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

moneyistooshorttomention

Brallaqueen wrote: »

Is this a sort of social engineering from the Govt perspective?
Make it less appealing to rent to claimants > limit private sector housing options > severely limit social housing via RTB > make it less favourable to be on benefits as a lifestyle option

Certainly the "some sort of social engineering" thought possibility had crossed my mind.

Did the Government not realise that even perfectly "respectable" unemployed tenants might struggle to find the missing part of the rent that many people now have? If housing benefit does not cover the rent in full then there is a risk that even "normal" people (as opposed to ne'er do wells) would find that there literally wasn't enough income to pay the rent?

On the other hand, I know that if I hadn't been paid the full rent money I required during periods of unemployment I went through, I would still have paid my rent in full and then complained volubly that the government wasn't paying me enough to be able to cover the bills.

I would like to see the full facts given to us about this couple though, as in:


Are they only giving their notice to people who they can see are already defaulting on rent payments? (as in: that's fair enough) or are they also giving notice to people who are still paying their rent in full okay (just on the grounds they are on housing benefit and "might" default)?

The Law of Unintended Consequences factor here (or is it?) is that more rented homes than otherwise would be have become available for "added extra population" iyswim.... Now was that "intended" or accidental on the Government's part?

ruggedtoast

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

They also don't have to evict people for no reason whatsoever.

The main problem is that vulnerable people who need housing should never be made to go within a hundred miles of the Wilson's and their poisonous ilk.

Turnbull2000

jayss wrote: »

I don't object to landlords who advertise upfront no HB, but to evict tenants who are paying their rent just because they claim seems very harsh.

If rents are growing well ahead of housing benefit payments and you can replace these tenants with minimal voids, it makes good business sense.

tbs624

Given that house builders have to allow for a certain number of properties to be available specifically for those on low incomes perhaps similar rules should be applied to LLs whose "portfolios" extend to more than a certain number of rental properties?

The power over local rent levels wielded by those owning a huge number of rental properties within a smallish area cannot be underestimated.

tbs624

More on the Wilsons in particular from a Guardian article last June, 2013.

"The typical rent they charge on a two-bed house has risen from £725 in 2008 to £850.

Many expected their debt-leveraged property empire to crash during the financial crisis, but the collapse in interest rates has left them making more than ever. On average, they pay 2.25% interest on their loans, with some of costing as little as 1.65%, compared with the 5% rates first-time buyers typically pay.


"Properties that were breaking even or losing us £50 per month are now making as much as £900 a month profit," says Fergus. The average capital gain on his properties has been "£9,000 per unit over the past year", he says, suggesting he has made a paper gain of at least £6m. "For every £1 we are making in rent, we are making another £1 capital gain."

They seem to have some endearing ways of "making friends and influencing people", reading more historical reports

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentish_express/news/plumber-row-5572 (No news on "appeal case")

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209013/Property-tycoons-worth-70m-demand-3-000-bathroom-suite-tenants---replace-200-broken-toilet-lid.html

outofmoney

tbs624 wrote: »

Given that house builders have to allow for a certain number of properties to be available specifically for those on low incomes perhaps similar rules should be applied to LLs whose "portfolios" extend to more than a certain number of rental properties?

The power over local rent levels wielded by those owning a huge number of rental properties within a smallish area cannot be underestimated.

I had the exact same thought when I was listening to him [STRIKE]being interviewed[/STRIKE] talking over the interviewer on the local news.


It does seem to be the view that those on benefits can always change this situation. A number can, yes, but what about those who are disabled, or care for disabled? Sadly miracles do not happen.

BigAunty

Is he claiming 50% of his HB claimants are in arrears? While not one of his working households is in arrears?

Many households receive inwork benefits, including HB so it's not often as black and white as that, plus he should not be aware if a working tenant then claims HB as it is paid directly to the tenant.

If that's the case I'd love Ashford Council to indicate whether those in rent arrears were affected by delays to the payment of their claims, had the HB but didn't use it to pay rent and how many of his tenants in arrears live in properties where the rent is higher than their LHA rate.