Guardian accuses Landlords of ‘ripping off’ Councils

Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 03/01/2019 - 10:28
Thank you for the encouragement but on the contrary I'm not giving up. I feel sorry for my tenants who will have to bear the brunt of these increases.

Thanks to Labour MP Karen Buck, homes fit for human habitation bill or amendment would quite obviously cause more homelessness, and higher rents, it is plain and simple common sense, if there are two properties, one is of a higher standard and one slightly less accommodating, then it would naturally mean the rents in the higher standard properties would be higher and unaffordable by many, so you have a choice to go for slightly lower standard accommodation, still fit for humans and pay less rent at the expense of slightly lower standards. Take for instance if all the carriages in a train were forced to be made of as high standard as First Class cabins, then all the commuters would need to pay higher fare, same as those paying for 1st Lass travel.
That is plain and simple common sense that many of our politicians lack.
So now the consequences of which would be properties not meeting good living standards must be brought up to those standards where rents would go up, if tenants cannot afford higher rents then the consequences of that would be more homelessness. Politicians you cannot have your cake and eat it.
Check this article: https://fullfact.org/economy/did-mps-vote-against-homes-having-be-made-fit-live-in/?gclid=CjwKCAiAgrfhBRA3EiwAnfF4tpqBFVsbETx1VsQ9kATEXxUENTeSdLwCDlztKZsajE-ympSsmaR8QhoCawQQAvD_BwE

Reply to the comment left by Gromit at 02/01/2019 - 17:11
All those things are not free whether the council employs the staff to run them or a firm to provide the service. That firm is still making a profit on their service provision.

As for purchasing properties a 20+% deposit is still a significant capital investment by councils who are being increasingly hamstrung by central government cutbacks. (A 20+% deposit on the price of family homes or tower blocks in central London locations will be significant, so your reference to NO tax payers money being tied up is confusing). I’m not sure I understand your inclusion of insurance on the list as I certainly wasn’t imagining councils starting their own insurance firms to cover their properties, they will be paying those insurance costs themselves.

Currently landlords fund ALL those things from the rent they charge tenants, so that’s zero administration for councils, just a flat monthly fee dictated by market forces - as would be the costs to the council of purchasing these services directly, plus their administrative costs of a team to facilitate it. (These things are not arranged by magic).

I think we have to have another look at how Social Housing is allocated. The needs based approach is forcing people to claim they are homeless and separated even though they may not be. I think we should go back to councils being able to allocate housing as they see fit e.g. bungalows kept for pensioners or disabled people.

Reply to the comment left by Kate Mellor at 02/01/2019 - 16:44
No thanks. Not for me, I prefer tenants who can pass a lifestyle check and rent guarantee requirements.

Reply to the comment left by Kate Mellor at 03/01/2019 - 18:49
I agree with what you say. In principle all revenue costs should come out of rents received. Whether a LA would have to put 20% deposit I'm not sure if they have the same requirements for deposits as a private Landlord, If they could borrow 100% then they'd have no money tied up was the point I was making.

Reply to the comment left by Bill Williams at 05/01/2019 - 08:28
That’s fine Bill it’s free choice, however far more landlords WOULD accept tenants on benefits if councils treated them as stakeholders, and gave them surety that rent would be received. There are in fact a number of excellent landlords on this forum whose key target group is low income and benefits tenants and I’m pretty sure they’d welcome a less combatative relationship with their LHAs.

My point really was more from a councils perspective that we shouldn’t be seen as blood sucking leaches on the system. That we have a valid, cost effective place, we provide a much needed service at a reasonable (in most areas) price and we are not the enemy. I realise I’m preaching to the converted here.

Reply to the comment left by Gromit at 05/01/2019 - 08:56
Point taken Gromit, thanks for clarifying. It’s a shame government departments don’t have the wherewithal to take a more business-like approach to their operations. I’d be bloody Richard Branson by now if I could get 100% mortgages 👍🏽

Reply to the comment left by Kate Mellor at 05/01/2019 - 11:16
But until they’re either spending their own money or there are severe consequences for failure comparable to, say, bankruptcy (for a LL that really cocks up)…and I’m thinking Housing Department leader AND Head of the Council sacked, loss of pension and to never hold a public office again (actually, make it six years to keep in line with the bankruptcy comparison)…they’ll never learn and never change.

Unfortunately do you really think they have the nouse let alone the appetite to work like normal businesses. We applied for planning for a straight forward conversion of a care home into 12 luxury flats to sell guess how long planning took ? ....... 14 months we had to plough on anyway or it would have ruined us then we had conditions attached that needed satisfying before we could refinance and that took 3 months this is the type of people you are dealing with they work at a snails pace and have no idea how business in the real world works I couldn’t think of anything worse than working along side them regular would drive u mad .