Governments 5 year 'full rent' options for landlords to house asylum seekers. Question.

diggingdude

Tbf if I were a landlord I would consider it. A premium rent, little stress and the maintenance being outsourced. Why wouldn't you? (As I'm not a landlord there may be clear reasons why you wouldn't which I don't know)

HillStreetBlues

eddddy said:

As an aside, the scheme involves a landlord giving Serco a 5 year tenancy on their property. Serco can use the property to house whoever they choose.

I'm a bit surprised that a landlord is evicting a (presumably good) long-term tenant, to go for an untested scheme like this.

Unless perhaps Serco / the Home Office are offering rents that way above the market rate, because they will still be cheaper than using hotel rooms.

(Or unless the current tenant has been demanding and/or difficult, and the landlord is hoping the scheme will offer them an easier life.)

It can depend on the tenant, and if on any benefits.  Most times for private rentals "full rent" isn't paid by benefits so either it's topped up or lower rent is charged. If lower rent is charged I can see some LL evicting UK citizens to replace them with asylum seekers because the Government chooses to pay more.

Sea_Shell

Landlords need to consult their own moral compass, rather than their accountant.

ReadySteadyPop

Sea_Shell said:

eddddy said:

As an aside, the scheme involves a landlord giving Serco a 5 year tenancy on their property. Serco can use the property to house whoever they choose.

I'm a bit surprised that a landlord is evicting a (presumably good) long-term tenant, to go for an untested scheme like this.

Unless perhaps Serco / the Home Office are offering rents that way above the market rate, because they will still be cheaper than using hotel rooms.

(Or unless the current tenant has been demanding and/or difficult, and the landlord is hoping the scheme will offer them an easier life.)

I'd heard anecdotally that it was for up to 30% premium!     Kerching!!!!!

Do you have a link?

ReadySteadyPop

Sea_Shell said:

eddddy said:

As an aside, the scheme involves a landlord giving Serco a 5 year tenancy on their property. Serco can use the property to house whoever they choose.

I'm a bit surprised that a landlord is evicting a (presumably good) long-term tenant, to go for an untested scheme like this.

Unless perhaps Serco / the Home Office are offering rents that way above the market rate, because they will still be cheaper than using hotel rooms.

(Or unless the current tenant has been demanding and/or difficult, and the landlord is hoping the scheme will offer them an easier life.)

I'd heard anecdotally that it was for up to 30% premium!     Kerching!!!!!

If that were true, and I doubt it, then that would be a massive political own goal, numbers of people being able to come here is falling, it is very difficult to get certain visas now and to bring family members etc. that is only going to continue and get worse as the political tides change. Landlords can already approach councils, Uni`s and social care providers etc. and get very decent rents for allowing those organisations to use the property as they desire. This feels like a bit of a non-story to me to be honest.

anselld

Sea_Shell said:

Landlords need to consult their own moral compass, rather than their accountant.

Perhaps their compass is saying asylum seekers need somewhere to live just like anyone else.

Albermarle

ReadySteadyPop said:

Sea_Shell said:

eddddy said:

As an aside, the scheme involves a landlord giving Serco a 5 year tenancy on their property. Serco can use the property to house whoever they choose.

I'm a bit surprised that a landlord is evicting a (presumably good) long-term tenant, to go for an untested scheme like this.

Unless perhaps Serco / the Home Office are offering rents that way above the market rate, because they will still be cheaper than using hotel rooms.

(Or unless the current tenant has been demanding and/or difficult, and the landlord is hoping the scheme will offer them an easier life.)

I'd heard anecdotally that it was for up to 30% premium!     Kerching!!!!!

If that were true, and I doubt it, then that would be a massive political own goal, numbers of people being able to come here is falling, it is very difficult to get certain visas now and to bring family members etc. that is only going to continue and get worse as the political tides change. Landlords can already approach councils, Uni`s and social care providers etc. and get very decent rents for allowing those organisations to use the property as they desire. This feels like a bit of a non-story to me to be honest.

The scheme is for asylum seekers, refugees etc.
Most of these are arriving illegally and the numbers are pretty steady, maybe up.
So difficulty getting visas and falling legal migration is not really relevant to this scheme AIUI.

RAS

Serco and their ilk block-book hotels to house asylum seekers. In some areas that hotel is a major source of local employment. Rather than recruiting local people to staff the property, all too often they sack everyone and bus in people from other areas (they've got a lot of people on their books from their other business activities). 

That approach does not endear the new occupants to the locals who blame them for the situation, rather than the bulk purchaser. And the incidental expenditure from hotel visitors no longer trickles into the pubs, local shops, petrol stations etc.

Obviously it's a win win for the hoteliers, guaranteed 100% occupancy at a higher average price.

By the way, anyone granted refugee status is evicted, currently within 56 days, although that is due for reassessment (was 28 days). So they are trying to get accommodation in the same market; a lot end up homeless.

The Government push to stop using hotels maybe encouraging Serco to divert their efforts at private residential landlords? May be time to talk to you local MP, nicely. 

swingaloo

anselld said:

Sea_Shell said:

Landlords need to consult their own moral compass, rather than their accountant.

Perhaps their compass is saying asylum seekers need somewhere to live just like anyone else.

That may be true but the person who has been told to leave has been an excellent long term tenant, not on benefits and has always paid rent on time. Also done odd jobs at the property to help the landlord. Is that morally right?
Now they have to incur the cost of moving and finding somewhere to live which is proving very difficult as they need to stay in the area for work. They may end up having to put their belongings into storage if they cannot find somewhere soon. They dont want to refuse to move out as they need a reference for a new landlord. Every property coming up for rent has gone before they get a chance to view.

Is it morally right to put a decent long term tenant out for a few extra quid a week. They were paying the going rate for similar properties locally and would have accepted a rent rise if they had the option to stay.

RelievedSheff

swingaloo said:

anselld said:

Sea_Shell said:

Landlords need to consult their own moral compass, rather than their accountant.

Perhaps their compass is saying asylum seekers need somewhere to live just like anyone else.

That may be true but the person who has been told to leave has been an excellent long term tenant, not on benefits and has always paid rent on time. Also done odd jobs at the property to help the landlord. Is that morally right?
Now they have to incur the cost of moving and finding somewhere to live which is proving very difficult as they need to stay in the area for work. They may end up having to put their belongings into storage if they cannot find somewhere soon. They dont want to refuse to move out as they need a reference for a new landlord. Every property coming up for rent has gone before they get a chance to view.

Is it morally right to put a decent long term tenant out for a few extra quid a week. They were paying the going rate for similar properties locally and would have accepted a rent rise if they had the option to stay.

Whether it is morally right or not, being a landlord is a business and business is there to make money. If they can make more money from renting to someone else, be that an individual or a company then they will do just that.