Watchdog/Brendan Kiely

LandyAndy

This thread seems to be getting left behind.

LandyAndy

Just a gentle punt for this thread back to page 1.

Angelicdevil

theartfullodger wrote: »

Almost right: Should read "has" not "is just".

Cheers!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

propertyman

I watch Watchdog now and again and as infotianment it varies from the informative exposure to simply bashing someone, especially when they answer the question but it wasn't the answer WD needed.

I haven't seen this programme but I am sure like similar ones, there is a lot of truth, but a fair bit of "presentation and editing" too.

while they may do it badly, or may do bad things, they are filling a need and I am sure they and other landlord's are housing people who otherwise would be in cardboard boxes, shelters, or a relatives garage or couches.

Regulation and enforcement can eliminate. say, the taking of multiple holding deposits, and remove properties from dire living conditions.

But that can force landlords out of the sector and new ones won't fill the void if it is not profitable- and in many areas that is the case.

It's that outcome, how to deal with the consequences and make provision, that, in part, stops the government and councils who rely on them, from regulation and enforcement.

Perhaps we need to look at a modern poor house and then we can regulate and enforce.

princeofpounds

while they may do it badly, or may do bad things, they are filling a need and I am sure they and other landlord's are housing people who otherwise would be in cardboard boxes, shelters, or a relatives garage or couches.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but frankly I think you are making it at the wrong time to spare the blushes of the wrong people.

Taking multiple holding deposits and not giving them back is dishonest and criminal, simple as that. It's parasitic behaviour that doesn't 'fill a niche' for anyone. Any pound taken away from people is a pound they don't have to spend on accommodation with more honest agents and landlords. The housing could still be filled with one person and one deposit.

And the gap is probably largely made up by the state in the end, as people end up temporarily homeless.

propertyman

princeofpounds wrote: »

I understand the point you are trying to make...........

But frankly you don't and instead play the opportunist fool for the cheap seats who are clearly lapping it up.

Immediately after the quote I say

Regulation and enforcement can eliminate. say, the taking of multiple holding deposits, and remove properties from dire living conditions.

You are simply condemning them lock stock and barrel,it is far more complicated than that.

You clearly don't understand homelessness provision or the complexity of entitlement- and the state of funding for it, as the programme about the landlord in Bournemouth and the North East showed- without these landlords, the social sector would be stuffed.

The "evil" landlords simply re appear under new (offshore) ownership, but your schemes would reward them ( via their homelessness) with housing benefit income - are you really Brendan Keilly

RAS

maybe we should link this thread to the Home trader one?

princeofpounds

maybe we should link this thread to the Home trader one?

Or the Sunil Dhown/ IRD Homes....

But frankly you don't and instead play the opportunist fool for the cheap seats who are clearly lapping it up.

Immediately after the quote I say

If you had stopped with your sentence about regulation and enforcement I would have been onside.

It's this sentence that got me worried about your perspective; I cannot think of a situation where stopping multiple deposit theft would make landlording unprofitable. If anything, it would make it more profitable as that money is clearly earmarked for accommodation budgets.

But that can force landlords out of the sector and new ones won't fill the void if it is not profitable- and in many areas that is the case.

Re-reading your post, I can see it was more balanced than my reply indicated it might be, but the way you mean the emphasis to be placed didn't translate into my interpretation and it came across as much more apologetic for the scammers than it was.


Actually, you do raise an interesting point about regulation vs provision of housing services. I do aso have concerns about that, which is why although I complain a lot about agents on this forum I don't advocate particularly stringent regulation (although I think a little is better than none).

But it's not as straightforward as more regulation = less housing. The houses still exist, and what is more likely to have a significant change is the method of their allocation.

Fair housing provision is *much* more to do with ownership and allocation than it is creation and destruction of capacity. I'm a capitalist by the very nature of what I do, but because I understand the system properly I also know that whilst free markets are the best tool we have for efficient capital allocation, but they are not perfect. And the housing market is a long long way from a free market, what with the huge govt subsidies and vested interests in monetary policy.

One could argue that the lower income from the housing due to higher costs for landlords mainly results in lower capital values. Lower capital values mean that there are more houses affordable to owner-occupiers, and so whilst there may be less landlords 'in the game', there would also be less prospective tenants.

Now I don't think anyone has ever come up with a holistic ways to measure/predict such effects.

propertyman

The taking of fees or multiple deposits can be a significant factor in profitability.

Housing ownership is a relatively inelastic investment, in a sector where incomes are low and relatively high risk, and a higher incidence of wear and tear, the landlord has to look at whether it is worth investing his money.

Housing is also relatively people intensive, and any means whereby the cost, particularly the letting agents costs, are mitigated make the investment worthwhile.

Add that much of this is taken in cash form.....

You pose the question of that the houses are still there, and while they are, as above, repairs are missed delayed or ignored or botched, until the landlord finds another punter, or inevitably they are sold, perhaps at a loss, to someone perhaps where they have innovative ways to derive income such as multiple deposits.

More regulation will drive people out they can get a better return elsewhere, and a lot less grief!

In some areas as has happened in the past houses could even stand empty for want of the sheer cost of refurbishment and no income locally to use them or own them.

It's the same reason why we don't have manufacturing or a coal and steel industry, our input costs are just too high.

We have completed 3 refurbs in the last year or so, in good areas of London , but entry level property. The availability of similar properties is high, depressing the rent, as are the specs, making the cost higher. The return is less than spectacular and buyers were few and far between, so we re invested using previous net high returns.

Even wearing another hat the refurbishment of social housing units even at the new government rent levels would not be attractive to a private investor, even gross of tax!

So regulation and enforcement has to be cautious of forcing out those that fill a need even if badly done. It can register individuals and proprieties so that those who are found wanting can be prevented from future involvement.

And we might be better off housing people in a modern poor house rather than dumping them in sink estates or the hands of the modern day Rachman.

As to a fair way Ebenezer Howard one of the latter day philanthropists reconciled much of the housing and societal issues we face today, over hundred years ago ( in his original version of Garden cities which was banned).

Far too often government involvement has not pushed or pulled the market ( not since the New town movement of the 40's and 50's) and only provided a security blanket to compound their shortcomings-and add the deficit spending and borrowing, making the fall that much harder.

Angelicdevil

BBC iPlayer > Watchdog