[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

My fortune will ULTIMATELY actually GROW if Corbyn becomes PM and implements his unachievable, totally impracticable, ill-thought out 'policies'.

I have just paid £355.00 to the Law Courts to evict a 'young single mother of two' - you know, one of those poor, unfortunate, underprivileged strata of society whom Corbyn is out to alleviate the suffering of?

And my husband type of business is going to clearly struggle if Corbyn gets in but believes the struggle is worthwhile.

As for your deceitful tenant, what has she got to do with Corbyn? Does Mays government allow sitting tenants or not? Does Mays government have landlords spending hundreds to get rid of sitting tenants or not?

My (now EX) agent foolishly let this excrement into a beautiful, modernised, double glazed, centrally heated 2 bedroom semi which had walled private gardens to front and rear etc. etc.

Her income level was so high from a combination of Working Tax Credits and Benefits that the local Council only paid a small fraction of Housing Benefits to her.

Her Facebook pages are peppered with photographs which she has posted of herself dolled up to the nines partying, hungover, and enjoying nights out with 'The Girls' ALL OVER the UK.

She started NOT paying her rent after only a few months and DESPITE all our efforts to reason with her, appeal to her AND help her (because of her two INNOCENT children) she ignored us and her arrears now top £5,000.

We have discovered that she applied for a 'Council House' but her application was 'DECLINED', but once she is evicted the same Council will be FORCED to accommodate her because she will be HOMELESS.

The trouble is, that due to a severe HOUSING SHORTAGE just WHERE the Council will place her and into just WHAT kind of accommodation is the '64,000 dollar question'.

Again, this isn't down to Corbyn, its down to the present government.

Corbyn's policies will greatly EXACERBATE this Housing Crisis as Private Landlord after Private Landlord sell up or STOP renting to BENEFIT CLAIMANTS altogether to protect themselves.

But Corbyn has clearly stated that putting rent money into impoverished tenants hands needs to be stopped. Instead it needs to go straight to the landlord.

THIS big bad landlord will sit tight because already I have determined NOT to accept anyone else who is on Benefits as tenants.

Yes, it is a shame because not ALL Benefit Claimants are bad people or bad tenants, but I have worked damned hard for a long number of years (I am still working 60+ hour weeks now) and I have made real sacrifices to build up my business and I will not allow Corbyn or anyone else to destroy all that I have worked for.

By the way, I am a GOOD landlord. My properties are all accredited and of a good standard, my rents are ALWAYS set just below the Local Market levels, and I ALWAYS help my tenants whenever I can when they have problems.

Its not only benefit claimants who sit tight when they can't pay the rent and get an eviction order. But lets go back to benefit claimants and what they presently have to put up with re-subsidized government rent.
1. The government no longer pays deposits. I believe that was stopped in 2008
2. The government are notoriously slow at paying up and when they do pay up, they pay the tenanat and not the landlord. Again I believe this happened in 2008.
3. The government just stop payments without notice and for very little reason.
4. Government payments are always in arrears.
5. Since 2014 the government makes landlords jump through hoops of fire before they can let to people on benefit. All these rules are confusing and time consuming and leave the landlord feeling vulnerable.
Its the Tory government that have done this, not Corbyn.

By the way, I am a GOOD landlord. My properties are all accredited and of a good standard, my rents are ALWAYS set just below the Local Market levels, and I ALWAYS help my tenants whenever I can when they have problems

Good, and so are we. The difference between you and us is, we rent out in France and you in the UK. Its very similar problems though.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

And my husband type of business is going to clearly struggle if Corbyn gets in but believes the struggle is worthwhile.

As for your deceitful tenant, what has she got to do with Corbyn? Does Mays government allow sitting tenants or not? Does Mays government have landlords spending hundreds to get rid of sitting tenants or not?

Again, this isn't down to Corbyn, its down to the present government.

But Corbyn has clearly stated that putting rent money into impoverished tenants hands needs to be stopped. Instead it needs to go straight to the landlord.

Its not only benefit claimants who sit tight when they can't pay the rent and get an eviction order. But lets go back to benefit claimants and what they presently have to put up with re-subsidized government rent.

1. The government no longer pays deposits. I believe that was stopped in 2008
2. The government are notoriously slow at paying up and when they do pay up, they pay the tenanat and not the landlord. Again I believe this happened in 2008.
3. The government just stop payments without notice and for very little reason.
4. Government payments are always in arrears.
5. Since 2014 the government makes landlords jump through hoops of fire before they can let to people on benefit. All these rules are confusing and time consuming and leave the landlord feeling vulnerable.
Its the Tory government that have done this, not Corbyn.

Good, and so are we. The difference between you and us is, we rent out in France and you in the UK. Its very similar problems though.

NOTHING in the above response addresses any of my post and it merely shows that you have completely missed the points which I was making.

Of which I will cover below, after I have pointed out what I believe to be very, very cleverly executed misrepresentations in your response of what I ACTUALLY stated in my post:

"As for your deceitful tenant, what has she got to do with Corbyn? Does Mays government allow sitting tenants or not? Does Mays government have landlords spending hundreds to get rid of sitting tenants or not?"

I NEVER stated anywhere that my tenant was a 'sitting tenant' because she is NOT.

However, a 'sitting tenant' is a lot more of an 'emotive' term which is highly likely to impress upon any 'unknowing' reader that I am callously trying to evict a very long-standing tenant who has been in the property for years when it used in an eviction scenario.

I am not a 'Landlord spending hundreds of pounds to 'GET RID' of a 'sitting tenant' - I am a landlord paying hundreds of pounds to EVICT a scumbag who owes me £5,000 in UNPAID RENT when she RECEIVES BENEFITS (Tax-Payers MONEY) with which to PAY that rent.

"Its not only benefit claimants who sit tight when they can't pay the rent and get an eviction order."

I have never stated ANYWHERE that this is a 'benefits claimant who sit(s) tight' because she 'CAN'T pay the rent'

I stated that this is a benefit claiming tenant who has FULL benefits coming in but WON'T pay any rent because she elects to SELFISHLY live the 'High Life' with all that Tax Payers money instead.

THERE IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE IN MEANING BETEEN WHAT YOU REPRESENT THAT I SAID AND WHAT I ACTUALLY DID SAY IS THERE?

" But lets go back to benefit claimants and what they presently have to put up with re-subsidized government rent.

1. The government no longer pays deposits. I believe that was stopped in 2008
2. The government are notoriously slow at paying up and when they do pay up, they pay the tenanat and not the landlord. Again I believe this happened in 2008.
3. The government just stop payments without notice and for very little reason.
4. Government payments are always in arrears.
5. Since 2014 the government makes landlords jump through hoops of fire before they can let to people on benefit. All these rules are confusing and time consuming and leave the landlord feeling vulnerable.
Its the Tory government that have done this, not Corbyn."


NONE of the above has ANY relevance to my post at all - though you are misinformed regarding some of the listed 'facts'.

This tenant was receiving only a fraction of Housing Benefits because her WAGE, WORKING TAX CREDIT and other benefits virtually reached the stipulated 'Income Ceiling' for qualifying for Housing Benefits.

In other words, she was NOT a poor struggling 'under-privileged' person but enjoyed a GOOD level of income.

SHE and SHE alone was responsible for paying her rent to' keep a roof over hers and her two childrens' heads' - NOT the Housing Benefits.

Instead, she made buying expensive items, make-up, clothes and going out drinking to far-flung places on stay-away weekend jaunts her priorities.

My point is, that as flawed as the status quo is now in respect of the law concerning Tenants/Landlords, and as severe as the Housing Crisis is now, it will ALL be a hell of a lot worse if Comrade Corbyn secures the Premiership, because if the type of tenant whom I have addressed here CANNOT be found 'Social' housing now, then what will happen when the THOUSANDS more just like her (and there IS that many, believe me) start being evicted en-masse by Landlords who are 'Selling Up' or stopping renting to Benefit Tenants altogether to protect themselves from Corbyn's stated policies - of which COMPULSORY DISCOUNTED PURCHASE is just one?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

NOTHING in the above response addresses any of my post and it merely shows that you have completely missed the points which I was making.

Of which I will cover below, after I have pointed out what I believe to be very, very cleverly executed misrepresentations in your response of what I ACTUALLY stated in my post:

"As for your deceitful tenant, what has she got to do with Corbyn? Does Mays government allow sitting tenants or not? Does Mays government have landlords spending hundreds to get rid of sitting tenants or not?"

I NEVER stated anywhere that my tenant was a 'sitting tenant' because she is NOT.

However, a 'sitting tenant' is a lot more of an 'emotive' term which is highly likely to impress upon any 'unknowing' reader that I am callously trying to evict a very long-standing tenant who has been in the property for years when it used in an eviction scenario.

I am not a 'Landlord spending hundreds of pounds to 'GET RID' of a 'sitting tenant' - I am a landlord paying hundreds of pounds to EVICT a scumbag who owes me £5,000 in UNPAID RENT when she RECEIVES BENEFITS (Tax-Payers MONEY) with which to PAY that rent.

"Its not only benefit claimants who sit tight when they can't pay the rent and get an eviction order."

I have never stated ANYWHERE that this is a 'benefits claimant who sit(s) tight' because she 'CAN'T pay the rent'

I stated that this is a benefit claiming tenant who has FULL benefits coming in but WON'T pay any rent because she elects to SELFISHLY live the 'High Life' with all that Tax Payers money instead.

THERE IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE IN MEANING BETEEN WHAT YOU REPRESENT THAT I SAID AND WHAT I ACTUALLY DID SAY IS THERE?

" But lets go back to benefit claimants and what they presently have to put up with re-subsidized government rent.

1. The government no longer pays deposits. I believe that was stopped in 2008
2. The government are notoriously slow at paying up and when they do pay up, they pay the tenanat and not the landlord. Again I believe this happened in 2008.
3. The government just stop payments without notice and for very little reason.
4. Government payments are always in arrears.
5. Since 2014 the government makes landlords jump through hoops of fire before they can let to people on benefit. All these rules are confusing and time consuming and leave the landlord feeling vulnerable.
Its the Tory government that have done this, not Corbyn."


NONE of the above has ANY relevance to my post at all - though you are misinformed regarding some of the listed 'facts'.

This tenant was receiving only a fraction of Housing Benefits because her WAGE, WORKING TAX CREDIT and other benefits virtually reached the stipulated 'Income Ceiling' for qualifying for Housing Benefits.

In other words, she was NOT a poor struggling 'under-privileged' person but enjoyed a GOOD level of income.

SHE and SHE alone was responsible for paying her rent to' keep a roof over hers and her two childrens' heads' - NOT the Housing Benefits.

Instead, she made buying expensive items, make-up, clothes and going out drinking to far-flung places on stay-away weekend jaunts her priorities.

My point is, that as flawed as the status quo is now in respect of the law concerning Tenants/Landlords, and as severe as the Housing Crisis is now, it will ALL be a hell of a lot worse if Comrade Corbyn secures the Premiership, because if the type of tenant whom I have addressed here CANNOT be found 'Social' housing now, then what will happen when the THOUSANDS more just like her (and there IS that many, believe me) start being evicted en-masse by Landlords who are 'Selling Up' or stopping renting to Benefit Tenants altogether to protect themselves from Corbyn's stated policies - of which COMPULSORY DISCOUNTED PURCHASE is just one?

Reminds me of some cases on ‘If you can’t pay’ - there are lots of irresponsible, selfish and dishonest tenants out there and for some to automatically make assumptions and try to present their view that the landlord is likely the ‘bad guy’ and the tenant the ‘victim’ is absurd. I have said it before and I say it again - AGENDAS.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Reminds me of some cases on ‘If you can’t pay’ - there are lots of irresponsible, selfish and dishonest tenants out there and for some to automatically make assumptions and try to present their view that the landlord is likely the ‘bad guy’ and the tenant the ‘victim’ is absurd. I have said it before and I say it again - AGENDAS.

Stop baiting, DR clearly stated had you bothered to read that she too owns property.

In your haste to blow kirks horn you missed that.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Stop baiting, DR clearly stated had you bothered to read that she too owns property.

In your haste to blow kirks horn you missed that.

And you stop trying to shut people down by accusing them of baiting especially as you have been accused of it many times.

Whether or not she owns property too is irrelevant. Her post was unnecessarily attacking of another poster and a lot of assumptions were made in my opinion. If I wish to comment on that I don’t need your permission.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

And you stop trying to shut people down by accusing them of baiting especially as you have been accused of it many times.

Whether or not she owns property too is irrelevant. Her post was unnecessarily attacking of another poster and a lot of assumptions were made in my opinion. If I wish to comment on that I don’t need your permission.

FFS Kirk and me are having a conversation. A heated one yes but a conversation never the less. I'm not attacking Kirk!!

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

FFS Kirk and me are having a conversation. A heated one yes but a conversation never the less. I'm not attacking Kirk!!

Well you are certainly over reacting now. I gave my opinion like you and everyone else does on a forum and will continue to do so.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

And you stop trying to shut people down by accusing them of baiting especially as you have been accused of it many times.

Whether or not she owns property too is irrelevant. Her post was unnecessarily attacking of another poster and a lot of assumptions were made in my opinion. If I wish to comment on that I don’t need your permission.

You are not the forum police... how is it your place to shut DRs comment down if I can't refer to yours?
Double standard there.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

NOTHING in the above response addresses any of my post and it merely shows that you have completely missed the points which I was making.

Of which I will cover below, after I have pointed out what I believe to be very, very cleverly executed misrepresentations in your response of what I ACTUALLY stated in my post:

"As for your deceitful tenant, what has she got to do with Corbyn? Does Mays government allow sitting tenants or not? Does Mays government have landlords spending hundreds to get rid of sitting tenants or not?"

I NEVER stated anywhere that my tenant was a 'sitting tenant' because she is NOT.

However, a 'sitting tenant' is a lot more of an 'emotive' term which is highly likely to impress upon any 'unknowing' reader that I am callously trying to evict a very long-standing tenant who has been in the property for years when it used in an eviction scenario.

Ok she was a tenant sitting in your property refusing to pay rent. You didn't say she trashed the place to the value of £5,000 (which you called arrears) and you did say you had to have her evicted and we all know how long that can take.

I am not a 'Landlord spending hundreds of pounds to 'GET RID' of a 'sitting tenant' - I am a landlord paying hundreds of pounds to EVICT a scumbag who owes me £5,000 in UNPAID RENT when she RECEIVES BENEFITS (Tax-Payers MONEY) with which to PAY that rent.

"Its not only benefit claimants who sit tight when they can't pay the rent and get an eviction order."

I have never stated ANYWHERE that this is a 'benefits claimant who sit(s) tight' because she 'CAN'T pay the rent'

No but you did say she received Working Tax Credits and Benefits and at the end of your post you made it clear that you would not accept anyone else who was on benefits which probably confused things as her benefits claims was just something that annoyed you but had no reflection on her not paying her dues.

I stated that this is a benefit claiming tenant who has FULL benefits coming in but WON'T pay any rent because she elects to SELFISHLY live the 'High Life' with all that Tax Payers money instead.

Sounds like she was just a greedy high living hussy. People don't have to be on benefits to fit that sort of personality.

THERE IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE IN MEANING BETEEN WHAT YOU REPRESENT THAT I SAID AND WHAT I ACTUALLY DID SAY IS THERE?

When you type in capitals it doesn't come across any louder but as this was an obvious attempt to tell me off, I'll just say that I don't have a clue what you're saying here ^ and perhaps its because you claimed you would never take anyone on benefits again. The thing is, benefits was never the problem, the tenants attitude towards money was the problem. I also don't see what any of this has to do with Corbyn?

My point is, that as flawed as the status quo is now in respect of the law concerning Tenants/Landlords, and as severe as the Housing Crisis is now, it will ALL be a hell of a lot worse if Comrade Corbyn secures the Premiership, because if the type of tenant whom I have addressed here CANNOT be found 'Social' housing now, then what will happen when the THOUSANDS more just like her (and there IS that many, believe me) start being evicted en-masse by Landlords who are 'Selling Up' or stopping renting to Benefit Tenants altogether to protect themselves from Corbyn's stated policies - of which COMPULSORY DISCOUNTED PURCHASE is just one?

Thank you. Perhaps you should of said this in your initial post.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Ok she was a tenant sitting in your property refusing to pay rent. You didn't say she trashed the place to the value of £5,000 (which you called arrears) and you did say you had to have her evicted and we all know how long that can take.

^ I am totally perplexed by this Red: I NEVER said that she "trashed the place to the value of £5,000" and I called it arrears because it IS arrears - she owes UNPAID rent amounting to £5,000.

No but you did say she received Working Tax Credits and Benefits and at the end of your post you made it clear that you would not accept anyone else who was on benefits which probably confused things as her benefits claims was just something that annoyed you but had no reflection on her not paying her dues.

^ I NEVER said that I was 'annoyed' because she claimed benefits - I am annoyed because she claimed Tax-Payers money to pay her rent with but DID NOT PAY ANY RENT.

Sounds like she was just a greedy high living hussy. People don't have to be on benefits to fit that sort of personality.

^ Again, I NEVER STATED or IMPLIED that people HAD to be on benefits to be ignorant non-rent paying skankers, it's just that this ignorant non-rent paying skanker IS on benefits.

When you type in capitals it doesn't come across any louder but as this was an obvious attempt to tell me off, I'll just say that I don't have a clue what you're saying here

???? I was and am saying that IF YOU ARE GOING TO QUOTE MY POST OR PARAPHRASE FROM IT, PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE, ADD OR SUBTRACT FROM WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY SAID TO MISREPRESENT WHAT I HAVE SAID TO SUIT YOUR PURPOSE (incidentally, I have seen posts HEADLINED in LARGE COLOURED TYPE which you REPRODUCED by quoting with no apparent problems. Yet, these posts were almost identical in style to posts of mine which you OBJECTED to.

and perhaps its because you claimed you would never take anyone on benefits again. The thing is, benefits was never the problem, the tenants attitude towards money was the problem.

^ I NEVER claimed that 'benefits were the problem' and it was NOT 'the tenant's attitude to money which was the problem' it was the tenant's attitude to 'playing fair' that is the problem.

She is just one of those selfish, arrogant, ignorant, moralless low-lifes who think that she is above complying with the same Rules of Society and the same Laws of the Land which the rest of us have to comply with. I

I also don't see what any of this has to do with Corbyn?

^ If you do not grasp that EVEN after two additional posts now from me, then it is futile my trying to explain.

Thank you. Perhaps you should of said this in your initial post.

^ I DID SAY SO - and I'm sure that every - impartial - reader would understand as much, but thank you for trying to imply that my standard of English and Grammar is below yours.

[jet]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

^ I DID SAY SO - and I'm sure that every - impartial - reader would understand as much, but thank you for trying to imply that my standard of English and Grammar is below yours.

This impartial reader understands perfectly, but then I have no need to twist your words to suit an agenda.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by jet

This impartial reader understands perfectly, but then I have no need to twist your words to suit an agenda.

Thank you Jet.