200 Housing benefits tenants are served section 21 notice by Kent Landlord

Reply to the comment left by "Jeremy Smith" at "10/01/2014 - 10:56":

Council rights of eviction for protected tenancies are very different to those we work with in the PRS. I am no expert on this but I know a man who is. I have invited Ben Reeve-Lewis to comment via Twitter 🙂

@BenreeveLewis can you help with this question re Councils rights of eviction please? http://t.co/WeNlI4gIVg

— Mark Alexander (@iAmALandlord) January 10, 2014

.

I interviewed Fergus Wilson yesterday, and his comments need to be looked at in the light of his personal situation.

He is 65 and hoped to retire 5 years ago. He made the decision based on the fact that 52% of his tenants in receipt of housing benefit are in arrears, and the fact that he just wants "a quiet life".

The media have sensationalised something quite personal to Fergus and not every landlord will feel the same.

Those that take time to understand the benefits system and have their own systems in place do not see anything to worry about.

Like others, I wonder at why there is not more outrage at tax payer's money being used to fund tenant's lifestyles, than being used to keep a roof over their heads.

At the end of the day, each landlord must make a personal decision on this, based on their own situation and the stage they are at in their own property journey.

Reply to the comment left by "Vanessa Warwick" at "10/01/2014 - 12:03":

Hi Vanessa

I have added your video to the main article at the top of this thread, great interview and well done indeed for tracking Mr Wilson down 🙂

He's quite a character isn't he? I've been reading about him on Wikipedia >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergus_and_Judith_Wilson
.

Reply to the comment left by "Jeremy Smith" at "10/01/2014 - 10:39":

Jeremy there isnt a fixed amount on which a council would evict.

For a start a bog standard council tenancy is called a "Secure tenancy" and there isnt an automatic ground for eviction for them. All 20 grounds are at the judge's discretion.

However if the council's tenancy has been taken over by an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO....standard practice) then they might be an Assured Tenant instead, in which case there is a mandatory 2 month ground.

Unlike PRS Landlords social landlords have to follow the "Rent arrears pre-action protocol", which is a whole host of stuff that has to be done before they even apply for possession.

the protocol is a set court requirement that sits alongside a social landlord's own internal procedures. If the landlord fails to follow either procedure then their case wil get thrown out of court.

Applying for rent arrears in any event on such a small sum will probably result in even the most landlord friendly judge giving an ear-bashing to the hapless housing officer. As is the case in the PRS, letters are sometimes sent just to rattle people's cages. The sender of those letters may know full well their claim wouldnt stand a prayer.

And also, as is the case in the PRS sometimes a clueless untrained housing officer thinks they have a good case.

Fair play to Fergus I say.

I see there is a petition to ban Benefits Street......well can I say that from my experiences in a previous occupation ( and that included dealing with the residents of James Turner St ) that it is an accurate portrayal of that particular locality. But all benefits claimants are not like that. But a lot of the "lifestyle choice " ones are. And the comments about the flat screen TVs and the Iphones... yes this particular class of claimant "just has to have them"

How does this affect us as landlords?

Those that are letting to benefit claimants may feel nervous;
Those that are thinking about it..will probably not....
Those who have had a bad experience (myself included) with benefits tenants and the local authority most definitely will not......

So this sort of publicity plus the direct payment system being cancelled will only make things worse for all benefits claimants. And the (tiny) socialist part of me feels sorry for those that will be discriminated against because of it. But the landlord part of me has little sympathy for those that put the flat screen TV, Iphone, cans of superstrength lager, and drugs before the roof over their heads and that of their family.

So where do they go. Shortage of social housing, reduced private rental pool, increased house prices, inability to get credit, increased immigration ( a lot of which are quite able to pay private rents)

Quite a dilemma the current and previous governments have caused by their policies and expansion of the benefits system.

Reply to the comment left by "Gary Nock" at "11/01/2014 - 13:05":

If the references in this thread relate to Governments policy being to remove the choices of whether to work or not Gary that's surely a good thing isn't it, provided those in genuine need of support such as the frail, elderly and severely disabled people who are genuinely unable to support themselves are still protected of course?

A huge part of me thinks it's a good thing that good thing that government are doing. That possibly makes any landlord who decides to work against government policies a fool does it not.

Fergus is certainly no fool from what I can gather.

The message seems very clear to me; if you want a roof over you head, as well as an iphone, holidays and a flat screen TV then get off your arse and get a job!

The message to landlords is equally clear; rent to lazy benefits seekers who are capable of working at your own peril.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Ben Reeve-Lewis" at "10/01/2014 - 14:52":

Thank you Ben and Mark, for noticing my own question/comment within this thread.
I know it's not exactly on topic, but related to Mr Wilson's case...

Thanks Ben for pointing out that council tenants have further rights, I will be researching the rights of secure and assured tenants in due course
and my point for including my question in this thread is that..

...it is not only private landlords trying to 'purge' their portfolios, councils too !!

Cambridge City Council have been sending out letters to HB claimants to tenants with only a few pounds of arrrears, and as mentioned, at £93, a Notice of Eviction threat !!

I will be looking into whether this can be regarded as harassment of tenants on secure or assured tenancies of their right to enjoy their home without harassment.

This is causing distress and anxiety to the tenants who are receiving these letters.
People in vulnerable situations with limited incomes when receiving these letters will possibly suffer depression as well due to the stress and worry.

This would be totally out of order from PRS lanlords, we would be taken to the cleaners by a court !!!

councils purging their tenants now preparing for UC , why should't they. in fact they are going further than this. Hull CC are actually trying to attract and in indeed pinching the best tenants from the local PRS. As per my initial thread on page 1 there is a glut of houses up north. to few tenants chasing too many homes. The local council don't bother taking references and remove them from our houses with no notice!
i am surprised that no one has picked up on the extent of the north south divide and can only presume you all live south of the M25!
i also repeat most professional landlords are happy with payment direct. it works and the quicker it is rolled out to the public sector the better.why should they retain their wholly unfair position with payment direct to the council coffers.
thankfully we have a new housing minister from Yorkshire in Kris Hopkins , we we met last month. He fully appreciates the extent of the divide and how incompetent LA's are at managing property. The quicker they are forced into the market place with payment direct the quicker they might transfer their stock to RSL's . LA's wear far to many hats when it comes to the PRS - paymaster enforcer and competitor - and the quicker the 1st two are removed the better.Housing locally has for far to long been used as a political tool and not all LA's have had the guts to transfer their stock fearing they will alienate their voters. Roll on UC

I spoke to an agent in the leeds area, she told me a lady in the HB office suggested the following:

tenant needs two months rent as deposit,
they move in with no deposit, that makes them 2 months in arrears immediately,
therefore the landlord/lady can get the HB payments directly from day one due to the arrears.

is there a flaw in that ?

I would imagine the paperwork would have to be done carefully to make it legal.

Reply to the comment left by "Jeremy Smith" at "12/01/2014 - 13:00":

Jeremy I can hear Industry Observer gnashing his teeth over his Sunday lunch on this one already ( LOL)

If they move in without paying a deposit- then that's the landlords lookout if it goes wrong. They should pay a months rent in advance. Deposits a deposit, rent is rent. Do not confuse the two in this scenario or it could end in tears.