We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Private Landlords to Evict up to 200,000 tenants because of benefits cuts
Comments
-
"A witty saying proves nothing"
Voltaire“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
And now post the full, unedited conversation, including what led me to make those posts.
And you too, Hamish.
You both know perfectly well that none of those comments were posted except in response to extremely offensive comments from other posters - in your case, Hamish the other poster was yourself.
Well clearly I'm the other poster you are referring to in that thread. You know, the one where you label landlords as parasites.
Care to show me where I posted "extremely offensive" comments?0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »In your scenario, you've chosen to move to a nicer pad rather than save the extra rent you would have obtained on your current property towards a deposit.
Synopsis: Carol will always be a renter
As do millions...
Crazy to pay for overpriced property.
Stays in my long term savings pot thank you.Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
I took offence to you calling all landlords parasites - a comment that wasn't provoked.
I did too, but to be honest I just didn't feel like descending into the gutter for a slagging match hence my lack of comment.
For what it's worth yes I am a LL but I also donate quite a bit to dog charities and also volunteer my time to dog rescue centres (about 20 days a year)Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
-
Just caught up with this thread.
It's rather silly really and a little hysterical, the article that is.
The worst that would happen, is what happens elsewhere. The landlord simply has to align themselves with the market in their area. If the market is mostly social, then that's the market, and there is little they can do about it.
The landlord isn't going to chuck tennants out, and leave themselves with their own mortgage to pay are they. That would be called shooting one foot, and then shooting the other, for a few quid a month.
The landlord, or any sane landlord, will reduce the price, and have a slightly reduced yield. Afterall, I have been told many many times the yields are very good anyway, so what's the problem?
What won't happen, is 200,000 people on the streets, and say 50,000 BTL homes empty, with the landlord stumping up the costs each month now they have evicted their tennants.
The housing federation will be casting these warnings simply because they stand to lose out themselves, as basically massive landlords.
These sort of price cuts happen constantly in my line of work. One year something is paid at £100, the next, £80. We don't simply say "oh, no, well we won't do it at all then"...we simply have to get on with it, as not doing it at all would impact us FAR greater than taking the £20 hit each time. Were still in profit, just less.....the same as most SENSIBLE BTL landlords should be.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote:The landlord isn't going to chuck tennants out, and leave themselves with their own mortgage to pay are they. That would be called shooting one foot, and then shooting the other, for a few quid a month.
Depends how lettable the property is. If a tenant relying on benefits isn't going to be able to afford the top-up and it would prove very easy to get a private tenant, the landlord may very well decide to evict.I'm a Forum Ambassador on the housing, mortgages & student money saving boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Forum Ambassadors are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.0 -
Depends how lettable the property is. If a tenant relying on benefits isn't going to be able to afford the top-up and it would prove very easy to get a private tenant, the landlord may very well decide to evict.
I thought it was clear I was talking on mass scale?
One singular landloard might, obviously. But I would think the landlord would do that regardless of whether the current tennant was on HB or not.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »I thought it was clear I was talking on mass scale?
One singular landloard might, obviously. But I would think the landlord would do that regardless of whether the current tennant was on HB or not.
Nobody thinks, or claimed, landlords are going to evict for a few quid a month Graham.
But for a few hundred quid a month, they will.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Nobody thinks, or claimed, landlords are going to evict for a few quid a month Graham.
But for a few hundred quid a month, they will.
A few hundred quid a month?
A few being what, £300-500?
Which on a 10% cut, would mean their rent was initially £3-5000 per MONTH?
Right...
There is the other part I guess, limiting rent to £400 a week or something for certain sized houses. Thats still £1,600 a month. So to be losing a "few hundred", the rent would have had to have been over £2,000 per MONTH.
Now, this could happen, in certain areas of London.
However, that does not explain the scare tactic of 200,000 people on the streets.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 262K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards