Good Old Fergus!

casperlarue

gazter wrote: »

It really infuriates me that people think infantilizing benefit recipients does them any good. There will be exceptions, for people with learning difficulties etc where a reasoned argument can be used to give rent direct to landlord.

People on benefits are not stupid, they arent children, they arent mentally incapable. It is a very important lesson we only tend to need to learn once. If you dont pay your rent/mortgage you get evicted.

Why does someone who works at tescos, on probably a pretty similar income, to a person on benefits in receipt of housing benefit, be considered capable of paying their rent on time, but not the other?

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.

I would rather rent a property to the person who works at Tesco's and pays their rent using their wages than the benefit claimant who has their rent money given to them by the government and does nothing at all to earn it.

dktreesea

vanilla_twist wrote: »

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

You haven't made yourself intentionally homeless if you get into arrears due to being totally reliant on the housing benefit to pay your rent and you have no other means to make up the shortfall.

For people in that position, the councils routinely advise the person to stay put until the landlord has got a possession order from the courts, i.e. long after the original S21 or S8 notice was issued. The landlord would then typically lose the rent arrears and whatever other arrears that pile up whilst the possession order is coming through.

If the council determines that there is going to be no possibility of rehousing the family in social housing stock - strictly speaking, if there are children this can be a social services rather than housing department responsibility within the council - they can approach the landlord and offer to cover the arrears and the shortfall going forward. Though I note the PM's rhetoric some time ago that if other councils had unused housing stock, they were meant to make this housing available to enable people in this position to be rehoused from council areas where there is no available social housing stock. He was referring to the London area councils, but presumably this could apply in other council areas.

In this situation, where the hb is no longer paid directly to the landlord (which isn't such a bad thing; at least if repairs aren't being done or if the tenant has to incur the cost they can hold back some of the rent), isn't enough to cover the rent even now, let alone going into the future, and where the tenant has no other means to pay the rent, surely any landlord choosing to rent to such tenants is a mug? Likewise the insurance company who agrees to cover the landlord for rent arrears. And especially if there are alternative working tenants, not dependent on benefits, to take the properties instead. I'm not surprised Fergus is getting out of this business.

ruggedtoast

vanilla_twist wrote: »

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.

Considering what they are like speaking on the news I would imagine that by email they come across as absolute s0ds.

dktreesea

casperlarue wrote: »

I would rather rent a property to the person who works at Tesco's and pays their rent using their wages than the benefit claimant who has their rent money given to them by the government and does nothing at all to earn it.

But this is not the only group Fergus is seeking to evict. He is also going after those who are working but their earnings are low enough (likely if they work for Tescos and have a family to support) to entitle them to a top up for their rent via the LHA.

For privately rented accommodation in the city where I live, there are no two bedroom flats priced low enough to exclude a person supporting a family on the NMW or close enough to it (i.e. a typical supermarket employee) from getting help with their rent. Not even in the poorest parts of Edinburgh. On Rightmove today the cheapest 2 bedroom flat was £500 pcm.

JencParker

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Originally Posted by ruggedtoast
Scum

Originally Posted by Graham_Devon Disgusting behaviour

Originally Posted by PasturesNew Off with his b4lls



What exactly did you think would happen?

Rents have been rising so as to ration the limited supply of housing through price. There are not enough houses to go around, so some people must be excluded.

This is the market working exactly as it should.

As I recall, all three of you supported the changes to housing benefits that have caused this situation.

I expected the profit driven 'scum' to do exactly as they did and display their 'disgusting behaviour' and do whatever was required to ensure maximum profit for themselves, regardless of the distress it causes to others.

Not in favour of 'off with his b4lls' but there's always karma

ruggedtoast

Truly the Wilsons are a living allegory of how meaningless money really is.

Here is a couple, with a fortune of apparently £240 million, and they are two of the most penuriously miserable specimens in every quality that counts, that I can think of.

Elderly, poorly dressed, obese, childless (and presumably friendless), their wizened wooden hearts can think of nothing else with which to fill their remaining years than bullying young familes who have done nothing wrong, and ranting on the news as if they think their pitiable, bigoted, opinions will stir any emotion other than revulsion in anyone who sees them.

A thousand houses and in 15 years when time does what time does to all of us probably a thousand people will have a party and then they and all their money may never have existed.

£240 million and I wouldn't be Fergus Wilson for ten times his fortune.

silvercar

vanilla_twist wrote: »

...
I am one of the Wilsons tennants.
.....
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.


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.

...........

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

Looks like the story is an exaggeration. If they really were [STRIKE]evicting [/STRIKE] terminating tenancies everyone on HB, Vanilla would have heard by now.

Conrad

Nothing is stopping all you bleeding hearts clubbing together to risk your savings, take on some mortgage debt and ask for low rents that will net you something like a 3% return. You can let to HB tenants where you will find rent arrears aplenty (we deal with lots of them here, I know what I'm on about).


You'll gladly take the risk for such a return right?


How is it the fools fall for the Saintly Russell Brand charging £50k a show who no doubt doesn't trouble himself to ask what his stage cleaners are paid?


It's funny how the lemmings are so taken in by millionaires that say fluffy things whereas an honest narrative from a business person is seen as somehow the lowest of the low.

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

....£240 million and I wouldn't be Fergus Wilson for ten times his fortune.

.... rightly or wrongly, it is very difficult, or even impossible, to build up such wealth without being harsh, penny pinching, and exploiting every opportunity despite what 'damage' that may do to others.

I think that the £240 million may only be a gross valuation which, netted off against outstanding debt, might put him down "only" to a wealth of around £50 million. But I agree that doesn't destroy your point.

.... but what is your attitude to the other landlords who (it is reported) are taking the same lines on HB people? Imagine, if you will, another large landlord (perhaps a corporation) run by well dressed, smart, eloquent, pleasant, people who generally do the repairs in a timely fashion.... but have simply decided not to rent socially because of the damaging and expensive impact on their business arising from failure to extract the rent?

.... or envisage a more 'acceptable' landlord down the road who ends up with 90% HB tenants simply because he's the only landlord in the area who accepts them. To make a decent profit, he might have to charge, say, 10% more on the rent to cover increased collection/default costs? Is that more socially acceptable?

wotsthat

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Elderly, poorly dressed, obese, childless (and presumably friendless), their wizened wooden hearts can think of nothing else with which to fill their remaining years than bullying young familes who have done nothing wrong, and ranting on the news as if they think their pitiable, bigoted, opinions will stir any emotion other than revulsion in anyone who sees them.

Yes but apart from that what's wrong with them?