Confessions of a slum landlord - Investors Chronicle

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

Does it matter who they were sold to? they were sold at below market value and the proceeds were not used to provide more housing?

it matter slightly. however, i'm glad that we all seem to agree on the need for more government owned social housing.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

it matter slightly. however, i'm glad that we all seem to agree on the need for more government owned social housing.

But you wont ever get any, when they give it away they are not going to take on any more.
With the deficit it is even further away.

All social housing will be done by HA's from now on. Anything they can not pick up will be fulfilled by other landlords.

Get used to the idea, the days of council houses are over.

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

Get used to the idea, the days of council houses are over.

nothing is certain but death and taxes.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

nothing is certain but death and taxes.

Both of the above will happen to all of us before we see a new national council house building program

ninky_2

one thing i agree with the conservatives on is examining the security of tenure. whilst not advocating evicting people from their homes, i see no sense in allowing people to continue paying the same low level of rent regardless of means. if their circumstances improve, the rent should increase.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

one thing i agree with the conservatives on is examining the security of tenure. whilst not advocating evicting people from their homes, i see no sense in allowing people to continue paying the same low level of rent regardless of means. if their circumstances improve, the rent should increase.

HELP, I appear to be in total agreement with Ninky. I am going for a lie down.

carolt

ninky wrote: »

one thing i agree with the conservatives on is examining the security of tenure. whilst not advocating evicting people from their homes, i see no sense in allowing people to continue paying the same low level of rent regardless of means. if their circumstances improve, the rent should increase.

But the danger with that is that it acts as a disincentive to get on at work - if anything (or a large proportion of what) you earn is just taken off you in higher rents, on top of losing your benefits, for many there'd be no point in trying to get a job.

I'd favour council housing being skewed towards those in work, to encourage those not in work to become self-supporting.

amcluesent

Slum Landlords are surely key players in 'call me Dave' Dave's 'Big Society'.

Then again, loads of EEs come over to pick produce from the fields. How much more convenient if they slept under hedges, so they are close to work...it's all making sense now.

Landlord’s fury at state of home

A LANDLORD has revealed terrible state his property has been left in to highlight the issues being faced by some city property owners. A police spokeswoman said: “The problems were not a police matter because there was no crime being committed by the tenant towards his landlord.”

"Goodness, gracious me!"

Gorgeous_George

ninky wrote: »

if houses cost 6k why don't the council just buy them and create social housing? it would be much cheaper.

Unfortunately, tenants are more likely to default on the rent if paying the Council rather than a friendly landlord who happens to own a big dog.

Tenants made it so that councils didn't want to run 'social' housing.

GG

PasturesNew

This is why I don't rent... I can't afford to rent. LHA pays more in rent to landlords for a 1-bedder than I can bring in/am prepared to pay out. Also, if I pay LHA rates, I get LHA neighbours .... what's the point of working if I would come home to an undesirable 1-bedder in a grim area...?

So, I don't rent.