Meet The Housing Minister – Tell Him What You Think

PLEASE NOTE EVENT CHANGE:

Wed 22nd Feb Cambridge
Time: 15:00 – 16:30 Hosted by Cambridge City Council at Homerton College

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "16/02/2017 - 11:59":

I have just received confirmation from Kerry.Hewitt@cambridge.gov.uk that all the tickets for this event have already been taken.

Reply to the comment left by "April van Es" at "17/02/2017 - 12:36":

Sounds like placards and heckling outside the event then.

Gateshead is sold out

Get tickets for York here https://www.eventbrite.com/e/fixing-the-broken-housing-market-tickets-32132738887#tickets

Taunton sold out

my search for the South East England Development Agency found that:

'The South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) closed at the end of March 2012, following the coalition government’s decision to abolish Regional Development Agencies. In order to maintain public access to the economic information archive that was previously available on SEEDA’s website, this information is now available through SEEC’s website'.

I have emailed what looks like possibly the correct SEEC (my Google search revealed several) and will post any response I receive in order to to update this site

Based on the slightly exasperated response I, and many others, had from Gavin Barwell last week I suspect he's got a pretty good idea of the opinions of the Private Sector Landlords so I'm not at all surprised that he's excluded us from the list. I actually see this as nothing but positive (except for the 'England only' thing which is shameful) and a sign that he's heard us but needs a more rounded perspective. That's how I'm choosing to interpret it anyway.

I have spoken to local councillors in my area and all are of the same opinion that the PRS is vital and that Section 24 is wrong so hopefully that will be echoed around the country by other local councillors who attend. I am sure the local authority planning departments will communicate the lack of available land to build which is a significant block to the planned 250,000 houses being proposed. Housing officers will, presumably, talk about the increasing need for housing, their reliance of PRS to pick up the slack, the increased use and significant expense of temporary accommodation and, hopefully, the impact already felt by them due to private sector landlords selling up or increasing rents. Large and small developers will echo the planning departments regarding the lack of available land and also the fact that none of them have enough money to invest to build the number of houses required. I don't know enough about the workings of the housing associations except to say that they are selling off their stock and focusing on new builds which are cheaper for them because of lower maintenance costs further down the line. So yet more housing disappearing. Not really sure of the impact on estate agents, as far as I can tell, regardless of the reasons, there's going to be a lot of buying and selling and I'm not sure they'll mind too much how that is generated. Am sure letting agents will have their own drum to bang about losing revenue but I can't help thinking that, like us, they're demonised and would potentially be seen as having their own agenda based on their need to make money. If there's one thing I've learnt during this whole campaign is that we are in the 'most hated' group in the UK, along with estate agents and traffic wardens!

Don't know, but, on the whole, I'm not totally upset by the exclusion of us landlords from the invitation list. As you have said, Gavin Barwell is listening and, from what I've been told about meetings he's had with Landlord Associations, I think he gets where we're coming from, they know we're here, they heard us. We just have to hope that Gavin Barwell will listen more closely to the other housing professions than the members of the Select Committee did in December when Dame Barker spoke about the impact of shutting down the Private Rental Sector before they've had time to build the housing needed. The hope is that he goes away with a more in-depth 360 degree understanding of the housing issues as a whole and, from that, conclude that Section 24 is just a very bad idea.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "16/02/2017 - 12:00":

I believe your suggestion that we should each refer to ourselves as a "Private Housing Provider" is a flash of inspiration Mark.

I believe it has the potential to transform our vulnerable position as Landlords, if we all adopt it universally.

Everyone is happy to slag off and support bankrupting "Landlords" because landlords are well established as scum, as we know.

Amazingly, however, I suspect that if you took a survey asking people "Should there be more government help for "Private Housing Providers", to encourage them to provide good quality, affordable rental housing?" there would be an almost unanimous positive response.

Change back our label from "Private Housing Provider" to "Landlord" in the very same survey and I'd bet you (more than a pint) that the response will change from a large positive to a massively hostile negative.

All in a name then it would seem.

Those of my generation will remember the huge early public concerns about the deadly potential dangers of the early nuclear power stations. When the evidence built up, against one particular power station, "Windscale", for having dangerous leaks and safety problems, such that public opinion was becoming very vocal and active, the government of the time came up with the perfect solution.

Did they address the very real problems of the industry? Did they make the said nuclear power station safer? Don't be silly, there was a much simpler and virtually cost free alternative.

Change the name of the offending power station!

"Windscale Nuclear Power Station" became "Sellafield Nuclear Power Station", effectively starting again with a clean sheet!! All the public momentum against Windscale, and all the negative publicity associated with the name Windscale, disappeared virtually over night. After all, Windscale didn't exist anymore.

We can do the same with the toxic label "Landlord". WE MUST NEVER USE IT AGAIN.

I believe absolutely everyone must, from now on, refuse to ever again say the term "Landlord" in any context. Always say "Private Housing Provider". Wherever possible, make the same substitution in documents. Although there may be legal exceptions where we cannot yet do this, it shouldn't matter too much. Remove the toxic term from common parlance and the job will be done.

Once the term "Landlord" is removed from the vernacular, the focus for the hate and prejudice disappears with it.

Once "Landlords" cease to exist, in common parlance, there will remain only the amorphous, collective group known as "Private Housing Providers" (in all its different shapes and sizes of course).

Without the contaminated "Landlord" hate label on our chests, the vitriolic media supported, general public and establishment campaign to destroy us will no longer have an easy target.

We will become indistinguishable from all the other "good guys" who provide private housing. We will become just another "invisible" component in the mix.

How about getting the ball rolling Mark. Remove the word everywhere from your website. No longer "The Landlords Union". From hereon; "The Private Housing Providers Union".

"The Landlord is dead. Long live the Private Housing Provider"

Kind Regards

Peter

Gidea Park Properties
Private Housing Provider

Reply to the comment left by "Peter Ekers" at "18/02/2017 - 14:25":

Yes, Peter. We have discussed doing this in the past and it is good that you have elaborated on the benefits of this. As you say, we should try and do this as much as possible.