No Kidding Shelter!

Those who ahve access to FB could actually comment under that article - I have already.
I wonder how long it will take them to admit that they were wrong on S24.

Shelter have also published the following:
http://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_and_research/policy_library/policy_library_folder/research_shut_out_households_at_put_at_risk_of_homelessness_by_the_housing_benefit_freeze

Yes, it is only a matter of time before they have to admit they were wrong to support a fiscal attack on landlords whose natural consequence is massive hikes in rents and increased homelessness. This was all pointed out to their former Chief Executive, Campbell Robb, but it fell on deaf ears. He said that Shelter had not campaigned for Section 24 but that they agreed with it. Crisis is not far off the same position, having adopted a 'wait and see' approach.

Also, at the same time Shelter has been waging its war against us, slurring our name constantly, and repeatedly proposing legislation which restricts what landlords can do with their businesses (meaning that many landlords can't be bothered any more and have got out or are getting out - further diminishing supply which will also lead to higher rents and increased homelessness). They are a destructive organisation. You can't even say that they are a waste of money; it is worse than that as it is not a case of them being ineffective - they are very effective in getting measures passed which are severely deleterious to the PRS.

And, to add insult to injury, they have seen social housing as the panacea. Instead of pushing for better conditions for social tenants and improved fire safety for example, they have simply proposed that there needs to be more social housing. Well, maybe there doesn't. Maybe the public sector can't run housing just as they can't run other entities. That seems to be what we are currently learning.

Shelter has got it wrong from start to finish and this needs to be thoroughly exposed. Either they completely change their ethos or they should be shut down.

SHELTER are blatantly encouraging theft of lawfully due rent and contempt of court via their websites and telephone advice they give.

They therefore pervert the course of justice on a daily basis.

The chief executives appear to have murdered and killed tenants in social housing according to Shadow Chancellor and Marxist John McDonald, speaking at the weekend at Glastonbury.

They are supposed to be a charity - I would suggest it's in name only.
They are ruining the law abiding PRS Landlords in the country and leaving the criminal ones unscathed.

They should be charged and challenged on their existence as a charity as they appear to be a single subject political party.

Reply to the comment left by "Gary Dully" at "27/06/2017 - 09:23":

But they're not simply a charity, are they? In addition to charitable donations from individuals and commercial entities such as building societies I understand they receive government support - taxpayers' money for their propaganda. Every landlord I know is a taxpayer, and increasingly so with the implementation of S.24 of the Housing Act, so we are all paying to be slagged off and have our lives made more difficult. Talk about rubbing salt into the wound!

I am currently working on something and would welcome any comments about what Shelter is doing wrong - preferably with evidence and references. If everything can be collated here, that would be great. I may also set up a new thread in due course. They have to be stopped.

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Rosalind Beck" at "27/06/2017 - 13:55":

Thank you Ros.
I have commented a number of times in their recent posts on FB. So far not a single reply.
I will see if I can contribute, but I do not know much about them, except that they support S24.
Kind Regards.

I agree with what everyone else on here says about Shelter and I am no fan of them whatsoever; yes, of course they should be supporting the interests of tenants against housing injustices, but not by attacking decent landlords who provide adequate housing at worst and very good housing at best and do their very best by their tenants.

As we know, John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn decided to exploit Glastonbury by whipping up festival goers (many of course very young) and even more cynically, by blatantly using the appalling Grenfell tragedy to their own political ends. Morevover, McDonnell's speech was disingenuous; he stated:
"“The decision not to build homes and to view housing as only for financial speculation rather than for meeting a basic human need made by politicians over decades murdered those families." The implication of course being that to generate profit from housing means spending and maintenance standards have declined.

Well, I have had first hand experience of housing of many tenures both as a child and adult and have a career in property spanning many years, and if anything, I believe housing standards and expectations - across all tenures - has greatly increased since the 70s and 80s.

Moreover, this has been driven by housing becoming much more of an investment and a commodity than it was previously. Small private landlords often tell me, "why would I allow safety and maintenance standards to slip in my property? That's my investment, my savings and my retirement fund."

As a child, I experienced some poor standards in rented housing, both private and social, simply because the funding to drive up standards wasn't there in the 70s and 80s. There was little profit to be made from rent controlled, protected private housing, and government had little revenue to improve social housing, and moreover, the impetus to improve standards simply wasn't there.

If the Grenfell fire was caused by penny pinching, firstly, Grenfell was social housing, owned by a local authority and run by a non profit ALMO (arms length management organisation) so to imply this was caused by profiteering from housing is totally wrong. Secondly, we will only know what lead to this, or at least have a much better idea, when inquiries and investigations have been completed, so to point accusations at or to attack any individual or organisation at this stage is inappropriate.