be changes, I expect, to the billing committee that might change the conversation we're having on this point.
[00:31:36] Speaker B: The one thing I would say on the cost, the affordability of pet damage insurance, is that tenants want to pay something. They're asking what? I've offered an extra deposit. Why can't I do this? Landlords are saying, well, not allowed to take an extra deposit, but pay more rent per month and we'll think about it will allow you to have your pet. So average pet rent is about 25 pounds per pet per month, which is 300 pounds extra rent per year just to have one pet. Average pet damage insurance, you're looking at around about 1520 pounds a month premium, and that covers the address. So if you move, you take the policy with you. If you have two cats, one cat and a dog, you're covered. So you're paying that premium and not 300 pounds per peter per year and you're getting a benefit from it. Because if you do move on, then hopefully you've got a no claims history to be able to show a future landlord.
[00:32:37] Speaker A: Yeah, absolutely. Now, we've run out of time today because actually we could talk about this. And I've got so many other questions and I would love to invite you both back as we kind of progress through the phases and the bill potentially changes, or if not and it stays the same, then it would be really good to kind of tackle some of the other kind of more difficult questions, such as what if a pet, you know, sadly dies or the person gives up the pet, or they don't require a pet anymore, whichever, whichever it is. And then what happens to the policy? Because one of the key things is if it really is a policy that kind of pays out, maybe at the end of a tenancy, and if the tenancy isn't ending, and so then you know what happens. It raises a whole load of questions and there is so many more. Thank you so much, Jen and Ben. What a, you know, a brilliant session. So informative. And I think you know, you should be so proud of yourselves and your organizations for how much sway you've had in getting the UK to this point.
For everybody to ensure you don't miss an episode of let's Talk, let's please follow us on Spotify or wherever you listen to your podcast. Please leave us a review if you like the put you here. And thank you so much for listening. Let's talk. Let's an original podcast from the Lettings hub.
