New BBC1 Programme about Landlords

Reply to the comment left by "Whiteskifreak Surrey" at "21/05/2017 - 22:51":

Thanks Whiteskifreak.
The synopsis is thus:

'There are 11 million people renting in the UK, but with nine people for every rental property available, it’s fast becoming a landlord’s market. Those at the top of their tree are often more out of touch with their tenants than ever. Landlords (w/t) is a 3 x 60’ series which will challenge landlords to go ‘back to the floor’ to spend one week living in one of their own rental properties.
Maxine Watson, BBC Commissioning Editor, Documentaries, said:“As more people and councils turn to the private sector to provide accommodation, this timely series asks what kind of social and moral obligations bind today's landlords.”
In each episode this ‘fish out of water’ format will follow two landlords as they step into their tenant’s shoes.
Hannah Wyatt, Boundless Managing Director comments: “Landlords (w/t) is a transformative and revealing series that will give an honest and emotive insight into ‘generation rent’ though the landlords immersive experience, exploring the ever increasing gap between renters and their landlords.”
Landlords (w/t)is a Boundless production for BBC One commissioned by Maxine Watson, Commissioning Editor, Documentaries. Kat Lennox, Executive Producer and Emily Smith, Series Producer.'

If Grace had told us from the beginning that the programme assumed we are 'more out of touch than ever' with our tenants, and that there was an 'ever increasing gap between renters and their landlords' she would have got even shorter shrift from us from the beginning. By not making this clear, she was basically trying to trap us into being involved in an anti-landlord piece of garbage. We've seen this before - the Guardian agreed to look at the impact of Section 24 on landlords a while ago, then put a flash Harry-type landlord photographed in front of his Bentley as the centre-piece. There is always an idiot exhibitionist in any group or profession willing to make their name whilst causing damage to the rest of the group they belong to.

I would add that I'm not out of touch with my roots at all and never would be and it is clear that many landlords aren't. Jeremy Corbyn doesn't have to worry about that as he never had those roots to start with, just as many in the BBC didn't. They're the ones out of touch - out of touch with the truth and with decency and with robust research which might lead to a really 'transformative' series - one which showed that landlords are not figures out of a Dickens novel or Shakespeare play, feeding off the masses. It's lazy and it's dangerous.

And it is also despicable that our licence fees pay for such shoddy, stereotyped and prejudiced (from the beginning) fodder for the masses aimed at reinforcing and perpetuating dangerous myths about our profession and about a whole sector.

Well said Ros.

Clearly they want to create a divide by using the phrase "fish out of water".

I totally agree, it is dispicaple journalism!
.

Grace did herself, the BBC and Boundless Productions a disservice by failing to properly define the type of landlord they were after. They were not after the typical UK landlord at all (who lets just one property on average and has a similar income to their tenants). They wanted wealthy large portfolio landlords for an "Undercover Boss" style reality show.

Now, all the large portfolio landlords I know of - including Mark Alexander - are very much involved in housing and are more than aware of the issues, far from being out of touch. However, having said that, I can think of at least one or two of such landlords who are not too concerned, but these are in the minority and at least one (whom I shan't name) is the CEO of one of the large corporative housing providers the government is currently courting.

Typical for BBC and their anti-landlord policy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39974177
Obviously not a word why LLs are rising rents...
It is all sooo sickening.

Reply to the comment left by "Whiteskifreak Surrey" at "28/05/2017 - 21:08":

Just read that article you linked to. She's a yoga teacher earning £640 a month and wants to live in London in a two bed flat but can't make the numbers stack up.

D'oh! The rent is £1,400 a month, of course it doesn't stack up!

She needs to find a better job or somewhere cheaper to live. Has the world gone completely mad?
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "28/05/2017 - 21:42":

Exactly my thoughts Mark. What an absolutely ridiculous case to highlight.
She's probably got a Porsche and a Mercedes on the drive she can't afford the finance on as well, but that's all the landlord's fault of course.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "28/05/2017 - 21:42":

And there is never any gratitude towards the taxpayers for handing eg £10,000 a year over to these people who choose a 'career' they like and work very few hours a week. I had a middle class artist friend when I lived in Madrid and London in my early 20s. I was working full-time in a job I hated whilst she pursued her dream as a painter, was always skint and expected me to pay more when we went out because I earned more than her (never mind that her family was stacked and mine were on the dole).
That friendship didn't last.

Reply to the comment left by "Anthony Endsor" at "28/05/2017 - 21:51":

She can probably find somewhere cheaper or become a lodger, or get a second and third part time job. or move out of London and do the job she wants. Like the rest of us have to.

Reply to the comment left by "Kathy Evans" at "28/05/2017 - 23:06":

Yes, Kathy. I had to move out of London and do a job I hated. The idea that millions of people are doing jobs they hate to pay their bills all over the country and that a big chunk of this goes to support people who choose to take jobs they enjoy but which don't pay much and they may only do 10-20 hours... and they moan effectively that receiving £900 a month from the state isn't enough.

It is often (not always obviously) the working classes paying for the middle classes - just like student loans actually and the Government funding of Universities in general. It is super-weird that Labour says it will abolish tuition fees for this very reason. It would be more 'socialist' to just support those who need it and not blanket fund something which the wealthier section of society benefits from.

Your comment also reminds me of someone who taught me on a creative writing course. She only worked half-time and constantly moaned about her lack of money. I said 'why not work more hours?' 'I couldn't possibly,' she said, 'I have to have time for my own writing.' 'Well why not get a lodger then?' I suggested (she lived in a large 3-bedroom house on her own). 'No, I wouldn't like anyone else living in my house,' she replied. I was tempted to say 'well shut the f*ck up then and stop moaning.' This was before tax credits - she'd be a lot better off now.

I really am sick of how we all have to pay for other people's choices.

I've got a tenant now in a shared house as well - his rent including all bills is £330 a month. His take-home pay is in excess of £500 a week - and he has paid nothing for months and is being evicted. He even said in court that he doesn't have the money to pay the rent but doesn't want to leave and he asked for an extra two free months at our house before we can get the bailiffs to physically push him out. Where does he get the idea that he is a victim in this - with all his bills paid by someone else and over £2,000 a month for other things? From the likes of Shelter and these ignorant BBC articles. That's where. They would support him against us - he may even have got advice from Shelter to help him con us out of as much money as possible.

It would be an interesting statistic to see what, on average, the percentage of rent goes on unpaid rent (and legal costs to evict), and on, say, damage to property.

And even what percentage is paid in tax (especially if you include VAT & income tax paid by contractors).