10:43 AM, 20th May 2019, About 6 years ago 125
Text Size
And so the onslaught against private landlords continues. Earlier this month, we were shocked to hear that a cornerstone of tenancy law in the UK was to be overturned, with the scrapping of Section 21. Farcically, we were told that a consultation would take place after the decision had been made.
This was an unexpected move, as in fact the Government had been conducting one of their ‘post-decision’ consultations on the idea of ‘3-year tenancies’ (something Shelter had been pushing for). Section 21s had not even been on the agenda. Such is the floundering, knee-jerk politics of today, that a completely different policy decision emerged from it.
The abolition of Section 21s had been called for by the anti-landlord organisation Generation Rent. As part of their campaign, they deliberately misrepresented Section 21 by repeatedly referring to it as a ‘no fault’ eviction – such that this phrase is now used by everyone, as though landlords evict the clients they are dependent on to cover the costs of their businesses, ‘for no reason.’
In fact, as we all know, often Section 21 is used because it is the least awful solution to dealing with rogue tenants. The anti-landlord representatives say it means landlords can evict ‘at a moment’s notice’ when in fact, although it is supposed to take 2 months, the average time taken is 6-7 months if the tenant does not want to leave. During this time, the tenant is often paying no rent.
The reason the only other possible Section – Section 8 – is not used as often is because the tenant can raise spurious defences, for example lying that the house is in disrepair. The judge often then adjourns the case and the tenant gets even more months rent-free, while the landlord is pushed further into debt through no fault of their own – some even have to take out loans to cover the mortgage on the rental in which the tenant is living.
This is not only costly financially; a survey has found that private landlords’ mental health also suffers significantly because of, amongst other things, the way that the system is set up to enable these rogue tenants to ruin landlords financially, especially, as it is often the case they also wilfully wreck the property. Landlords’ mental health | National Landlords Association
This can cost landlords tens of thousands of pounds. No-one in Government is looking at this issue at all. The demonisation of private landlords has gone so far, hardly anyone in politics or the media is speaking up for them, despite them facing these gross injustices and the legal system completely letting them down.
And now, if, as is expected, the Government continues with its move to scrap Section 21, ‘charities’ like Generation Rent and Shelter will start pushing for the next punitive measure against landlords; the most likely contender for this is to somehow force landlords to take tenants on benefits, even if this is not the client group landlords wish to occupy their properties.
Shelter has been conducting a campaign on this for some time and various Government Ministers have jumped on the virtue-signalling bandwagon. Shelter has even been bullying landlords and letting agents into removing the words ‘no DSS’ from adverts and they also threatened to sue a letting agent, before the agent settled out of court, rather than face the stress and costs of a court case. Shelter now represents this as a legal victory and claims it is now recognised as discriminatory to specify ‘no DSS.’ It isn’t. Being in receipt of benefits is not a protected characteristic according to equal opportunities legislation. Settling out of court to avoid the stress and costs of a £60 million ‘charity’ hounding you through the courts does not create new law.
As part of their campaign on this, Greg Beales, Campaign Director at Shelter, has claimed that there is no evidence that tenants are benefits are ‘less-good’ tenants than others. There’s ‘no evidence that people on benefits are ‘less-good tenants’, says Shelter spokesman
He said that, given that, landlords and letting agents who do not accept those on benefits are engaging in ‘disgusting’ and ‘immoral’ practices. https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/housing-benefit-renting-no-dss-shelter/
Such rhetoric demonstrates his ignorance. Of course as Shelter provides no housing to anyone, they would not have first-hand experience of the issues involved. As landlords, however, we know that there are many reasons why it makes no sense to accept people on low wages and/or on benefits. No amount of banning landlords and agents from specifying ‘no DSS’ will change these facts.
Some of the reasons why it often does not make sense to accept people on benefits as tenants:
This final point demonstrates how various forms of Government interference in the private rented sector are having the opposite results to the alleged intentions. One change causes landlords to not be able to take on tenants on benefits; the next tries to ban them from not taking on tenants on benefits. We all know the next will be rent caps. It is like trying to shove a lid on a boiling pot when it is about to boil over.
And at the same time that they are trying to ‘disallow’ landlords from having control over their own assets, are ‘disallowing’ landlords from offsetting their finance costs, and ‘disallowing’ landlords from choosing the tenants they want, they leave the social sector completely alone despite 61% of eviction notices actually coming from this sector 24housing and despite the fact that this sector also is moving away from accepting tenants on benefits.
As an expert on this said: “Shelter and the National Housing Federation are engaging in deliberate known deceit in their combined campaign over NO DSS in the private rented sector – A campaign that is so superficial it shames them both…Social landlords… do routinely operate affordability tests and they do refuse to accommodate the benefit tenant and thus they operate the same NO DSS practices as the private landlord.” https://speyejoe2.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/dear-polly/
Where is the hue and cry about that?
No. They turn a blind eye to this, because they are fixated to an almost manic degree on private landlords; a fixation which is already starting to wreck people’s lives by pushing them out of housing.
Monty Bodkin
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up10:12 AM, 21st May 2019, About 6 years ago
People on benefits naturally spend more time at home. This increases wear and tear on the property.
Real world example of this;
My DSS ex-tenants hardly ever left the property (although friends and family frequently visited). Excluding sleeping time, they spent around 15 hours a day each using the property. 210 hours per week. Unsurprisingly this required constant maintenance and upkeep.
Conversely, my latest tenant works all hours and spends 4 non sleeping hours per day using the property, and goes back to his hometown every Friday for the weekend. 16 hours per week. No maintenance other than gas safety check and annual inspection.
It is facile to claim there is no evidence to support this. Denying there is a problem isn't going to solve it.
Annie Landlord
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up19:51 PM, 22nd May 2019, About 6 years ago
Should landlords have the right to refuse DSS tenants? Absolutely not. Should landlords have the right to utilise standard commercial risk assessment procedures to protect their properties and their existing tenants. Absolutely yes.
Whiteskifreak Surrey
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up21:59 PM, 22nd May 2019, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Annie Landlord at 22/05/2019 - 19:51
Very well said Annie. This is all about risk assesment and mitigation of perceived consequences of renting to a certain type of tenant.
Dr Rosalind Beck
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up22:32 PM, 22nd May 2019, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 21/05/2019 - 10:12
Thanks, Monty. That's a very useful example. Shelter will deny the truth of this - probably call it 'prejudice.' You could show them the family's lifestyle and hours spent at home and they would deny the usage of the house was completely different for the two categories of tenant.
It also occurs to me that with larger families this is likely to be exacerbated. Landlords should also have the right to therefore choose a smaller group of tenants if they want to. No doubt this will at some point be a target for their 'taking over' of our private property and our right to choose to whom we want to hand over the keys to our expensive asset.
Mick Roberts
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up7:11 AM, 23rd May 2019, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Dr Rosalind Beck at 22/05/2019 - 22:32It's a fact, those on HB & I always talk law of averages, as everyone is different, but u get 100 HB people at home all day & 100 go to work, those at home, the repairs are more. I have evidence for this.
As I also have evidence when arguing with HB authorities, they'd say u shun't be charging more for bigger families. I'd say Ok, that cupboard door has shelf life of say 5000 openings & closings in 10 years let's say. U now have 6 kids, some of the kids when Mum not looking are now opening the door & it's now being opened 5000 times in 3 years (never mind the swinging on it & banging), we now have to replace after 3 years. It's fact, more kids in house, more damage, more maintenance-On average.
I have loads of HB houses, maybe now a dozen working out all day houses. The latter maintenance is virtually Nil. Cause they not in all day playing swings on doors.
Dr Rosalind Beck
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up8:01 AM, 23rd May 2019, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 23/05/2019 - 07:11
Very good explanation, Mick - the 'wear and tear' angle is clearly a legitimate argument, which can be evidenced. We can therefore say that 'on average' tenants who are likely to be home all day and who have children will incur greater costs for the landlord and the more children, the greater the cost.
Dylan Morris
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up8:34 AM, 23rd May 2019, About 6 years ago
I have a void on one of my fully furnished flats at the moment and I’m looking for new tenants. Rent is £650 pm and I’m guessing Housing Benefit would be around £400 (not exactly sure of amount as never let the property to a benefit tenant before). So with the benefit not covering the rent how can I possibly rent to a social tenant ? The property is in a private block built by Barratts around ten years ago. It was not built as social housing.
There are many issues why the establishment is having problems providing social housing, from the selling of council homes under the Thatcher administration and not building replacements, to over population due to high birth rates and constant mass immigration etc. None of this is my fault as a private landlord. It don’t want to rent to holidaymakers, students, social tenants or let with HMO’s. There’s nothing wrong with these areas of the market of course, it’s just not my business model. (Sainsbury’s sell groceries they aren’t forced to service cars and do MOT’s, same with me I rent to quality private tenants and don’t want to get involved, or have experience with, other areas of the market).
Chris @ Possession Friend
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up10:00 AM, 23rd May 2019, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 23/05/2019 - 08:34Well put Dylan, the key word in PRS is ' Private '
Similarly, political comments or suggestions about interfering with Rent controls has your same analogy.
When Sainsbury's costs in fuel or any regulatory compliance increases, the price we pay for a loaf of bread increases.
If anyone suggested imposing limits on what supermarkets could charge for a loaf of bread, we'd think they were 'half-baked' or else if enforced, pretty soon there would be shortages of bread. Or else, build state-owned bakeries (Houses )
Replace Supermarkets and bread, with Landlords and rent - and keep the word 'Private' in mind.
Above is a free tip for Government, as they seem to be sorely lacking in business acumen.
Mick Roberts
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up18:33 PM, 23rd May 2019, About 6 years ago
Missed your comment Monty. Yes absolutely spot on. I took the words out of your mouth or vice versa.
SimonR
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up15:32 PM, 24th May 2019, About 6 years ago
Part of our referencing process is an affordability check and any prospective has to have a checkable income not made up of LHA. I make this clear to everyone that applies to rent one of our properties. I do not refuse to rent to someone on benefits but to anyone that fails the referencing criteria as its the same for everyone.