Housing benefit reforms really this much of a problem?

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

Umm so you are complaining that tax payers might end up bailing out a landlord when the housing benefit tenants don't bother to pay but are fine with tax payers taking the hit when social tenants don't pay the rent. To me I end up paying either way but for you the two are completely different?

To put it bluntly, no, and that's a severe twist on my words and thoughts to which I take some offence to to be honest as it's patantly clear thats not what was being said.

If this landlord finds himself unable to service his outgoings, I doubt he will go bust. Although I don't know his finances, I can only go on what he has stated.

We have, however, over 400 families at stake in these houses, therefore, it's nigh on impossible for the authorities to do nothing. They won't be able to re-house all these people, so something will have to be done to keep him afloat.

The key thing here is we don't benefit from ANY OF THIS. We don't own anything and can't recoup anything.

Your second point suggests I'm happy for the taxpayer to take a loss on social housing. I have never suggested that in such context that you put across to make your point.

What I have suggested is that social housing be built in order to cater for those needing cheaper accomodation. I also stated we should learn from the past and do away with life long tenancies etc.

This, in my opinion would pave the way to best utilise those houses we all pay to build.

We'd face losses, yes, of course we would, but the whole benefits system is a loss in reality. But we'd have an asset which we call the shots on, it has some worth, it should reduce rents outside in the private sector, it would provide jobs and growth etc.

So what I'm saying is no where near what you have suggested I'm saying. What I would like is to face smaller losses, own the asset, support the people using the asset while they need the support and make sure the assets are utilised to the best of our ability.

Were always going to make losses when it comes to welfare, theres no escape from that. But I do think we can run the system a lot better while making them, instead of simply allowing a handful to do very well from it.

That, is what I am saying.

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

One of the UK's biggest (in terms of properties!) landlords has suggested he may have to go bust if the welfare changes come through......

Kevin Green to go bust?! That'll bog up his sideline as a 'wealth coach' (See http://www.kevingreen.co.uk/) not to mention any future appearances on Secret Millionaire handing out his dosh.

On the other hand, there is no suggestion whatsover by the BBC or anyone else that Mr Green is under any threat of bankruptcy. It would take more than a few late paying tenants to do that.

As it turns out, all Mr Green is doing is complaining about Universal Credit and its potential effect on his letting business. Since he made the same complaint to the Guardian in June of this year - "My main gripe is that under universal credit, the benefits will go to the tenants. We are going to suffer as tenants don't tend to be great at handling money." - it isn't even really news.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jun/28/new-class-landlords-profiting-generation-rent

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

Kevin Green to go bust?! That'll bog up his sideline as a 'wealth coach' (See http://www.kevingreen.co.uk/) not to mention any future appearances on Secret Millionaire handing out his dosh.

On the other hand, there is no suggestion whatsover by the BBC or anyone else that Mr Green is under any threat of bankruptcy. It would take more than a few late paying tenants to do that.

As it turns out, all Mr Green is doing is complaining about Universal Credit and its potential effect on his letting business. Since he made the same complaint to the Guardian in June of this year - "My main gripe is that under universal credit, the benefits will go to the tenants. We are going to suffer as tenants don't tend to be great at handling money." - it isn't even really news.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jun/28/new-class-landlords-profiting-generation-rent

As I've said before LHA goes to tenant there is provision to pay UC to landlord in exceptional circumstances as there is with LHA

Generali

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Will this ultimately affect the quality and returns of the product or were you charging a premium?

Interestingly this change has forced innovation on us so we've looked at an entire area of our business and remodeled it.

If things go to plan we'll end up with a more profitable outcome for us and a less risky investment proposition for our clients which should make them richer on average: some will not get quite as much as they would but the gainers should gain by more.

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

As I've said before LHA goes to tenant there is provision to pay UC to landlord in exceptional circumstances as there is with LHA

What?! You mean to say that not only is he not going bust but, to cap it all, there's not even any substance to his complaint?

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

What?! You mean to say that not only is he not going bust but, to cap it all, there's not even any substance to his complaint?

It looks like that to me but I'm not an expert.

Graham_Devon

antrobus wrote: »

What?! You mean to say that not only is he not going bust but, to cap it all, there's not even any substance to his complaint?

Not really much of a revelation. In the very first post this was stated...

We have to bear in mind that this is probably a bit of a threat from him at the same time. Whether he would actually need to go bust we might never know.

chucky

Pobby wrote: »

From Grahams interesting post. I think it mentioned a lady living with 9 children in a 4 bed house. So if the benefit cap is £500, is that to cover everything, rent, council tax and so on? Tbh, that would be a struggle. Not saying that having all those children was a prudent move.

Oh yes Hamish, I think your statement regarding peoples lives was pretty insulting. Not surprised though.

How is educating someone insulting?

chucky

antrobus wrote: »

As it turns out, all Mr Green is doing is complaining about Universal Credit and its potential effect on his letting business. Since he made the same complaint to the Guardian in June of this year - "My main gripe is that under universal credit, the benefits will go to the tenants. We are going to suffer as tenants don't tend to be great at handling money." - it isn't even really news.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jun/28/new-class-landlords-profiting-generation-rent

This is the problem, not that the landlord is over leveraged but that the Universal Credit system will cause problems due to people not managing their finances.

The guy has a business model that he has created, the government changing the rules will certainly cause a problem for the landlord but to the families that live in his properties when they get evicted.

ILW

chucky wrote: »

This is the problem, not that the landlord is over leveraged but that the Universal Credit system will cause problems due to people not managing their finances.

The guy has a business model that he has created, the government changing the rules will certainly cause a problem for the landlord but to the families that live in his properties when they get evicted.

Getting evicted may just be the motivation they need to sort themselves out.