National Landlords Alliance meets Sefton Council

Reply to the comment left by MoodyMolls at 03/05/2019 - 07:49
Yes, the consultation on Section 24 was another 'after the event' consultation. It consisted of experts and/or landlords being invited to send in detailed accounts and analyses of why this was such an outrageous and unfair attack on landlords. The MPs on the relevant committee then did not read a word of them as they 'didn't have time' for it. We have people who don't know what they're doing making decisions which have disastrous consequences not only for landlords and tenants but for trust in the political class.
To pick up on your other point, we also have statements from Brokenshire and Heather Wheeler talking about the need to 'rebalance' the relationship between landlords and tenants. They think we hold all the cards and the tenants are all innocent victims of us. In fact, once we have handed the keys over to our valuable asset, we have lost all power for some time and if we are unlucky or have been a bit soft, giving someone a chance even though they aren't in a great job with great references, we get royally screwed over to the tune of thousands of pounds. It is then presented as though the person who has effectively stolen all this money from us and caused us terrible stress is a poor victim of a 'no fault' eviction.

Firstly congratulations to Larry and all those who contributed to the sea- change with Sefton Councils admission that they are in breach of GDPR. Finally, a recognition that Landlords can and will ‘call out’ bad practice among Local Authorities. Great work!
I am also pleased to note that the Alliance is talking to the NLA & RLA. Perhaps the Alliance can help to breath new life into these two politically paled and ineffective organisations. We most certainly need a lot more unity and a change in culture that reflects a ‘fighting spirit’.
Turning to the Sec 21 Issue, there is no doubt that we will loose it, and that there will be a further loss of rental property as the life blood of the PRS , the small single owner landlord will steadily leave the sector. Exasperated by the sheer incompetence of the legislators and the relentless onslaught of hostility.
What eventually replaces Section 21 is an open question and will largely depend on effective lobbying and sharp responses to a biased media.
Finally a message to Gov on just one of so many grievances. The issue of accepting tenants dependent on UC and/or other benefits.

I will not accept any benefit tenants regardless of pressure to do so. I would rather sell up and leave the sector altogether.

1/ it’s not about the tenant/person. It’s all about the system.
2/ the benefit system is not fit for purpose and stresses all those who come into contact with it.
3/ it is fraught with risks of rent arrears, late payments, unfair terms, and ongoing conflict with local authorities endeavouring to force landlords to continue to house seriously bad tenants regardless of the circumstances.

I have already halved my property portfolio in the past 3 yrs and I am looking very carefully at what happens next.
Unfortunately I think the only time the Gov will wake up to the problems they have loaded on to the PRS is when it is blinding evident to the population at large that there really is not enough rental housing. That time, is fast approaching.

Reply to the comment left by Bristol Landlord at 03/05/2019 - 07:38
The Tory Party are in the pockets of big business e.g. the BTR brigade aka big Tory donors & distributors of lucrative non-exec Directorships when Ministers leave office.

NLA/RLA do not donate enough, if any, to get the ear of the Government.

I WILL NEVER TAKE TENANTS ON BENEFITS EVER AGAIN unless it is a pension or a disability benefit and they are never likely to get well. If I get to the stage where I can't find a tenant who is working I will let to a benefit tenant and evict them after 6 months by which time i will have organised myself to either sell the property, turn it into short-term accommodation or move into it.

I don't care how unlawful you make it for adverts to state No DSS, I don't care how many mortgage givers say it is now ok to let to benefit tenants and I care not a jot for public opinion. THE RISK IS TOO HIGH.

Reply to the comment left by Anthony Richard at 03/05/2019 - 11:17
was the ico represented at the meeting?

Reply to Terry.
No Terry, the ICO ruled that Sefton were compliant.
Sefton to their credit accepted that their application had to be amended. They wete not compliant. The ICO are on the sidelines. The Alliance actually threatened Elizabeth Denham with a witness summons in the event of one of our members being prosecuted.
As we speak we are getting members to withdraw complaints against Sefton. We are resolving issues without the totally useless ICO , however we will continue to log compliants to build a case demonstrating how absolutely the information comissioner is.

Having recently had my fingers burned by an HB tenant who left without giving notice and 2months rent arrears, I shall in future insist that all rent is paid directly to me, including one month for leaving without notice if necessary. The HB dept. can accept the condition or whistle, I am not refusing to accept HB tenants, just applying an additional condition which they accept or decline, their choice.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 02/05/2019 - 15:01
Been on holiday:-) Awaiting developments with bated breath:)

Excuse my delay, behind as usual with the constant attacks from all the Legislation & admin from Licensing & UC.

I too, am selling at first opportunity. I'm a main provider to HB in Nottingham, Generally the HB people have nowhere to go. But now, any arguments, disagreements, treating me like crap which some tenants do regularly, I can't take any more (what with Licensing pushing me over the edge), then I'm selling those where the tenant pushes me too far.

Reply to the comment left by Larry Sweeney at 05/05/2019 - 01:15
thanx