Good Old Fergus!

Loughton_Monkey

grizzly1911 wrote: »

What is defamatory about the word obnoxious, it is pretty woolly and subjective? Some seem to view it is a "badge of honour" on here.

In theory it could succeed.

I always remember Bill Roach taking a newspaper to court simply for calling him "boring". He won the case, but had to pay costs because he was awarded only the same as he'd been offered out of court. It bankrupt him.

vanilla_twist

I don't know where to start as still reading thread but as a starting point
I am one of the Wilsons tennants.

Someone mentioned a cap of £290 a week. In this area NO housing authority has the money to help other than the basic rent., which for a single person over the age of 35 is £375 ish every 4 weeks. I think for a mother and child it is around £525. One of the 2 bed houses is £750 to rent so a short fall of £225 a month.

In my Village the Wilsons own 90% of the rental properties.
Their 2 bed house opposite me has been empty for 2 years. Their houses are in a very bad state of repair.

Over the time I have been here I have repainted the house and due to falling down the stairs numerous times due to ripped bare carpets my mother has paid to recarpet the house.
At first I contacted the Wilsons about the house fences down ect by email I made the mistake of saying I have painted the house to make it more of a home. Only white for ceilings and walls. After a barrage of abusive emails I stopped bothering and now do repairs myself.
I must say they were very good when I had a leak from bath and their nice eastern european handyman came twice as first time leak was not fixed.

Yes I get housing benefit, i am vunerable as disabled. This is paid to my mother who then tops up to full rent (about 60% more).

When the Wilsons changed letting agents late 2012 I got an eviction notice. After 3 months their new agent gave me a new lease. This is now a rolling tennancy so I don't have to keep paying renewal fees.

I love my home. Thats right it might be their house but it is my home.
I look after it well.

My previous landlord died and his sons sold the house. The hardest part was finding a new deposit before getting old one repaid.


Having read the article I am now worried as have my gas safety inspection on monday. My boiler should be condemmend but it does work.
The Wilsons do not have central heating serviced so obviously it will go wrong eventually.

If I got an eviction notice then I would sit tight as want this to be a long term home and need it to be because of paying out for the carpets.


The Wilsons got their empire from renting to people on housing benefit when it covered the rent. Now hb doesnt go near to covering the cost of renting one of their houses they want to bail and only rent to working people.

My dd and her husband both work, him full time and dd 3 days a week in a decent job but they still get around £60 a month in hb. Would they be excluded too?

Sorry if this has turned into an essay but where I live there is not really any choice but to rent from The Wilsons.

If I get an eviction notice I will keep you posted but I am not in arrears so I see no reason for one.
V

vanilla_twist

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Build more houses.

For years you denied there was a housing shortage.

Then you supported the very changes to benefits that are now causing landlords to refuse claimants as tenants.

When will you ever learn?

We need to build more houses. There is no other solution.

In this area there are plans to build on Folkestone racecourse.
Unfortunately we know who will be buying them off plan for the rental market.
V

ruggedtoast

vanilla_twist wrote: »

I don't know where to start as still reading thread but as a starting point
I am one of the Wilsons tennants.

Someone mentioned a cap of £290 a week. In this area NO housing authority has the money to help other than the basic rent., which for a single person over the age of 35 is £375 ish every 4 weeks. I think for a mother and child it is around £525. One of the 2 bed houses is £750 to rent so a short fall of £225 a month.

In my Village the Wilsons own 90% of the rental properties.
Their 2 bed house opposite me has been empty for 2 years. Their houses are in a very bad state of repair.

Over the time I have been here I have repainted the house and due to falling down the stairs numerous times due to ripped bare carpets my mother has paid to recarpet the house.
At first I contacted the Wilsons about the house fences down ect by email I made the mistake of saying I have painted the house to make it more of a home. Only white for ceilings and walls. After a barrage of abusive emails I stopped bothering and now do repairs myself.
I must say they were very good when I had a leak from bath and their nice eastern european handyman came twice as first time leak was not fixed.

Yes I get housing benefit, i am vunerable as disabled. This is paid to my mother who then tops up to full rent (about 60% more).

When the Wilsons changed letting agents late 2012 I got an eviction notice. After 3 months their new agent gave me a new lease. This is now a rolling tennancy so I don't have to keep paying renewal fees.

I love my home. Thats right it might be their house but it is my home.
I look after it well.

My previous landlord died and his sons sold the house. The hardest part was finding a new deposit before getting old one repaid.


Having read the article I am now worried as have my gas safety inspection on monday. My boiler should be condemmend but it does work.
The Wilsons do not have central heating serviced so obviously it will go wrong eventually.

If I got an eviction notice then I would sit tight as want this to be a long term home and need it to be because of paying out for the carpets.


The Wilsons got their empire from renting to people on housing benefit when it covered the rent. Now hb doesnt go near to covering the cost of renting one of their houses they want to bail and only rent to working people.

My dd and her husband both work, him full time and dd 3 days a week in a decent job but they still get around £60 a month in hb. Would they be excluded too?

Sorry if this has turned into an essay but where I live there is not really any choice but to rent from The Wilsons.

If I get an eviction notice I will keep you posted but I am not in arrears so I see no reason for one.
V

I had wondered if they were as bad as they seemed from the tv. In no other business could you have such contempt for your customers and keep going let alone build a local oligopoly. But then landlords aren't really businessmen as far as I can see.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I had wondered if they were as bad as they seemed from the tv. In no other business could you have such contempt for your customers and keep going let alone build a local oligopoly. But then landlords aren't really businessmen as far as I can see.

Ryan air?

Ratner?

dktreesea

gazter wrote: »

If a tenant fails to pay their rent, resulting in eviction the housing department at the local council can quite rightly tell them where to go.

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

If your last paragraph was correct, then I would agree with you 100%.

The trouble is that they are by law obliged to rehouse or do something with these people.

Then maybe we need to change, or clarify, the law. Something along the lines of if you receive (even as part of UC) housing benefit and fail to use the money for the purposes it was provided, i.e. diverting it to other uses and letting the rent go into arrears, then this is fraud and you can be prosecuted.

Maybe also, just for the portion that should have been covered by the HB, the council, if they don't already do so, should have the right to deduct from any other benefits the person is getting, the amount of diverted funds over a period of time?

What if the tenant is in arrears because the HB is no longer sufficient to cover the rent? Presumably in that situation, where the tenant continues to pay the HB to the landlord, but it is insufficient to cover the rent, the council has two choices - make up the shortfall directly to the landlord every month or re-house the tenant?

Loughton_Monkey

dktreesea wrote: »

Then maybe we need to change, or clarify, the law. Something along the lines of if you receive (even as part of UC) housing benefit and fail to use the money for the purposes it was provided, i.e. diverting it to other uses and letting the rent go into arrears, then this is fraud and you can be prosecuted.

Maybe also, just for the portion that should have been covered by the HB, the council, if they don't already do so, should have the right to deduct from any other benefits the person is getting, the amount of diverted funds over a period of time?

What if the tenant is in arrears because the HB is no longer sufficient to cover the rent? Presumably in that situation, where the tenant continues to pay the HB to the landlord, but it is insufficient to cover the rent, the council has two choices - make up the shortfall directly to the landlord every month or re-house the tenant?

I sometimes think that there is no legitimate solution that would arise by 'rules' or 'laws' because the basic 'right' to housing is so strong here. Rightly or wrongly. Maybe we should learn from energy companies. They are allowed to fit prepayment metres, and (as far as I know) they are still allowed to charge extra per kw to cover the extra costs.

So what about some type of "pre-payment" lock on the door? Basically don't pay your rent... that landlord presses the button on his computer... the electronic lock now changes and will allow nobody in without a new "key". Of course the 'regulars' would simply get in through a window or something....

People who get only 'part' HB have presumably been assessed as having enough income to pay the excess. People without any HB are presumably assessed as having enough income to pay rent. So literally everybody has enough money to pay their rent, and yet the rules on eviction remain pretty much in favour of the tenant rather than the landlord.

It should be a far simpler system. If you pay a deposit of 1 month's rent, then you should be entitled to one month's notice. You want 6 months notice? Then pay 6 months deposit.

Non payment should then automatically trigger a legal eviction notice, rescindable only if/when arrears are paid in full within the notice period.

dktreesea

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

People who get only 'part' HB have presumably been assessed as having enough income to pay the excess. People without any HB are presumably assessed as having enough income to pay rent. So literally everybody has enough money to pay their rent, and yet the rules on eviction remain pretty much in favour of the tenant rather than the landlord.

But these are not the two groups in arrears. It's the ones whose hb did cover all of their rent, but no longer does, due to the reduction in housing benefit. Things like LHA only covering the rent to the equivalent market rental for the 30th rather than 50th percentile of rents for houses of a particular rent, benefit capping for people who don't work but are in privately rented accommodation because they can't get social housing, people whose entitlements fall because someone moves out/children become adults, but who can't afford to raise a deposit to move to a more appropriately sized property.

To me the problem is not having a co-payment for rent. If rent only covered up to 75% rather than 100% of the rent, then someone in a property costing £1,000 a month could only get a maximum of £750 a month paid. In those circumstances, given the choice between forking out the £250 a month shortfall and moving to a £500 a month property, so a £125 a month co-payment, the tenant themselves may very well be incentivised to move to a cheaper property.

vanilla_twist

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I had wondered if they were as bad as they seemed from the tv. In no other business could you have such contempt for your customers and keep going let alone build a local oligopoly. But then landlords aren't really businessmen as far as I can see.

I would say the surface has only been scratched.
If I had rental property I would want to keep my investment in good condition.

In my case I just try not to contact them and do any minor repairs myself.
I could show emails from them that would blow this whole debate out of the water:mad:

As I said it might be their house but it is my home.
V x

Oh and my rent went up this month.

vanilla_twist

dktreesea wrote: »

Then maybe we need to change, or clarify, the law. Something along the lines of if you receive (even as part of UC) housing benefit and fail to use the money for the purposes it was provided, i.e. diverting it to other uses and letting the rent go into arrears, then this is fraud and you can be prosecuted.

Maybe also, just for the portion that should have been covered by the HB, the council, if they don't already do so, should have the right to deduct from any other benefits the person is getting, the amount of diverted funds over a period of time?

What if the tenant is in arrears because the HB is no longer sufficient to cover the rent? Presumably in that situation, where the tenant continues to pay the HB to the landlord, but it is insufficient to cover the rent, the council has two choices - make up the shortfall directly to the landlord every month or re-house the tenant?

In the Wilsons area NO council would make up the difference except in exceptional cases where they might for 3 months while you rehouse yourself, which is impossible without a deposit.
NO council will even consider putting a roof over your head as by not paying rent you have made yourself intentionally homeless . Means 3 months minimum in b and b and fingers crossed you get lucky.

Remember this part of country was the worse hit in 1999-2000 as was port illegals came in by. Greedy landlords saw an oppotunity to buy up housing which was reasonably cheap as channel tunnel workers had left the area and there were lots of empty properties.. for the Wilsons there was guaranteed income as before LHA hb covered the rent. As I put in my first post the LHA paid down here in no way touches the rent. If I chose to live in an unsuitable cheap crummy flat with no parking (I can't get out without car) if would still fall short on rent by £200 a month.
The Wilsons have had it good for a long time. There is one agent here who does not take dss. This is a choice clearly stated.
If the Wilsons wish to go this way in the future then fine but they should not evict tennants with no arrears but just not take any more dss claimants on.

I guarantee they would have too many empty houses which they would end up having to sell.
V x