Wilsons not paying mortgages

mayonnaise

I'd agree the Wilsons are attention seekers and some of Mr. Wilson's comments are not language I'd use myself.
But after all, as wymondham points out, it's a business, end of.
They rent out 1000 properties? And the best 'the media' can come up with are some stories about a broken cistern years ago or an alleged scuffle with an EA, and other such nonsense.
The Wilsons are a soap opera with Mr. Wilson as the villain and the gullible ones like Graham lap it up willingly.
They are probably not better or worse than any other landlord in the country. They just happen to have an extremely large portfolio and thus gather a lot of attention.
I'm pretty sure over 99% of the Wilsons' tenants pay their rent on time and in full, enjoy the use of the property hassle free and in general simply get on with it. Obviously, there's no story there so this will not be reported by 'the media'.

TheBlueHorse

What a load of Guff. It's like saying Tesco should allow punters to get to the til and say "oh, i'm a bit short this week, I haven't got any money" and then expecting Tesco to say "oh, all right then, go on, take your weekly shop for free then. Just this once mind."

If you rent a house and can't afford the rent anymore, the landlord should have every right to sling you out.

stator

wymondham wrote: »

I disagree I'm afraid. The Wilsons are not responsible to their tenants for creating a business empire. There is no social responsibility as long as they obey the laws. If they choose to have a heart and behave morally then that's a bonus and obviously preferred, but its not a requirement to run a business.

Legally there is no obligation but that's rather irrelevant when you're talking about morality. All humans should act ethically. Those who don't are called sociopaths.

wymondham wrote: »

I didn't see the bankers having much morality in 2008 ??

I wouldn't defend bankers, but I don't remember many bankers doing immoral things (apart from Fred Godwin). In fact huge numbers of bankers lost their jobs because of other people's mistakes. The issue was mainly that they didn't recognise the risks they were taking and then the whole thing collapsed. They certainly weren't exploiting poor people or making people homeless.

Graham_Devon

wymondham wrote: »

There is no social responsibility as long as they obey the laws.

And that statement right there is often why laws are made to prevent scenarios happening again the future.

Secondly, just because you are within the law, it doesn't mean you don't have responsibilities.

So, as an example, your car could have all the legal documentation, MOT, Tax, insurance etc. However, if you go out knowing your brakes have failed and mow down an OAP, you'll be in trouble....regardless of whether you were within the law or not.

You could speed down a country lane with a national speed limit of 60mph and kill a kid on a bike. The law won't protect you because you were within the speed limit. Rather dangerous driving takes prescedence.

With the Wilsons, they can pretty much do what they like and stay within the law as the laws are so pitiful. He's mentioned on TV before that he won't take black african tenants, but he will take white polish tenants. He could have simply said African or Polish (should he feel the need to make a point), but had to state the colour, as he does.

The point is, if you did that and you were, say, McDonalds, stating you wouildn't serve Black Africans, you'd be hauled over the coals. Though as far as I'm aware, you are not breaking a specific law that states you must serve food to every race.

Thiking back, there was a hotel which got fined pretty heavily for not allowing gay couples to stay in their hotel.

When it comes to Landlords though, such as the Wilsons it seems to be brushed away.

My personal thoughts on this is that yes, he's within the law, but operating like he doesin any other business he'd be in a whole heap of trouble. But he's a landlord, and for some reason, we haven't got the laws to protect tenants wrapped up and in place just yet. People like the Wilsons though will simply bring those laws forward. He's just lucky that he operates in a sector that many MPs also have a huge interest in. Laws are reactive, rather than proactive.

For me, being within the law does not eradicate your personal responsibilities. For some reason, if you were the electric company, you'd have to jump through hoops to get that money owed by the customer and STILL provide the service. If you are Fergus though, it appears you can simply chuck them out the house.

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The point is, if you did that and you were, say, McDonalds, stating you wouildn't serve Black Africans, you'd be hauled over the coals. Though as far as I'm aware, you are not breaking a specific law that states you must serve food to every race.

Where is the 'despair' smiley when you need it...

N1AK

PasturesNew wrote: »

£9k each, that's £18k tax free as a household, is a LOT. Plenty enough for fripperies and fun. They'll get a free bus pass and state pensions too.

You think it is a lot. I don't, some others on here don't, and I doubt a couple of ex-'millionaires' will. For me personally, ~£20k pa is an ok, at best, basic income for a two adult retired household; I'd certainly be looking at more like £30-35k for good, and £45k+ for a 'LOT'.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The point is, if you did that and you were, say, McDonalds, stating you wouildn't serve Black Africans, you'd be hauled over the coals. Though as far as I'm aware, you are not breaking a specific law that states you must serve food to every race.

Come on Graham, try and be a little less lazy. We're on the internet; if you don't know something, then look it up before posting things if you don't want to look ridiculously uninformed.

The race relations act (wikipedia):

The Act made it a civil offence (rather than a criminal offence) to refuse to serve a person, to serve someone with unreasonable delay, or to overcharge, on the grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins.

I don't know what the Wilsons have said in interviews, and I don't think saying it alone would be criminal, but if they can be proven to have discriminated on grounds of race then they have broken the law.

Transformers

N1AK wrote: »

Come on Graham, try and be a little less lazy. We're on the internet; if you don't know something, then look it up before posting things if you don't want to look ridiculously uninformed.

The race relations act (wikipedia):
.

(Ooh, awkward!)

Or even this:

https://www.gov.uk/equality-act-2010-guidance

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/27

Wiki is not always the best one-stop-shop for information.

Xxx

TheBlueHorse

maybe he is happy to take white Africans and therefore thought he'd make it clear that it is just black ones he won't take.

PixelPound

Developers when building houses have to build a certain number of social housing (though there are ways around this) but landlords don't have any such obligation.