Equality laws could affect “no benefit tenants” policies

Reply to the comment left by sam at 28/02/2018 - 10:16
its not the tenants that i find objectionable--its dealing with the dross at the council

Reply to the comment left by David Evans at 03/03/2018 - 12:36
it was meant to lead to problems

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 26/02/2018 - 11:18
I rent to single mothers on benefits and if they get a job so they have to pay a top up about 85 per cent fall behind with their rent.This figure is on the conservative side and if the Government want to check my figures they can and I will show them the cases. I now switch to polish tenants because they seem more reliable payers. I have tremendous sympathy for single mothers because I believe the default rate is high not because they are dishonest but because they live in poverty .

In the past I have been very tolerant of the financial hardships of single mothers and the subsequent loss of rent but with s 24 putting me under increased financial pressure I am not taking housing benefit anymore as I can get higher rents with the polish and I can use the money to pay the tax bill

If the Government want landlords to take benefit claimants they should consider acting as guarantor for the rents.Accusing landlords of discriminating against benefit tenants amounts to willfull blindness considering the Government have introduced s 24 ,frozen housing benefit rates and introduced universal credit.

Shelter support s.24 and therefore they are hurting the very people they claim to support.

Perhaps the institutional investors like Legal and General should rent to single mothers instead of targeting the most lucrative city centre investments which they will rent to highly paid professionals .Benefit tenants won't stand a chance

Reply to the comment left by Bill Morgan at 16/03/2018 - 13:27Any sympathy I might have harboured for alleged "single mothers" has evaporated based on personal experience. Not only do they manipulate that very fact by demanding more sympathetic treatment but in fact appear to expect it. The" single mother" I am presently involved in evicting is seasoned at milking a system ostensibly set up to assist mothers in distress. Not only is she GBP18 189.29 in arrears, and this is before I have costed the damages to my trashed unit, but she sports her long list of evictions and judgments as trophies. She never pays utilities, if they are applicable to the property and not the tenant, so there is a further almost GBP3 000 00 heating account I will have to settle on her behalf. What I find particularly reprehensible is that Council/Shelter are aware of her history and continue to advise her to stop paying rent on receipt of a Section 21 and assist her in lodging spurious defences which prevent an accelerated eviction thus forcing the landlord into a Section 8 eviction. This process will have taken me from August 2017 to April 2018 to have the process finalised and a Bailiff set down date set by the Court. In other words "gate-keeping" is a recognised strategy used by Council/Shelter and there is no concern about repeat offenders. This tenant is aware that on the day she is evicted she need only present herself to the nearest Council to be instantly housed. I'm not sure what will happen to the extended adult family she never notes on the lease but surreptitiously houses.
It has become a categorical imperative that Council/Shelter are held equally liable for the arrears and damages of tenants if they persist in advising them to stop paying rent and wait out the mandatory lengthy eviction process.
They should :
Assist in educating the tenant about responsible tenant behaviour to ensure continued housing in the Private Landlord Sector.
Approach private landlords with the long term view of formulating an amicable and workable solution to the rising housing shortage.
Desist in undermining the private rental system by making landlords responsible for housing rogue tenants at the landlords cost.
Be aware that their very support of rogue tenants ensures that landlords become resistant to housing them.
As the matter now stands, by alienating the private rental sector, Council/Shelter are merely contributing to the problem of rising rentals, housing shortages and a growing tenant population who feel entitled to free housing.
And I for one am opting out of that. No tenant will be permitted to rent one of my empty properties again and I will be thankful once I have liquidated the whole portfolio.

Reply to the comment left by DALE ROBERTS at 17/03/2018 - 11:34
How are they defending s.21/accelerated possession?

"she sports her long list of evictions and judgments as trophies."

Why did you let to her in the first place?

If a tenant lodges a defence to the Section 21, as they are entitled to, the case will have to go to court as opposed to an unopposed Section 21 which is ordered on without a court hearing. I speak only from my own experience obviously. The tenant can delay the court case for some weeks until, as in my case, the Judge ordered her to present verifiable evidence by a final court date. By then she was 4 months in arrears so we also issued a Section 8 in order to have a judgment against her.
She did not attend the final court date and my request to have the High Court issue Writs of Eviction and Control was refused. The Judge felt that the County Court Bailiffs could attend to the matter of the eviction. I will have to go to court again to get a Writ of Control. The final court date was the 15th February 2018. The set down date for Bailiffs to evict is the 3rd April. The tenant has paid no rent since August 2017. Her manipulation of the system ensured she has had seven months of free accommodation at my cost and with the full collusion of Council/Shelter.

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 17/03/2018 - 12:05
As already clarified, I was one of the many landlords who was approached by Oliver-Knights who were seeking upmarket apartments for a corporate client. A 3 year lease was duly signed after the tenant presented us with an outstanding credit history. Oliver-Knights were therefore given the keys to the apartment and mandated to manage the tenant. We learnt to our horror some months into the lease that the corporate client had not taken occupation and that we had an unknown tenant in our property with a lease signed by persons unknown to us. It is a repeat of the nightmare many landlords in the UK found themselves in - Oliver-Knights embezzled huge amounts of deposits and commissions before being exposed. Paul Shamplina spearheaded an investigation into the scandal and it was also aired on national TV. The UK authorities, including the police and Action Fraud, ignored the fraud and Oliver-Knights closed shop owing hundreds of thousand of pounds. They now operate under another name.
But landlords found themselves having to honour fraudulent leases until such time as the tenant presented them with a reason to evict them.
I have owned property in the UK for 7 years as a non-resident BTL investor. This is the first tenant I have had to evict because I take extreme care in who I rent to.
And Oliver-Knights are hardly a novelty in the UK. The industry is rife with examples of scam agents. And it will continue to be so whilst it remains so unregulated.