Renting linked to accelerated ageing claims researchers

Oh! Whoopee, lets all jump on a new band wagon!

It's always been known that stress from any quarter is detrimental to ones health. No tenant needs to, how does he phrase it..." face the threat of arbitrary eviction", if they pay their rent on time, look after the place and behave in a manner conducive to neighbourly harmony.

Of course there is no mention of the stress on the evil landlord, who is caught between having to pay the spiralling costs and non payment of rent.

One does begin to wonder it's all worth the trouble.

I am very concerned about this the obvious solution is to evict the poor tenants to relieve their suffering caused by renting from the PRS and has a side benefit of improving my mental health - a win-win situation.

I would have thought the stresses, abuse, and behaviour of tenants is actually causing accelerated aging of Landlords!

Reply to the comment left by Judith Wordsworth at 12/10/2023 - 10:45
I am sure most of us on here have plenty of stories of our own to tell relating to the accelerated ageing process brought on by some tenants.
It would be a best seller!

"The health journal says the scrapping of Section 21 will help reverse the ‘ageing process."

Wow.... Just wow!!

You couldn't make this crap up. Again put the blame on external factors (landlords) rather than teaching the population on personal management and have civic sense. They should learn to pay the rent and fulfil duties as a tenant.

A reading list for anti aging ;
Jason Fung - obesity code
Michael Mosley - fast 800 keto
Bryan Johnson - blueprint, reverse aging

Start with Jason Fung.

I read a report on this study in yesterday's Times, where the headline claimed the research was into private renting but illustrated the article with a case study video of damp conditions in a council-owned property where the occupant had waited three years for some remedial action from her landlord and said she would just as soon be living on the streets. I expect this sort of misleading journalism from the likes of Shelter, not a national broadsheet. It goes to feed the popular cutural meme of poor suffering private tenants in disgusting slums unfit for human habitation. What bandwagon will they all jump on once the R(R)B becomes law, I wonder.

I must take issue here with 118's publications! And 118, please take this a a formal complaint.

This is not the first time that 118 has published articles that sway the matter towards inciting a more emotional response from it's readers. It does not elicit proper rebuttal to such (academic) nonsense, it just makes people rant and then expend their energy unwisely.

IF 118 really wants to challenge the establishment, then provide us with the means to do so. It is not good enough to "report" on these undermining government psyops, we need to be able to critically think about why they are nonsense and provide the material to debunk them with.

All you need to do is to go to the end of the "study" and you will see that it has no real weight to it's findings.

The author of the "study" came up with the idea for the study herself (supposedly). It has not been peer reviewed.

At the end of the footnotes it states "This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ."

Furthermore, there is no real empirical evidence, or evidence that could stand up to any scrutiny. The entire study is done off statistics. The saying goes, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

Could we say that if you rented your housing your entire life that you are probably at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder and such therefore that your availability to education and health care and knowledge about good self-care are limited as compared to those at the upper end of the socioeconomic ladder??

Are any of these factors contributors to early ageing?

NO, that would be politically incorrect would it not?

Wake up people.

The vested interest here is, as 118 insinuates, an anti landlord and therefore anti-private property rights stance that .gov has taken since 2011 when they realised they could not get the corporations to build more homes to increase supply and therefore lower the price per sq foot of new homes.

This is the same nonsense we see with Shelter and many other government funded quangos that are basically being paid to support the .gov agendas with "studies" and "findings" that support the agendas.

118 needs to stop fanning the flames and provide the means to put these fires out if they truly want us to be able to push back on this agenda. Otherwise we really will "own nothing and be ...... happy"

Reply to the comment left by howdidigethere at 12/10/2023 - 11:51I plead guilty to not having read the original study, but according to the newspaper report I did read, the evidence was based on comparative measurements of stress hormones in blood tests carried out on both tenants and homeowners, so that was what formed the basis of the statistics you are deriding. Most academic studies rely on statistics - it's the selection of the particpant subjects of those statistics which skews the results in one direction or another. As you indicate, we are not in a position to judge that here but all 118 and other media are doing is reporting this study. In 118's case this, admittedly, is an attempt to stimulate comment on the forum, but surely that is the purpose of the forum, to inform landlords of what is being published about the PRS and generate discussion among readers, giving them opportunity to air their views on these matters and demonstrate the range of opinion among landlords.
Having worked at such establishments I am only too well aware academics in research centres have to keep publishing new research reports to generate further funding for further research - their jobs depend on it! I would not be surprised to hear the author had been offered funding by, for instance, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, for a more in-depth and wide-ranging study of the subject. Cynical ? Moi? Nah, just old and experienced.

Having read the ‘renters reform bill’ which will include the ‘decent homes act’ coming in soon my stress levels have rocketed several thousand percent! £30,000 fines - £25000 compensation to tenants per unit and no vacant shop doorways left for me to sleep in as they’ll all be taken up by other L.L.s.

Maybe tenants should give up the junk food and calorie-laden lattés and learn to live like adults.

Scrapping Section 21 will still leave Section 8 available with its selection of ‘no fault’ options.