Housing benefit to private landlords

System

wotsthat wrote: »

Maybe you're getting yourself confused with your 'pal' P1212. Funny username that. A P1212 is a WW2 bomber fighter - that's a funny coincidence what with you being in the RAF and everything.

I've just clicked on why people thought I had multiple usernames. I've just googled P1212, you are right. I'm not in the RAF, I am in the Senior Service. P1212 must be RAF or ex RAF.

System

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/24/poor-uk-private-rent-homelessness-risk-housing-benefit-shortfall-2020

Tahlullah

westernpromise wrote: »

I am baffled as to why any landlord would let a property to someone on housing benefit. Extraordinary.

Because they have a social conscience? Because they have a moral compass?

Not all landlords are bad. Some really want to help others in society. Perhaps the issue is that the Government aren't building enough social housing or allowing RSL's to build, so private landlords have to step in and help.

It is pointless assuming landlords are only in it for themselves. Not everyone in the country wants to buy. Not everyone can afford to buy. Some landlords provide a much needed service to those whom others would not dream of assisting.

kinger101

Tahlullah wrote: »

Because they have a social conscience? Because they have a moral compass?

Not all landlords are bad. Some really want to help others in society. Perhaps the issue is that the Government aren't building enough social housing or allowing RSL's to build, so private landlords have to step in and help.

It is pointless assuming landlords are only in it for themselves. Not everyone in the country wants to buy. Not everyone can afford to buy. Some landlords provide a much needed service to those whom others would not dream of assisting.

They are in it for the money. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not a sin. But please don't make them out to be something special.

System

LLs know that Buy-to-Let creates its own demand. Every property 'snapped up' turns a potential homeowner into a renter. Good business plan.

mwpt

Tahlullah wrote: »

Because they have a social conscience? Because they have a moral compass?

Not all landlords are bad. Some really want to help others in society. Perhaps the issue is that the Government aren't building enough social housing or allowing RSL's to build, so private landlords have to step in and help.

It is pointless assuming landlords are only in it for themselves. Not everyone in the country wants to buy. Not everyone can afford to buy. Some landlords provide a much needed service to those whom others would not dream of assisting.

I agree with you that not everyone can or wants to buy their own home. There is much need for a rental sector (private or otherwise). But landlords are in it for the money, pure and simple. And as kinger101 says, that is fine.

But If more than 1 out of 1000 of landlords are socially conscious and do it because they just truly care about housing tenants, I'll eat my non existent hat.

cells

mrlegend123 wrote: »

LLs know that Buy-to-Let creates its own demand. Every property 'snapped up' turns a potential homeowner into a renter. Good business plan.

Nonsense hpc propaganda.

Landlords house people more densely thus create more supply with the same property and this pushes down prices and rents. For instance a house might be a 6 bedroom HMO with 6 tenants in it. The typical owner only lives at 2.35 persons per house.

Or think of it this way all the higher density rentals are sold off to two of the sitting tenants. They then proceed to kick out the other 4 as they don't want to live that dense as owners. The 4 that were kicked out by the now owners need to go into the market and bid up rents for the remaining renters in the rental market.

This is before you even consider the landlords that add space via extensions or refurbs to add more capacity. Sure owners do extensions but for extra space for themselves they don't extend to rent out the additional space.

And once more in about 75% of the country buying now is cheaper then even social rents. There is no problem of affordability at all there is only some powerful confirmation bias on some silly forums were everyone convinces themselves that £100k for a terrace is still overpriced and need to fall 50% and then 50% again before they consider it might be value. Just like the house price crash posters in 1995 saying London was too expensive and prices just went up 10x

cells

mwpt wrote: »

I agree with you that not everyone can or wants to buy their own home. There is much need for a rental sector (private or otherwise). But landlords are in it for the money, pure and simple. And as kinger101 says, that is fine.

But If more than 1 out of 1000 of landlords are socially conscious and do it because they just truly care about housing tenants, I'll eat my non existent hat.

Some stock was purchased privately and the owners turned it into social stock. Others donate a lot to charity money that is mostly from rentals. Needless to say you have to have some money in the first place to be able to give it away.

Also the pursuit of profit is socially conscious in a free market as this profit indicates meeting a need or want.

System

cells wrote: »

Nonsense hpc propaganda.

Landlords house people more densely thus create more supply with the same property and this pushes down prices and rents. For instance a house might be a 6 bedroom HMO with 6 tenants in it. The typical owner only lives at 2.35 persons per house.

Or think of it this way all the higher density rentals are sold off to two of the sitting tenants. They then proceed to kick out the other 4 as they don't want to live that dense as owners. The 4 that were kicked out by the now owners need to go into the market and bid up rents for the remaining renters in the rental market.

This is before you even consider the landlords that add space via extensions or refurbs to add more capacity. Sure owners do extensions but for extra space for themselves they don't extend to rent out the additional space.

And once more in about 75% of the country buying now is cheaper then even social rents. There is no problem of affordability at all there is only some powerful confirmation bias on some silly forums were everyone convinces themselves that £100k for a terrace is still overpriced and need to fall 50% and then 50% again before they consider it might be value. Just like the house price crash posters in 1995 saying London was too expensive and prices just went up 10x

I bet the HPC posters based their predictions on the current game in 1995. The central bankers used their magic wands in the late 1990s therefore changed the game. The housing market is always being manipulated in which the game is always changing. The game will always be one-sided and will always be used to generate wealth to the few.

cells

mrlegend123 wrote: »

I bet the HPC posters based their predictions on the current game in 1995. The central bankers used their magic wands in the late 1990s therefore changed the game. The housing market is always being manipulated in which the game is always changing. The game will always be one-sided and will always be used to generate wealth to the few.

Nonsense there was a large shift from oversupply to undersupply in London which is why prices in inner London are up 10x. Elsewhere the gains have been nothing like that