Agent responsible for PMQs UC eviction letter meeting PM’s Policy Board Chairman and Shadow Housing Minister

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 21/11/2017 - 08:01
Renting property is a business and the aim is to make a profit without suffering extreme stress.It is now the case that if you operate in the housing benefit market, life as a landlord is very tough.Why is this?
(1) The housing benefit rates are low. Now this was not too much of a problem prior to section 24,but now that I cant deduct my interest costs properly, I will lose my personal tax allowance and the wear and tear allowance, it means my tax bill will increase at least 4 times.This means I need to do something to survive like achieve the highest possible rents.In fact the incentive to do this has never been greater.This means no more housing benefit and hello eastern europeans.
(2)When housing benefit tenants become universal credit customers, the tenant gets the money and when the resulting arrears are reported to Universal Credit using a UC47 unsecured form, DWP still carry on paying the defaulting tenant.If you phone DWP to complain the response you get is "we can only sort this out if the tenant cooperates with the landlord and consents to an enquiry" My response to this was "Do you really think the tenant is going to cooperate to an enquiry when she is getting all the rent money and not passing it on"? Oh I see your point but there is nothing more we can do. At this point I feel like banging my head against a brick wall as I can't quite believe that DWP could possibly invent such a ridiculous system.What person in their right mind would want to provide accommodation to the poorest and most vulnerable when the price for doing so is low rents, section 24 and the universal credit system?

I have been dealing with housing benefit tenants for 15 years and I feel like I'm being mentally tortured.Slowly I am moving away from it and the idea about issuing mass section 21's before getting involved in UC is very sensible.It's called risk minimization.Now if the politicians cant understand that they must be seriously stupid.

A final warning that I would make to the politicians is that when the tax bills arrive in January 2019 many landlords will think the calculation is a mistake.When they go back to their accountants and find it is not a mistake and that the tax bill will get even worse over the next 3 years, there will be mass evictions for the poorest and an acceleration in property sales.The Courts will be jammed with section 21's and section 8's.Basically homelessness will accelerate but the politicians cant see it.They need to be enlightened before it's too late.

Reply to the comment left by Mike D at 21/11/2017 - 09:00
Yes that is what UC doesn't get, we have a mortgage to pay which ultimately whether UC likes it or not, comes from UC. Mortgage pays for the house for UC tenant to live in, no UC in, no mortgage paid, no house, more money for authority in homeless costs.

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 21/11/2017 - 16:53
Yes, I've done the compensation route with LHA loads of times ( as they say can't pay for same benefit period twice, so has to be paid as compensation), but UC are saying nothing exists like that with UC. They seem a law unto themselves at the moment.
Something much more needs to be done, UC only fractionally in the country at the moment & it's already bedlam.

Reply to the comment left by Bill Morgan at 22/11/2017 - 00:45You got that right Bill, I had stress with HB 20 years ago when first started, complained a lot, put forward some ideas to Govt which are now routinely implemented (like the permission letters on the forms), & for last 10 years or so, with top common sense HB people, it's been relatively painless.
UC has turned the clock back 20 years. Even 9 years ago when LHA came in, bedlam ensued. BUT HB/LHA staff have learn't & applied changes. UC not learning at all from the experienced HB staff. Someone has to be PROPER THICK to not learn these lessons. You might as well bang your head on a wall.
Ridiculous in't it, for UC to say we need to ask tenant if paid u & if he says he has, we keep paying him. This wouldn't even get in a too far-fetched film, it's too daft to believe.
Ha ha u say banging head on brick wall too.
Yes, I've housed hundreds of homeless HB tenants, & as my houses come up, I'm going the Letting Agent posh route. I think the GOVT will come begging for us 2021 when the penny finally drops.

Thank you all for the comments so far...some excellent points and a lot of useful information. I will also print off a number of these comments to hand to him (along with a list of all the recent changes in legislation that is having a detrimental impact on the industry), so that he can take it away and have a quiet read of what us landlords 'on-the-ground' actually think. It may just shed some light and common sense on the matter and highlight what our masters have missed.

So in an interesting development, George Freeman yesterday resigned as Chair of the Prime Minister's Policy Board!

The head of Theresa May’s policy board has resigned amid calls for a radical shake-up of the Tory party.

Mid Norfolk MP George Freeman has stepped down from his role as chair of the Number 10 policy board to concentrate on reforming the party, in another blow to Theresa May's weakened administration.

Mr Freeman said Conservative chairman Patrick McLoughlin needed to be replaced and called for a new team at CCHQ to rejuvenate the party.

It comes in the wake of several high-profile departures from Ms May's top team, as Sir Michael Fallon stood down as Defence Secretary amid sexual harassment allegations while International Development Secretary Priti Patel was also forced to resign for holding a string of secret meetings with senior Israeli figures.

Mr Freeman had clashed with Downing Street on the party's direction and wrote to Ms May saying the Tories risked alienating young voters if it allowed itself to be "defined as narrow party of nostalgia, hard Brexit, public sector austerity and lazy privilege".

See more here: https://goo.gl/CaG522

I have just received a UC newsletter, which includes a link to the following document that appears to suggest a system is being worked on to allow RSLs a fast-track backdoor into UC whilst us PRS LLs are left out in the cold, so-to-speak.

Not read/digested it yet, but that's my initial assessment after a very brief scan...

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644104/research-into-trusted-partner-scheme-universal-credit-social-housing.pdf

Who said deserting the sinking ship ?

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 22/11/2017 - 10:30
What, - do you mean inequality in the way Social Housing is treated compared to the PRS ? - SURELY Not ! sic
Anyway, I heard that Social Housing was being shifted into the Private sector classification, just to shift £60bn of debt of the books - lots of 'cooking' going on wonder if /when the papers are waking up to it

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 22/11/2017 - 10:30
Thanks for the link, Luke. I have read the paper. It is filled with unstated assumptions and a lot of sociological Newspeak. A couple of key sentences are:

"Trusted Partners had more streamlined access to Alternative Payment Arrangements (APAs) but were required to demonstrate support provided to the tenant to move towards financial independence."
and
"Trusted Partners want to be known and treated as ‘partners’ rather than ‘stakeholders’, with a joint vested interest in making UC work."

In the world of Government all sorts of people are called "partners" even if they do not share (a) a bed or (b) the risks and rewards of a business enterprise. It sounds nice and cuddly and strips the word of its meaning. "Ooh look at us. We are working with our "partners" on some grandiose project. Please pat us on the back."

By financial independence, I assume they do not mean getting off UC and earning a living but rather being allowed to manage their "own" (a euphemism for taxpayers') money. The simple fact is that if housing benefit (or the element of UC given for housing) is NOT paid to the landlord, some tenants will not pay it to landlords. The unspoken, but obvious, conclusion is that in order for this bit of social engineering to work innocent third parties (landlords) must lose out. Landlords are involuntary creditors. They are compelled to extend credit to tenants. If a tenant blows his UC on fast women and slow horses that is his prerogative. He cannot then march into Tesco and demand a shopping trolley full of groceries. He can, however, get extended credit from his landlord.

The research paper is interesting for what it does not discuss. There is no mention of loss to the public purse, and very litle consideration of people whose lives and lifestyles are disorganised.

There is mention that [social] "Landlords need certainty about their income in order to suspend arrears control procedures while awaiting payments". This assumes that the RSLs will happily hang about waiting for UC to be paid. They may have that luxury. Private landlords who want to remain in business do not. I hope MPs realise that they are driving the PRS away from this sector.