Landlord "rejection of HB claimants".....

tbs624

LL couple Judith and Fergus Wilson with c 1000 properties in the Kent area have, according to newspaper reports, "served eviction notices on all tenants who are benefit claimants and will not take any new tenants who require housing benefit."

See http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/04/eviction-tenants-housing-benefit-blackspots

Some MSEers will recall the Wilsons from previous press coverage such as this

Do we think that LLs who discriminate in this way, regardless of the individual T's rent payment record, should be able to continue to benefit from tax concessions?

Yes, some BTL mortgages have specific exclusion clauses on "permitted" Ts but the Wilsons have not apparently cited this as a reason for their decision and no doubt many of their properties are now mortgage free.

Guest101

What idiots, there's a housing shortage alrdy! Where these tenants going to go?

mrginge

Given that mortgage lenders would appear to be legally permitted to impose such restrictions on their customers, i see no reason why an individual landlord should be prevented from using the same restriction if they so desire.

DRP

mrginge wrote: »

Given that mortgage lenders would appear to be legally permitted to impose such restrictions on their customers, i see no reason why an individual landlord should be prevented from using the same restriction if they so desire.

Agree.

The 'housing system' as a whole feels broken, but you can't blame LL for choosing this option if the facts (as they see them) are that HB claimants are more risky than other tenants.

poppysarah

Part of it is concern over how the benefits cap affects families with lots of kids. Although I seem to remember the Ferguses only buy 2-3 bedroomers.

The theory is a 500 quid a week cap on benefits will be no good for a landlord asking big rents

http://www.ashford.gov.uk/lha-room-rates

Category
3 bedrooms £165.09/ £715.39 £176.89/ £766.52 £206.36/ £894.23
Rents up North are lower.
LHA for Mancehster is
Three Bedrooms Rate:£126.92 per weekThe cap is the same whereever you are so presumably they want people on benefits to move to areas which are cheaper. Or at least think about how they spend their money and what % goes on rent.

None of that actually helps tenants though finding cheap, secure, safe housing.

00ec25

one of the initial comments made in reply to the numerous posts from newbie LL is that they are now running a business and should adopt a business philosophy

I therefore think its hypocritical of people on here to criticise the Wilsons for having a clear business strategy which defines their target market and responds to change based on business performance data.

They are not social services and do not "have" to take people who are not financially self sufficient

tbs624

Worth remembering that some Ts in receipt of benefit will also be working (so claiming on a sliding scale) and that many LLs manage to operate successful businesses "despite" the majority of their Ts being in receipt of some form of benefit.

Along with those Ts who may not be paying their rent in full or on time, there will undoubtedly be Ts who have never reneged on their tenancy agreements (despite a change in their personal financial/employment situation) and yet who will still find themselves having to move on elsewhere with all the family upheaval and additional expenses involved.

This Government's policies will lead to increased ghetto-isation (if there is such a word).

No comment from the supporters of this type of discrimination on the tax reliefs afforded to LLs?

brit1234

00ec25 wrote: »

one of the initial comments made in reply to the numerous posts from newbie LL is that they are now running a business and should adopt a business philosophy

I therefore think its hypocritical of people on here to criticise the Wilsons for having a clear business strategy which defines their target market and responds to change based on business performance data.

They are not social services and do not "have" to take people who are not financially self sufficient

Yet tax payers and savers had to step in 2008 as he was going bankrupt.

He was and will remain horrible greedy little man.

00ec25

brit1234 wrote: »

Yet tax payers and savers had to step in 2008 as he was going bankrupt.

He was and will remain horrible greedy little man.

argh yes the politics of envy, a basic human trait

BigAunty

00ec25 wrote: »

one of the initial comments made in reply to the numerous posts from newbie LL is that they are now running a business and should adopt a business philosophy

I therefore think its hypocritical of people on here to criticise the Wilsons for having a clear business strategy which defines their target market and responds to change based on business performance data.

They are not social services and do not "have" to take people who are not financially self sufficient

You may good points. However, 7 out of 10 new HB claims (perhaps even higher than this) are made by those in employment which is a testament to high rents and low wages (though personally as the UK apparently offers one of the highest in work benefits and promotes a culture of part-time working, this skews things somewhat) .

From a business perspective, does this demonstrate how hard it will be for a landlord with a large portfolio of properties to avoid letting them to HB claimants in the future if this is a long-term trend?

mrginge

tbs624 wrote: »

No comment from the supporters of this type of discrimination on the tax reliefs afforded to LLs?

Are you suggesting that a subsection of people (LLs) should be financially disadvantaged because of a personal choice about how they run their businesses?
Is that not discrimination?

Until there is a law in place which forbids such a choice being made i don't really see what the problem is.