Britain's Benefit Tenants Ch4

Blackpool_Saver

jjlandlord wrote: »

Because TV is entertainment and the business model is to get as many viewers as possible?

Yes of course but it really !!!!es me off:eek:

[Deleted User]

Its not 'why do people rent to DSS tenants' it should be why don't agencies and LL's do proper referencing, find out if the people have paid rent up to date over a long period, left previous places clean, listened to the prospective tenant, viewed the place they currently rent, seen bank statements and so reduce the risk of letting to a tenant who causes problems, benefit dependent or not. This is the problem. Not saying a particular type of tenant is always a bad tenant. That's never true.

Even if a property is worth £40k (and usually a lot more than this, say £180k) with the risk of a bad tenant causing tens of thousands in damage, unpaid rent, problems getting them out etc etc, surely it is worth spending an hour or two in active investigations before renting to them?

Yes, I am a benefit dependent tenant. I am a CARER. It doesn't make me happy being out of work, but everytime I try to make a move forward, something happens.., usually within two weeks (seriously) and I am on the phone constantly, in meetings trying to sort the latest out. I was once a workaholic, working 18 hour days.., any job going.., my character hasn't changed.., just my circumstances. The people in the programme were just examples of the worst so we'd watch. But as has already been said here.., it gets people watching, it is only a small proportion of the LHA receiving population - who are human beings and most do their best to pay the rent, keep their places clean etc.

I could feel the same way about LL's.., in my sector of the market, I have yet to meet a LL who does repairs, provides a basic good quality home (not one they bought sight unseen). That doesn't mean all LL's are like this, just that the bad ones seem disproportionately represented in this low rental sector. I am equally sure there are some good ones around. I just haven't found one yet lol.

PasturesNew

Elsewhere wrote: »

Dave Wells .... he'll take on anyone.

He's got more tenants than the council ....and he's started building houses now.

lighting_up_the_chalice

deannatrois wrote: »

Its not 'why do people rent to DSS tenants' it should be why don't agencies and LL's do proper referencing, find out if the people have paid rent up to date over a long period, left previous places clean, listened to the prospective tenant, viewed the place they currently rent, seen bank statements and so reduce the risk of letting to a tenant who causes problems, benefit dependent or not. This is the problem. Not saying a particular type of tenant is always a bad tenant. That's never true.

Even if a property is worth £40k (and usually a lot more than this, say £180k) with the risk of a bad tenant causing tens of thousands in damage, unpaid rent, problems getting them out etc etc, surely it is worth spending an hour or two in active investigations before renting to them?

Because the show focused on the bottom end of the market. Places like the Collieries in Co Durham (Shotton Colliery, Easington Colliery etc) where a 2 bed house can be bought for £20k and the 2 bed LHA rate is £380 a month. BTL landlords see those returns and just can't resist it. But, as the saying goes, if something looks too good to be true, it usually is! So, unless they want to leave the property empty and vulnerable to damage/theft/vandalism etc, they have no choice but to let to tenants who wouldn't pass the usual checks. There's a reason why these houses are so cheap. They need shed loads of repairs and no-one wants to live there. They are one of the few places where it's very much a buyers/tenants market.

BillJones

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Not everyone had such an education as you enjoyed. And some featured on the programme were clearly struggling with the basics of life. As more public services are reduced, this will become more of an issue.

It's not the level of public services that decides if someone has morals or not.

People such as in the program deserve nothing but contempt, as do those who make excuses for them.

lighting_up_the_chalice

BillJones wrote: »

It's not the level of public services that decides if someone has morals or not.

People such as in the program deserve nothing but contempt, as do those who make excuses for them.

I don't think it's a question of having morals. It's more a question of what those morals are. If your entire life has seen certain behaviours as normal, is it any great wonder that you consider those behaviours to be normal? Morals are, after all, learnt.

A number of those in the programme clearly had "issues". As such, contempt would be, to me, an immoral response. Perhaps our morals just differ.

shinkyshonky

molerat wrote: »

Ch4 9-10pm, 4+1 10-11pm, 47 1105-1205 am

Wow !! :eek:

More benefit !!!!!! for the masses