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

Sea_Shell

RelievedSheff said:

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.

But should they trample over their existing "customers" to achieve it?

anselld

The other factor in play is that successive Governments have hit the private landlords with increased taxes and more onerous legislation in an effort to remove them from the housing market.  It is unsurprising with so many “sticks” in play that some landlords will take a “carrot” when offered in an effort to mitigate the damage to their business.  

BungalowBel

I sold my rental flat last September.

But I personally would not have evicted my excellent long-term tenants to  let to people who are in the country illegally, just for a higher rent.

As it says above, consult your own moral compass.

eddddy

swingaloo said:

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.

Sadly, I guess the landlord is looking at it purely as a business decision.

I guess the current tenant could ask the landlord how much rent Serco will be paying, and see if they can come close to matching it. And maybe suggest signing a new tenancy agreement with a fixed term of up to 5 years.

Serco also say they maintain the property, but I suspect the landlord has to cover the costs. For example, if the boiler packs up, I doubt Serco would cover £2k to £3k to replace it. (In the worst case, maybe they only use their 'approved contractors' who might charge £4k to £5k instead - which the landlord then has to pay.)