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:

Yes its a mess
New Labour has left us

awaits Kizzy's input.:joker:

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?

They could also allow housing benefits to be used to pay a mortgage, as I believe was once allowed. The reasoning for stopping it was petty rather than economic (in fact, it makes ZERO economic sense). Basically, they stopped allowing people to pay a mortgage on a home they owned because it "isn't fair" on others that those people end up with a house. Emotive, and petty.

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.

I'm going to answer this, even though you said "think about it..." which is one of my pet hates...

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.

Didn't all this start with allowing people to buy their Council Houses on the cheap, but not replacing those that were bought with new stock? I don't know why a private landlord has to be castigated for taking advantage of a situation that was brought about by successive governments.

Yes, the reason we're short of social housing is that the Tories brought in the right to buy scheme. That doesn't mean that private landlords should be applauded for being opportunists and profiteers.

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.

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.

The problem with more social housing though, is that there are already so many houses (privately owned) sitting, unrented, forgotten about, and falling apart. Which is a shame, a waste, and a real problem. And its like I said; your main issue with "buying someone a house who might never contribute" is just that you find it "scroungey" or "unfair"... which it probably is. But its also far (far, far) cheaper than paying private rent for that same person indefinitely... like I said, for a 2/3 bed semi detached house you could be looking at £100,000 worth of mortgage over 20 years (then zero for 30 years) vs £300,000 in rent payments over 50 years. If you let go of that feeling of "someone getting something for nothing" and look purely at the implications on the benefits bill, it paints a very different picture. Not to mention that the home could then be inherited by children who - scroungers or not - would NEVER have to be paid a penny of housing benefit. Ever. The financial benefits of this are obvious.

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!.

He should give it all up and claim benefits, nasty man with too many houses!.

:shocked::joker:

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.

Nobody said they were, I assume the 200 he is evicting are not paying? if you were in his position and you had non paying tenants in a house you were paying for what would you do?

I seriously doubt 200 people who he is evicting are all behind on their rent and just happen to be benefit claimants :D

However IF they are I see his point.

That is for his conscience, but I refer back to the how this problem started in the first place, the sale of Council properties, and successive governments ignoring the problem.

Yup. Indeed.

Still think this guy is a dick though for stereotyping in this way. Think anyone who listens to stereotypes is a dick tbh :joker:

its not. simply because the government have foolishly decided to pay the rent money to the tennants. in many cases the tennants are keeping this money and not handing it over to the landlords. theres a story here where one man owns 800 houses and is having delays with over 300 payments a week. thats over £30,000 a week. additionally the tennants refuse to speak to him as their debt builds and they refuse to tell him of any problems or damage at the properties. so the landlord gets into problems as does the house. In 1 story the tennant takes the monies to pay for his drugs. he fails to tell the owner of damage at the property, the house leaks and the ceiling collapses, the tennant then has the cheek to report the house to the council who issue an improvement order on the house costing £400 plus over £10,000 in damage needed to be fixed in order to make the house liveable and rentable again

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

there are masses behind since the tories brought in this brainless scheme to hand housing benefits to all tennants and expected them all to hand it straight over to the landlords. its the stupidest government policy in history

Hasnt it always been like that? I dont think that was the tories as when I was on HB about 6 years ago in private housing, I actually asked the council to pay it direct to my landlord, and they said they couldnt unless I had big arrears already or could prove I had a problem with spending :S

As it happened, I was off HB again before the claim even got bloody sorted out. But still :laugh:

I think it would help the situation if the private landlord had the contract with the council so the tenant and landlord are both protected landlord commits the property for x amount of years and gets paid directly, and cannot serve notice within the term and tenant is under contract to keep the property in a reasonable state of repair or face eviction and any repairs are organised via the council so they are carried out quickly

there is a program starting Tuesday of next week, called benefit street, this will give everyone a chance to see what a large majority of people on benefit are like, im not saying that all those that are on benefits are like that, but some are.

Yeah, am sure that benefit steet will be like the rest of tthe manipulated c4 programs about benefits too ;)

Infact, even the DAILY MAIL has ran a story on it being manipulated http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...stitch-up.html

(The 'main' guy in the program sounds like an absolute douche though :bored: )

Its not a large majority like that,. Its a small minority...unfortunately the minority are all people are interested in. Wouldnt sell papers/get viewers if they showed the truth about benefits would it

The problem with that though is that many (working) people get partial housing benefit that covers a percentage of their rent and cover the rest themselves, e.g. someone in full time, minimum wage employment living in a £450 a month house might be getting £200 in housing benefit and covering the other £250 out of their pay. Keeping track of this, if the money isnt paid to the tennant to then be passed on to the landlord as a lump sum, becomes very complicated.

Theres also the (ridiculous, IMO) problem currently where most landlords take rent monthly (totally normal) whereas housing benefit is paid every 4 weeks (totally daft), though that is at least being fixed with Universal Credit, supposedly. Currently, though, councils would be paying directly to landlords every 4 weeks (28 days, so it slides back 2 to 3 days each month, e.g. one month its the 10th, then the 8th, then the 5th, then the 3rd... an unholy mess) instead of on a set day each month, totally screwing up that landlords books.

Either way - landlords shouldnt be discriminating purely on this, as plenty of respectable working families receive some housing benefit, and make all of their rent payments on time. This man has had problems with idiots / junkies blowing their rent money on drugs and its fair enough that he kicks out those problem tenants but thats not whats happening - he's decided that he won't allow ANY claimants to be tenants and discriminating purely on those grounds.

He could much more easily solve this problem by interviewing (or hiring someone to interview) potential tenants before renting to them. It's not that difficult to spot a potential rent-dodger. He could hire someone at minimum wage! It would be an easy enough job :/.

Oh yeah in my master plan in forgot about partial payments

This is kinda where the argument about HB claimants not paying, while working people do..falls down tbh. Most new HB claims are made from people who are actually in work.

Also slightly offtopic, but I have just noticed his wife looks rather manly.

Now that we can agree on :joker:

Pff. The "large majority" of people on benefit are in work, elderly, genuinely disabled, or recent school leavers / graduates.

By "people on benefits" you're probably thinking of the long-term unemployed. And not even the majority of the long-term unemployed are as bad as is made out by these shows.

An admittedly very visible minority are a problem... but there's a very obvious agenda by certain people in influential positions to paint everyone on benefits with the same brush. People are more willing (often deliriously happy) to accept sweeping benefits cuts when they can imagine the people involved as sub-human troglodytes... they find it harder when they realise that many of them are normal lower-middle class families.

benefits are paid direct and this started this year and its a disaster

no it started this year under duncan smith and its an unmitigated disaster
on a massive scale

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21756567

homelessness with soon go through the roof

I wonder why it was refused years back then. Very odd :S

Sorry but you're incorrect; LHA [Local Housing Allowance] (the housing benefit given to pay private rents) has been automatically paid to recipients for many years. I was on it 5+ years ago when I left University. It was paid every 4 weeks, directly into my own bank account, for me to pass on to my landlord. This has been "the norm" since LHA was introduced in 2008.

HOWEVER - under LHA, if you could prove that you were having difficulty managing finances (a letter from a landlord stating rent arrears would probably suffice) then the local council would arrange to pay the landlord directly. I believe the landlord themselves could also contact the council and petition to be paid directly, which is what solved a lot of problems, as addicts (etc.) would then never have the option of spending their rent money.

What's changed this year is that LHA is being included in the new Universal Credit system and the OPTION of direct payment to landlords has been removed entirely... it can't even be requested, by landlords or the tenants themselves.

I can assure you though; direct payment to benefits recipients has been "standard" since April 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_H...irect_Payments

(apologies that it's a wikipedia link, feeling lazy)

He will be aware which of his tenants are benefit claimants, the change allowing HB payments to come straight to the tenant has probably put some in arrears as they have been a bit silly and used the money for other things... like gas maybe, who knows?
This has put them in dept to both their landlord and HB, which is I'm guessing a very scary as he/she then has the right to evict you and your LHA are not obliged to help rehouse you.... a lose lose situation.
As seen in tonights benefit street on C4 this is happening on there, one woman facing eviction for arrears of around £300, her landlord will now have to take her to court if she refuses to leave, how many times is that going to happen up and down the country? The courts will be creaking.
There are no social houses, fatty pickles wants to flog the last few of for a third of their market value as they've become too expensive to maintain.
Buy to let landlords will soon be renting their properties by the sq ft...regardless of what Europe say.