Angela Rayner launches £1 billion scheme to tackle evictions

Reply to the comment left by Kurt Peterson at 20/12/2024 - 12:50
I only rent to people with families that are local to my area and that have a long history of living in the area. This means I can research the families to decide if the tenant is likely to be a good one. All part of risk mitigation.

I’ll never let a property again (firmly in the selling phase) and I’ll choose my buyers with the same due care.

Just a thought. Does anyone actually believe that even Angela believes what she says?

Reply to the comment left by Julian Lloyd at 20/12/2024 - 10:47
Whether this does anything useful or not or is simply a waste of tax payer's money I think depends upon whether those "deposits" are really something that landlords would be able to rely on if the tenant damages the property.

Of course, if you are only allowed 5 weeks' worth of deposit and the council wants to house somebody who is homeless but has no prospect of regular income without committing to cover the rent as well and landlords aren't going to be able to get their properties back without maybe 1-2 years in court then this "investment" isn't going to make any difference. It won't be an "investment" so much as another £1 billion from the magic-money-tree.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 20/12/2024 - 14:24
These schemes are nothing new, I used to accept housing benefit tenants in part of my portfolio and the deposit was often provided under a local authority scheme. I seem to recall that when deposit protection came in it changed to more like a bond that the LA underwrote a certain sum rather than hand it over.

Not sure if LAs still do this, but of course their funding has been reduced over the years. I had plenty of decent tenants and of course HB was direct to LL then.

Like most else, there was a time when, whilst not perfect, things jogged along and everyone was reasonably happy (except perhaps Polly Neate). I would describe it as the pre- Osborne era, as opposed to post - Osborne where it has just turned to a crock of the proverbial with every politician topping it up..

Bonkers aren't they. They want to stop Section 21. Which is the very reason why we give them a house in the first place. Stop that = No house.

Get UC to talk to Landlords (zero cost) = Less homeless.

Cut the cruel Section 24 = Less homeless.

Cut Selective Licensing which increases rents = Less homeless.

The list goes on.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 20/12/2024 - 15:09
I think that's an important point that government has failed to grasp.

Angela Rayner has just promised an extra billion pounds from the magic-money-tree. This government thinks that their increase in employer's National Insurance is going to feed the magic-money-tree, but in reality everybody that doesn't believe in fairies, Keynesian economics fairy-land and happy-ever-afters (because they have actually run a business) knows that it's going to make the magic-money-tree run out of water and die.

Raising employer's national insurance damages SMEs, so it damages most of the UK economy. It doesn't appear to the public sector that it affects them as much because the cost of their increased NI contributions comes from the magic-money-tree.

But the very important point you make is that the reason councils need extra money from the magic-money-tree in the first place is that government is pursuing inflationary policies that drive rents up.

Maybe they could spend that billion to pay landlords any owed rent.

That way the court backlog would not be such a problem, and landlords could let many more late payers stay.

Reply to the comment left by David100 at 20/12/2024 - 15:47
In much the same way that their increase in employer's national insurance doesn't actually raise revenue but raises inflation and damages the economy instead, the effect of government policies that drive rents up (and yes, we can all make a big list of those) is that their (our) £1 billion will just disappear in a puff of fairy dust with no extra accommodation to show for the "investment".

"Largest ever investment.." my a**e. More like the largest ever sticking plaster.

Yet the English Housing Survey, commissioned by the Government, showed that satisfaction with accommodation in the PRS was HIGHER in every single Englsih area when compared to the social sector which receives massive subsidies. What kind of 'fiscal prudence' is this? Do you penalise the best performers and encourage and subsidise the worst? Perhaps Reeves or Rayner could respond?

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 20/12/2024 - 12:46
They may make it illegal - discriminatory - to reject anyone, whatever their record, because the Councils need to put their applicants somewhere, and the shrinking PRS is all that's left.