Good Old Fergus!

dktreesea

LydiaJ wrote: »

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

People who are working and claiming HB/LHA are presumably people who can't afford to pay their own rent by themselves? This is where insuring rent receipts can get expensive. Yes, it is possible, but these people are presumably in a situation where, if their benefit gets interrupted, they won't be able to afford the rent.

From a landlord's point of view, people who are working and earning enough to not need/be eligible for benefits are probably a better bet risk wise. And certainly cheaper to insure regarding rent receipts.

One possible reason for this landlord and plenty of others like him deciding not to renew some tenancies is because HB is no longer paid directly to them. Maybe previously these weren't receipts that needed insuring, because the council paid them every month on the dot. Whereas now, it could be that the tenant diverts the money for other purposes. Maybe the shift from the 50th to 30th percentile as a basis for setting the LHA hurt him financially as well?

If, say, the going rate for a 2 bedroom flat is now £150 a week, easily affordable by a couple of young professionals, but the LHA is no longer sufficient to meet that rent, then, provided the working couple are prepared to live in your flat, why should you rent it out at a lower rate so poorer people can afford it?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

More people turning to the world of work would put pressure on the taxpayer to build council houses? If the taxpayer, in Sibley world, has just cut all benefits can you really see them willing to pay for a load of subsidised housing.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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?

Yes course he has. He'll have a staff sorting all this out.

Reminds me of Michael O'Leary - enjoys being a pantomime baddie and giving the impression that Ryanair is a one man band.

Generali

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes course he has. He'll have a staff sorting all this out.

Reminds me of Michael O'Leary - enjoys being a pantomime baddie and giving the impression that Ryanair is a one man band.

I do wonder how much he (Fergus) simply enjoys winding people up.

After all, there are plenty of people that are a lot richer than him that get little or no publicity.

purch

He should buy shirts with a bigger collar size.

I've been doing that for years, and have convinced myself that I still have a slim neck :eek:

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If the Wilsons get their way, which I find doubtful without a fight, over 200 adults and 2-500 children will be homeless. What should be done here, in your view?

Stop putting nonsense like this in your posts if you want to have a remotely serious debate and/or be taken seriously. Not a single child will be homeless, not even for one night. The council will have to put them up and given the time you've spent on this forum you can't credibly claim not to know that by now.

None of which means I like this guy or the way he operates but Hamish is right: those of us, myself included, who argued in favour of housing benefit caps etc should have known things like this would be a short term consequence. I did, and I still think it makes sense. It's not this t*ts fault that benefit claiming tenants are so much hassle on average that he'd rather cut off that entire segment from his property!

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are against social hosing in terms of the government owning it, and believe the private sector has picked up the tab. Yet they clearly haven't.

I have remarked on numerous occasions that BTL only partially filled the gap left by the social housing sell off.

It is the government who released these properties and increased the owner occupier levels without replacing the social housing that has caused the problem.

My quick thoughts are that the government should be building social housing in skyscrapers such that it provides basic accommodation within a small footprint.

It should be sufficient to provide shelter with no frills.

I can say this with confidence as a child who grew up in a council house, that this does not need to be too excessive

I believe this would also incentivise people to aspire to move to better accommodation when they have the opportunity to do so.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

. 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.

You talk about leeway because interest rates are low, however there in not any recourse for an AST tenant if rates increase.

Make hay while the suns shines I say.

That way, if at some point there is a sustained period of rain (higher interest rates), the business can handle the reduction in return until an appropriate time to reassess the market rent rate

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The council can't cope with 200 people on their doorstep needing re-housing and Fergus knows that.

Realistically, this will not all occur on the same day.
The tenancies will be staggered throughout the next 6 months.
In essence, you averaging just over one per day.
It may be perceivable to lease out more than one property per day

MFW_ASAP

wotsthat wrote: »

More people turning to the world of work would put pressure on the taxpayer to build council houses? If the taxpayer, in Sibley world, has just cut all benefits can you really see them willing to pay for a load of subsidised housing.

I'd happily have some of my tax money go towards social housing, but I'd insist on only those that require social housing to actually receive them.

We should not have the situation where people who qualified for social housing 10 years ago because of financial problems, still living there when those problems are long gone and they can afford to rent from the private sector, or indeed buy their own house. We should not have the situation where people who qualified for a family home 10 years ago are still living there when the kids have left and they have empty rooms.