[arista]

[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

[Z]

Harsh but it's his business, fair enough

[Cherie]

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

[arista]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

Yes its a mess
New Labour has left us

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes its a mess
New Labour has left us

awaits Kizzy's input.

[Livia]

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?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Livia

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?

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.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Cherie

[/B]

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

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.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

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?

[thesheriff443]

I agree with you Cherie, the man is running a business not a charity!.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

I agree with you Cherie, the man is running business not a charity!.

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

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

[Vicky.]

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.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

However IF they are I see his point.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

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

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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

However IF they are I see his point.

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

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by the truth

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