Homeless figures treble amongst private rental tenants

whodathunkit

Bantex wrote: »

#

Banks in the UK will not lend on tenancies over 6 months. This would take most of the "amateur" BTL landlords out of the market.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

Seems like an easy fix for a motivated government.

whodathunkit

SailorSam wrote: »

I can see a lot more being made homeless as this Universal Credit takes hold. At the moment anyone that gets their rent paid as part of their benefits the money gets sent to the landlords, but with UC it's the tenants who are going to get the cash. You don't have to be to bright to see that some people are going to find it more tempting to spend it on something else and get into arrears.

Completely wrong, I'm afraid. LHA (HB in the private sector) is paid direct to tenants and has been for some time. Only if you're in a vulnerable group and make a special request is it paid direct to the LL.

chucknorris

PasturesNew wrote: »

One who doesn't doesn't make up for the 1000 that have.

The only tenant that I evicted was one that stopped paying the rent, her excuse?:


'After paying my solicitor (I am buying my own place) an advance on his fee last month, I didn't have enough left over to pay the rent'.


If only that was the whole story, she had been in arrears for over a year, that was just the final straw.

PasturesNew

Another thing that I think has affected housing availability was when the Govt decided 50% of 18 year olds should go to Uni. There's now a whole generation of renters that didn't exist in such large numbers before, being encouraged away from their home towns. And, having left home, they're reluctant to return there....

Loads of places just set up as HMOs for students. If Unis built student-appropriate accommodation everybody'd win. The Uni could take the income, the students could get better quality/appropriate accommodation and housing could be freed up to rent to regular people... whether as HMO, split into flats, or just as a family home.

Bantex_2

chucknorris wrote: »

The only tenant that I evicted was one that stopped paying the rent, her excuse?:


'After paying my solicitor (I am buying my own place) an advance on his fee last month, I didn't have enough left over to pay the rent'.


If only that was the whole story, she had been in arrears for over a year, that was just the final straw.

I see no problem with evicting tenants who do not pay. Just a pity that someone that does entirely the right thing never has more than 6 months security of tenure.

IveSeenTheLight

Bantex wrote: »

So why would you worry if other landlords had to conform to your high standards?

I would not have a problem, but contractually, there needs to be an agreement.

I'd happily sign a 5 year agreement with a good tenant, however not many want that length of time and prefer to have the flexibility.

Therefore flexibility needs to apply to both sides of the contract agreement.

IveSeenTheLight

PasturesNew wrote: »

One who doesn't doesn't make up for the 1000 that have.

Nice soundbite, but without the stats, how do you know if it is 100 that doesn't for the one that does.

Just roughly, there are 1.65 million private rental properties.
How many evictions are there each year?

chucknorris

Bantex wrote: »

I see no problem with evicting tenants who do not pay. Just a pity that someone that does entirely the right thing never has more than 6 months security of tenure.

Well we refuse to issue 6 month tenancy agreement and we have tried to force our tenants onto two year agreements, but we gave up after so many refused. But I will not budge on 6 month agreements, I would rather sell up that put up with changing tenants every 6 months. The funny thing is that most tend to renew their annual tenancy agreement many times over, one tenant has been with me over 10 years now.

Thrugelmir

BillJones wrote: »

No-one does. Everyone had the opportunity to do better at school, to not have children until they could afford them, to take on extra training, upskill, and so on.

Everything has limits. Unfortunately the UK is more interested in making short term money than creating long term sustainable growth that will span generations.

Increasingly like the US it's money that gives people power, not their ability.

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Everything has limits. Unfortunately the UK is more interested in making short term money than creating long term sustainable growth that will span generations.

Increasingly like the US it's money that gives people power, not their ability.

Presumably that's why the UK is one of the richest countries in the world, with a booming manufacturing sector and an appreciating pound?