Good Old Fergus!

chewmylegoff

BigAunty wrote: »

Tenants have little security of tenure and can be served notice that doesn't require any grounds or justification to be provided. Your 'I have a dream' moment where the tenant gets to influence the judge is a fantasy as there is no defence allowed. If the no-fault notice is served correctly, the judge must award possession to the landlord.

Yes I know I was dimwittedly assuming that he was trying to evict all of this tenants en masse in the middle of their tenancies with no statutory ground to do so. I still think fergus is unwise to seek out publicity in this way as it just creates added risk for his business - e.g. No decent tenants wanting to rent his properties because he is obvious a bit of a knob.

Further if he does have to seek possession of a couple of hundred properties through the courts it is likely to create a significant backlog which will be compounded if the tenants stop paying him and the court fees alone will stack up to a five figure sum.

dktreesea

It is possible to obtain rent guarantee insurance for LHA tenants. It's just relatively expensive, because the assumption is they won't meet the insurer's credit scoring.

If the council is so concerned about its own ability to house tenants wholly or partly dependent on the state to fund their housing costs, surely they are free to enter into commercial arrangements with the landlord to rent the said propperties directly? Yes, it's a commercial lease, so they would be obliged to restore the property to its original condition once the tenants move out, but presumably a council are a good risk regarding rental payments.

For any landlord, I don't see why they would rent to people on benefits if working people are available to take on the lease. I suspect in this case, though, that the landlord wants to be able to increase the rent without having to consider whether the LHA is sufficient to cover that rent.

As to private rents being paid in arrears just because housing benefit is paid in arrears, that just means you have to always be "ahead" each month, so the housing benefit just received (for the previous month) becomes the rent paid in advance for this month.

Take a new tenant. When they first move in they ahve to find the bond plus the first month's rent. They then apply for LHA. This is paid to them at the beginning of the following month. They would then use this to pay the current month's rent. In advance. So no different to non LHA tenants - just the source of the money with which to pay the rent is different.

And this can all go well, until the council, for whatever reason, decides to suspend the housing benefit. Then the rent can go into arrears very quickly. Why would any landlord take this risk? At least if employed people are laid off they usually have a few weeks of funds, even if it is only their holiday pay and redundancy.

BigAunty

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I still think fergus is unwise to seek out publicity in this way as it just creates added risk for his business - e.g. No decent tenants wanting to rent his properties because he is obvious a bit of a knob.

.

I tried arguing that position on the thread in DT but some think that his reputational issues won't cause any problems with his business as demand from new tenants is strong, that he can afford to come across as an amateur full of personal opinions and prejudices because the letting business in the south east is like shooting fish in a barrel.

LydiaJ

dktreesea wrote: »

For any landlord, I don't see why they would rent to people on benefits if working people are available to take on the lease.

Plenty of people on HB/LHA are working people. It's not just an out of work benefit.

mayonnaise

BlondeHeadOn wrote: »

Fergus has just been interviewed on Channel 4 news, what a sleazebag he is!

If anyone wants to see him, it's about 20minutes in. You can watch it on Channel 4 + 1, if you really want to.....

Sleazebag? Why is that?

I saw Cathy Newman desperately trying to paint Mr. Wilson as a modern day Scrooge with a barrage of inane questions. ("Some people would say you are heartless, Mr Wilson, do you think you're heartless?"). :doh:

Mr. Wilson, to his credit, kept his composure and answered all inane questions patiently and succinctly.

http://www.channel4.com/news/housing-benefit-landlord-fergus-wilson-eviction

Graham_Devon

mayonnaise wrote: »

Sleazebag? Why is that?

I saw Cathy Newman desperately trying to paint Mr. Wilson as a modern day Scrooge with a barrage of inane questions. ("Some people would say you are heartless, Mr Wilson, do you think you're heartless?"). :doh:

Mr. Wilson, to his credit, kept his composure and answered all inane questions patiently and succinctly.

And agreed he was heartless

"We might be sending young women back to get beaten up by their husbands, but well, thats business".

He does have a knack of using provocative language when it isn't really needed.

Liked the bit where he said something along the lines of "if you have good payers, lets say, Eastern Europeans"...

What I don't understand is why he stated if the tenant doesn't pay the rent, he loses the house as the mortgage doesn't get paid.

Surely he has capacity to pay the mortgage in such a circumstance?

Graham_Devon

Thing is, the more that do this, the greater the need (and pressure) will be for the government to build council stock again.

You can, ultimately, collectively in this case, shoot yourself in the foot.

The council were looking at building a load of flays around his way, which he campaigned against as it would devalue his business.

He may be on his way to forcing their hand and forcing those flats to be built.

And yes, I'd enjoy such an outcome

grizzly1911

Interesting that Fergus says that if property values go so must the rent and then later on he says that he charges low rents to ensure he has full capacity.

Only worth £240 million too.

If I was him I would be off enjoying it while he has a chance - running out of years.

mayonnaise

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If I was him I would be off enjoying it while he has a chance - running out of years.

What a sad attitude.
Maybe he enjoys what he's doing? Or he likes the interaction with people while running his business?
There may be many reasons - none of which you will comprehend with your negative outlook on life.

grizzly1911

mayonnaise wrote: »

What a sad attitude.
Maybe he enjoys what he's doing? Or he likes the interaction with people while running his business?
There may be many reasons - none of which you will comprehend with your negative outlook on life.

Throwing around snide accusations again Reno.

Working yourself to the grave fun. His demeanor doesn't suggest fun. There are no pockets in shrouds.

But then it depends where you get your kicks.