Good Old Fergus!

princeofpounds

I am always reminded of the fact that these two are probably some of the biggest individual beneficiaries of the slashing of interest rates after the crisis.

Every pensioner who is retiring and facing a rubbish annuity is, in part, subsidising the Wilsons and their smaller-scale ilk.

Warms the heart, doesn't it.

wymondham

Not sure what the fuss is about... they are his houses??


This is what happens when you don't have enough Government social housing ... why should he be responsible for poor government policy?


As for ethics .... ethics and business don't mix!!


ps: I'm not a fan of the chap!

Running_Horse

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.

Ashford in Kent is one big housing construction site. There is no shortage of new houses in Ashford (look on Rightmove). Still does not answer where these displaced families are going to live. Where do you think they should go?

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

......This will give the council, not to mention the families and children a massive headache.

Thing is, theres so many other ways to go about the same thing. The way he has chosen, and the language used suggests A) he's enjoying it and he's probably hoping the reaction from the council will be a bribe as they can't handle the volume of new homeless. The voids will be massive if he does this, so in all honesty, on reflection, I guess this might be him puffing his chest in the hope of something being done to protect him. Just as happened with his mortgage company.....

Rather strangely, I more or less agree with this.

It is certainly consistent with this odious guy's 'form'. But having said that, I find government policy on this issue even more odious. I remember almost falling off my chair when I learned that Cameron (and not a raving socialist like Miliband) was seriously suggesting allowing benefit seekers the latitude to spend their housing benefit on gambling, bingo, iPods, or paying off their stonking Wonga loans.

When these people get evicted, all they have to do is turn up again at Social Services and they are forced to rehouse them somewhere else! I disagree with this vehemently. Cameron is deliberately creating problems despite being warned that it's a big mistake.

So it is good to see this guy (and others hopefully) voting with their feet and throwing the problem right back at Cameron, the guy who has negligently and directly caused it. Often this is not possible when legislation comes in. Most of the time we have no possible recourse to 'object' to it.

Here is a wonderful and practical way for landlords, en masse, to [as you say] 'puff their chests' and stuff it right where it hurts. Good on them. Even if it costs them a few bob short term, it will save them lots of money in the longer term.

I reserve my sympathy for any of those of the 200 who would pay their rent 'on the nail' in full every month. But, like the Wilsons, I suspect we are talking of no more than a handful out of the 200.

grizzly1911

Isn't there provision for HB to be mandated directly to landlords where there is likely to be difficulty in the tenant making payment?

I know of a single mother, reliant partly on benefits, who makes payment on the dot.

They were quite happy to take the tax payer supplement when they were in the pooh.

Shame there isn't some emergency provision for immediate CPO at mortgaged amount or even better less as there is a sitting tenant.

Graham_Devon

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I reserve my sympathy for any of those of the 200 who would pay their rent 'on the nail' in full every month. But, like the Wilsons, I suspect we are talking of no more than a handful out of the 200.

Trials that have took place would disagree with you. Arrears did indeed go up, but nothing like the amounts to which you suggest. Indeed, I believe the landlords can ask for it to be paid directly to them still. His issues are far more than arrears though. He appears to take issue with rent caps and I would assume he's having some problems with the "bedroom tax" and his tenants having to make up the difference. But that in itself is more an issue to do with high rents. Only a few months ago he was in the papers telling everyone how his profits have soared thanks to low interest rats though, so surely there is some leeway here for him.

I agree that there will be some who spend benefit money intended for housing on other items.

But to make all the absolute majority of those on housing benefit are financially illiterate is a slur gone to far, IMHO.

Y'see, IF this was the case, and benefits recipients were all out spending their benefits income on ipads, gambling and fags, there would be tens of thousands of starving kids in this country living in houses with the water, electric and gas cut off as their parents haven't paid the bills having spent it elsewhere.

But put simply, it's just not the case.

Having thought a little more about his last comments in the press about profitability, and how he only had a "very small number" of housing benefit tenants so the changes wouldn't effect him (which now appears to have been a lie) I'd suggest the bloke wont evict any of them. The voids will be far too high a cost. He's probably just playing a game of chess, puffing his chest, hoping something will be done aliviate him from having to "suffer" government policy.

We'll see. But I doubt anything will have changed come July. He'll still be renting to these benefit recipients. Money is money and that, seemingly, is all he cares about.

He'll struggle to pluck 200 new households out of thin air all ready to pay more than housing benefits pays, that's for certain.

And in any case, wasn't he supposed to be SELLING his houses?! He appears to ammassed more.

Loughton_Monkey

grizzly1911 wrote: »

......Shame there isn't some emergency provision for immediate CPO at mortgaged amount or even better less as there is a sitting tenant.

So you've owned a second house for 40 years. You've rented it out. It's a big part of your "pension" and you plan to retire fairly soon.

The house is worth £250,000. Your remaining mortgage is £870. It yields £800 a month rent.

You are going to muscle in and serve a CPO at £870 or less on this guy and rob him of £249,130.

Not one of your better ideas I think!

gazter

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Trials that have took place would disagree with you. Arrears did indeed go up, but nothing like the amounts to which you suggest. Indeed, I believe the landlords can ask for it to be paid directly to them still. His issues are far more than arrears though. He appears to take issue with rent caps and I would assume he's having some problems with the "bedroom tax" and his tenants having to make up the difference. But that in itself is more an issue to do with high rents. Only a few months ago he was in the papers telling everyone how his profits have soared thanks to low interest rats though, so surely there is some leeway here for him.

I agree that there will be some who spend benefit money intended for housing on other items.

But to make all the absolute majority of those on housing benefit are financially illiterate is a slur gone to far, IMHO.

Y'see, IF this was the case, and benefits recipients were all out spending their benefits income on ipads, gambling and fags, there would be tens of thousands of starving kids in this country living in houses with the water, electric and gas cut off as their parents haven't paid the bills having spent it elsewhere.

But put simply, it's just not the case.

Having thought a little more about his last comments in the press about profitability, and how he only had a "very small number" of housing benefit tenants so the changes wouldn't effect him (which now appears to have been a lie) I'd suggest the bloke wont evict any of them. The voids will be far too high a cost. He's probably just playing a game of chess, puffing his chest, hoping something will be done aliviate him from having to "suffer" government policy.

We'll see. But I doubt anything will have changed come July. He'll still be renting to these benefit recipients. Money is money and that, seemingly, is all he cares about.

He'll struggle to pluck 200 new households out of thin air all ready to pay more than housing benefits pays, that's for certain.

Bedroom tax was brought in in 2006/7 for tenants in private sector.

Graham_Devon

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

So you've owned a second house for 40 years. You've rented it out. It's a big part of your "pension" and you plan to retire fairly soon.

The house is worth £250,000. Your remaining mortgage is £870. It yields £800 a month rent.

You are going to muscle in and serve a CPO at £870 or less on this guy and rob him of £249,130.

Not one of your better ideas I think!

You've given one hell of an extreme example.

Don't think Grizzly was quite intending what you suggest, for which you have had to remove any trace of context, and even so, if, in a case where someone has "owned" their property for 40 years, taken taxpayer supplements, but couldn't find £870 to pay is off, more fool them!

Graham_Devon

gazter wrote: »

Bedroom tax was brought in in 2006/7 for tenants in private sector.

Cheers, didn't realise that.

So it's even less of a problem for him!