Good Old Fergus!

mayonnaise

So......after almost 10 pages of ranting and indignation from the have-nots about the Wilsons' business model, I still haven't heard what the Wilsons are supposed to do, when they state that 50% of their HB tenants are in arrears.

Just live with it and absorb the losses?

ruggedtoast

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

.... 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?

I think there should be an adequate amount of property in the first place, and big landlords who default on their debts should have them called in as would happen to all of us. Not just have the rules re-written for their benefit so they can go on to create some dreadful oligopoly.

Then the Wilson's wouldn't have a 1000 property empire of beleaguered tenants living in apparently sub par accommodation - they would have a social housing bedsit with a bar fire (that they couldnt afford to turn on), and bankrupts' credit status, which is what they deserve, what they had coming, what they set themselves up for and what - astonishingly, is the complete opposite of what happened to them.

BillJones

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I think there should be an adequate amount of property in the first place, and big landlords who default on their debts should have them called in as would happen to all of us.

So what are you going to do about it?

Why not earn or borrow the money, buy or build the property, and let it out at a "fair" rate.

ruggedtoast

BillJones wrote: »

So what are you going to do about it?

Why not earn or borrow the money, buy or build the property, and let it out at a "fair" rate.

I rather think its the governments job to provide basic infrastructure like housing. They take enough out of my salary.

Graham_Devon

mayonnaise wrote: »

So......after almost 10 pages of ranting and indignation from the have-nots about the Wilsons' business model, I still haven't heard what the Wilsons are supposed to do, when they state that 50% of their HB tenants are in arrears.

Just live with it and absorb the losses?

It's been mentioned quite a few times in all honesty. Though if you need a recap, those in arrears should be dealt with.

Those NOT in arrears should be left alone.

There is no reason, other than a distaste for those claiming benefits, to turf out families who pay on time.

dktreesea

mayonnaise wrote: »

So......after almost 10 pages of ranting and indignation from the have-nots about the Wilsons' business model, I still haven't heard what the Wilsons are supposed to do, when they state that 50% of their HB tenants are in arrears.

Just live with it and absorb the losses?

Well, they could cut the rent to the new level of hb and write the arrears off. Which might not be such a bad business decision if there were no alternative tenants in the offing or if the property was so poorly maintained that tenants who were not on hb would refuse to take the flat.

Or still take the losses (no real choice there, is there? You can't sue someone who has no assets; it would be throwing good money after bad) and attempt to evict the tenants, which would probably mean they would have to wait until they were granted a possession order by the courts.

It's possible the council, faced with having to re-house the affected families, would negotiate with the landlord to keep the tenants on. But possibly not in this case, because the landlords in question sound like bad landlords who don't maintain their properties properly.

It serves landlords who depend on benefitsin order to be paid right if they subsequently endure losses, because benefits in general are an unreliable source of income. The cuts to the housing benefit may not be over yet. Having a benefits cap of £26k, that works out to more than 2 full time NMWs coming into a household is ludicrously high anyway. And as for not capping it for people who work more than 24 hours a week per household, that's just an insult to other taxpayers.

And that's without considering the capriciousness of the DWP in particular, who could sanction the claimant, forcing them to use rent money just to feed their children. HMRC tend not to go down that path.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There is no reason, other than a distaste for those claiming benefits, to turf out families who pay on time.

They are at higher risk of future arrears.

A small BTL landlord would probably know his tenants and be able to take a view on his position in the priority list and be more pragmatic.

If you've got 1000 rental houses and you reckon can fill them with people who don't need housing support and lower your business risk at the same time what would you do?

Everybody thinks Fergus is an a**e but it sounds like he can pick and choose.

leveller2911

Conrad wrote: »

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).


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.

But you come from a different world to many of us Conrad.


Many of us have a moral compass, you lost yours years ago when you were promoting "liar loan" mortages on here.

Easy to gamble with other peoples money Conrad. You have a lot in common with Fergus....

BigAunty

dktreesea wrote: »

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.

.

True - its about not paying the rent when the tenant could have done. My aunt wasn't aware that her husband hadn't been paying the rent (or mortgage as I can't remember which) and she was rehoused.

dktreesea wrote: »

Y

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 localism changes in England in November 2011 was supposed to have put an end to the local council stalling on their obligations until the landlord got a court order and they are now supposed to act upon the receipt of the original S21.

There is not now any obligation for a local council to provide social housing in England to those who are homeless and classed in priority need, they can now discharge their obligations with a single offer of suitable settled accommodation, including a private tenancy.

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I think there should be an adequate amount of property in the first place, and big landlords who default on their debts should have them called in as would happen to all of us. Not just have the rules re-written for their benefit so they can go on to create some dreadful oligopoly.

Then the Wilson's wouldn't have a 1000 property empire of beleaguered tenants living in apparently sub par accommodation - they would have a social housing bedsit with a bar fire (that they couldnt afford to turn on), and bankrupts' credit status, which is what they deserve, what they had coming, what they set themselves up for and what - astonishingly, is the complete opposite of what happened to them.

Well OK. Evade the question. That leaves us all with the ability to draw our own conclusions.