![]() |
Buy-to-let property supremo shuts door on housing benefit tenants
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...Wilson-008.jpg
[Fergus Wilson, who with his wife Judith owns nearly 1,000 properties around the Ashford area of Kent, has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants, saying he prefers eastern European migrants who default much less frequently than single mums on welfare. He says the move is purely an economic decision and points out that private landlords are running a business.] http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...enefit-tenants Sign Of The Times |
Harsh but it's his business, fair enough
|
He is probably being squeezed by his mortgage provider, who hiked up rates on buy to let mortgages recently. If Councils paid housing benefit directly to landlords that would end the problem of tenants defaulting wouldn't it :suspect:
|
Quote:
New Labour has left us |
Quote:
|
I hate the whole buy to let thing, it's got way out of hand. It's appalling he's allowed to do this. Appalling... but sadly not surprising. We need more social housing. Is there another answer?
|
Quote:
Think about it; Someone is in and out of work, on and off housing benefit, for whatever reason, for life. If they can BUY a property and receive housing benefit for mortgage payments when they are not working and pay them themselves when they are working, then once the mortgage term is up, that's it. The house is owned outright. It doesn't cost the government ANYTHING to house that person again. But because that "isn't fair", that same person will be on and off housing benefit to be paid to fatcat private landlords for that person's entire life. It costs the government double... triple... or more... what allowing payment of a single mortgage term would cost. It's about time government put its' pragmatic maths-hat on and starts to act purely on what costs less and stops worrying about what's going to make some people get a bit huffy ("so they get a free house at the end boo hoo hoo???"). Basically, it doesn't sit well with people for the less well off to get £100,000 of "taxpayer's money" for nothing over the course of their life (let's say 50 adult years)... so they're happier to see a private landlord given almost £350,000 of "taxpayer's money" on that person's behalf over the same 50 years. It's ****ing insane. |
Quote:
I don't agree that the taxpayer should buy people a house. If someone's claiming housing benefit for twenty five years, or the course of a mortgage, then there's something wrong. I understand that there was a method in place (I'm not sure of the situation now though) whereby if you lost your job and needed housing benefit, they would pay the interest on your mortgage only. I think that's fair. People shouldn't lose their home because they're unemployed. But to buy someone a house who might never, ever work or contribute? I don't think so. More social housing. As a taxpayer I'd be very happy to see my tax go toward that. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
What? Why not? aren't most people who have successful businesses opportunists, they see a gap in the market and they cash in? Most private landlords have mortgages to pay, they rely on their tenants to pay the rent, simple economics, it doesn't matter if you have 1 property or 1,000 the economics remain the same. |
Quote:
Hey, if you're okay with this, that's your decision. Personally, I think kicking out people who are on benefits and taking in people who aren't is unscrupulous in the extreme. The only answer to this profiteering and opportunism is to build more social housing. But you argued with that too... so I think you're just looking to argue. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Excuse me, i guess if you were answering anyone else it would be a debate, but that's more your problem than mine, and where did I argue that I was against more social housing? This unscrupulous landlord has 1,000 properties, he wont be managing these on his own, he will be employing trademen, a solicitor, an accountant, cleaners, a mortgage broker, he will be paying buildings insurance so his enterprise is keeping alot of people in work, he will have paid thousands in stamp duty, VAT, and tax thereby helping to pay for people on benefits. If these people who have already been paid their rent by the Council have spent it elsewhere, why should he pick up the tab? |
I agree with you Cherie, the man is running a business not a charity!.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Seems a bit of a dick tbh. Evicting 200 tenants because he has had a bad experience with a couple of others. Not all people on benefits are wasters.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
However IF they are I see his point. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Still think this guy is a dick though for stereotyping in this way. Think anyone who listens to stereotypes is a dick tbh :joker: |
Quote:
this system is insane it also adds massively to the workload on the council staff for no reason housing benefit should go straight to landlords |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As it happened, I was off HB again before the claim even got bloody sorted out. But still :laugh: |
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.