Average tenant pays £40,000 in rent over five years

So wouldn't they be better off starting with a home costing a little less than average?

It includes insurance? Painting? Clearing blocked drains? Renewing the boiler? Legal fees? SDLT? ............ Boring z z z z z yawn

So is Cambell Robb trying to make a point? Would he like to get rid of most of the PRS? Limiting choice? Disadvantaging the vulnerable who can't get council or social housing for ten years - or a lot less if getting pregnant helps?

The lifestyle renters will be ok, the type I would prefer if those on HB or worse UC leave? Those lifestyle renters will be fine, well catered for, especially by the corporates, not so the disabled, single, battered, unemployable, disadvantaged. The very type I mistakenly thought Shelter was protecting. But like so many other charities, I guess those executives at the top get a good salary, and have gone up-market?

But rent guarantees? Yes, cos those desparate, that want to "move in at the end of the week", are the very ones with a dodgy past, that are more likely to be unable to pay after 3 months. Little wonder there's more tenants to choose from, good ones move much less often, and all landlords want to hang onto them. And corporates will no doubt want large deposits and guarantors, leaving more of the dross tenants for the PRS to home. And harder to get rid of, with the likes of Shelter helping them to play the system.

Robb, are you listening. No, thought not!

From their 2013/14 report https://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/924416/2013-14_Shelter_Annual_Report_and_Accounts.pdf

I note Shelter say there were 200,000 retaliatory evictions.

They don't mention how many were in retaliation for not paying their rent. Context?

Even though they only helped 65,000 with face to face meetings.

Rising property prices I see gave them a gain of £3m on their freehold offices. Useful.

But Robb did not earn quite as much as the PM. A MERE £128,000.

Sorry Chris I cannot take Mr Robb seriously due to his socialist anti landlord rhetoric. But nice to see he is on a good little earner!

Full quote for Shelter: "we know that last year 200,000 people were threatened with retaliatory eviction."

What does that even mean? How do they know?

This is just the usual spin.

Here another stat based on their claim: Shelter's CEO is paid 60 pence per threat of retaliatory eviction.

Interesting use of language by Shelter Romain. Not "we estimate 200,000" - it's a very emphatic "we know". And yes - how do they know?

Shelter is a charity and gets all the "tax reliefs" of a charity when in reality it looks like a business to me. About time George, Zippy and Bungle aka Osbourne, Cameron, and Lewis clamped down on this "unfair tax relief" which normal homeowners do not get ☺

The question shouldn't be around why there are so many LLs. That's obvious: to meet the rental demand.

What creates the demand? The argument being put forward by GO and Shelter seems to be trying to claim that greedy LLs are creating demand. That's impossible, unless we are some maverick marketing genius able to cause a paradigm shift in the economy and society.

*Sigh* It's simple, GO and government - listen up and I'll try to explain.

There is not enough housing. That creates inflation in house prices, that means it's harder for those on lower income, those with bad credit, and those with volatile lifestyles to buy homes. They then can only be housed in the rental sector. There isn't enough LA housing, thanks to previous government policy, so the PRS increases to meet the demand for rental. Thank goodness! Where would these people live otherwise?

If clause 24 does go through, along with all the other fabricated attacks on the housing market coming from the Tory government, it's going to be very very interesting to see what happens to the economy and housing.

GO is playing like an ignoramus, creating false market influence on a very big beast. Maybe some clever economist can predict what GO's stupidity is going to mean, but I think it's going to be an almighty mess. And it will affect so many ... a ripple effect.

It's not difficult. The only way to solve the housing bubble / inflation / growing rental sector is to build more housing.

The policy seems to be corporate build to rent which goes against all the disingenuous rhetoric about helping FTBs.

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Byways" at "05/03/2016 - 16:14":

Or perhaps moving to an area where average property prices are far less.

I refer you to my article here:

http://www.property118.com/campbell-robb-supporting-tenant-tax/85102/#comment-74218

The whole premise behind quoting the figure of £40,000 is ridiculous. Many tenants in the social sector pay similar amounts to tenants in the PRS. What is the point of this statistic? The only point can be to say, ridiculously, that landlords should not take this rent in payment for providing housing but should foot all the costs of others living in our properties - as though we are a charity funded by Government and donations, rather than a business funded by ourselves. Pure anti-landlord propaganda which flies in the face of all common sense. Stupid, in other words.

"charity Shelter has revealed."

charity? CHARITY?

This is a GRAVY TRAIN for FAT CATS. ROBBers!

They are a money making 'wheeze' to pay the fat cats at the top. Rather like Facebook paying out £280M in bonuses to staff to avoid the Google tax. Anyone can make an organisation non profit making by paying larger salaries.

Who needs a salary of £128,000 no doubt + expenses + pension. And how many desparate people have they homed?

I expect I have helped more than they have. And many, or most even on here have done far more than I to help homeless.

They may have saved some from eviction - by teaching the feckless how to play the system? At our expense?

They should find a way to separate the needy from the greedy, the CAN'T pay from the WON'T pay.

Anyone dedicated to really helping the homeless could live very well on £50k pa and have a little more empathy with his clients.