Shelter again with latest TV advert!

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 01/04/2020 - 21:11
And now this: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-52132079
At least they tried to put Landlady's side as well, and mentioned that he was renting a room, rather than being a regular tenant. Something our delightful Shelter did not manage to do. On purpose of course.

Reply to the comment left by Ken Smith at 02/04/2020 - 10:50
Many very knowledgable Property investors have agreed with Ken and done the same ( Many of course haven't ) but none disagree of the political environment the PRS face.
I feel that there are harder times ahead, and that it will get worse before it gets better.
I do see however, along the way, there will be many Landlords casualties.
What the Govt and so-called tenants support groups aren't seeing, is that there are Also going to be massive Tenant casualties. Some of this burden is already, and set to increase, being borne by Local Authorities in terms of Emergency Housing provision, which is creaking under the ever-increasing strain.
I believe that landlords need to act in unity, and pile the presssure back onto government, who lets face it, have declared war on Landlords through policies and legislation over the last 5 and more years.
What I mean by pressure, is operating a sensible business model that ( where possible, not every landlords can do this, as some are directly in the rent to benefit sector ) screens out even the potential defaulting tenants, even if this means an extra months void. These 'potential' defaulting tenants comprise a large section of Benefit tenants, not always by virtue of their behaviour, but by default in the level of Housing payments made to them by the government. ( a " Not very much DSS" policy, if you like ) Tenants on benefit being asked for a verifiable last 5 year history of their accommodation. Takes a bit more time but can save a lot of lost rent and Possession cases - costs.
I firmly believe there is a 'Tipping Point' where govt policy will have to change [back] to something like the reasons for the Assured Shorthold Tenancies of the Housing Act 1988.
Thoughts anyone ?

Reply to the comment left by Ken Smith at 02/04/2020 - 10:50
No sorry I don't fully recall, I've maybe made a thousand posts since then and Ken Smith isn't a very memorable name!

As you ask, I've been slowly exiting the market for the last five years (and will probably continue for the rest of my life). So any contretemps must have been about you panic selling the lot all at once. Which wouldn't make sense to me then or now.

If I'd taken your advice, it would have meant accepting a lower price and being taxed on it to the hilt. Added to which, I'd probably have invested the proceeds in equities (mine are down 25%) and in my business (currently in suspension).

What did you invest all your sale proceeds in?
-If you claim it was in gold and bog rolls, I won't believe you!

As it stands, my properties are worth about the same, I've refurbished and sold a couple for top price minimising tax, rents have increased, mortgages are down, reserve fund up, near nil voids and all tenants currently paying.

You might have shot your gloat bolt!

Come back in 4 months, I expect house prices to be down and around 15% of my tenants to be in arrears. Don't leave it too late though as this time next year, I reckon it will be back to business as usual.

Reply to the comment left by John McKay at 02/04/2020 - 15:00
John - everyone at Shelter is now WFH, operating the helpline, supporting clients and fighting homelessness under very difficult conditions.

Doxing people, especially ones working hard to protect others, is shocking behaviour. We've reported your comment.

Shelter

Reply to the comment left by Shelter at 02/04/2020 - 16:58
Under the circumstances I can't confirm if the comment is true so have had to delete.

Reply to the comment left by Shelter at 02/04/2020 - 16:58
Would Shelter Like to confirm if the Medic in the advert was indeed a tenant and the lady was a Landlord under an AST or if it was a lodger agreement?

Reply to the comment left by Shelter at 02/04/2020 - 16:58
No comment, is a typical response from ' suspects ' when questioned who don't want to answer questions and incriminate themselves. Wonder how many Homeless people Shelter have housed today, this week, or this year ?

Reply to the comment left by Shelter at 02/04/2020 - 16:58
supporting " clients " exactly, Not the Homeless. Some charity ! Paid excessively well ( 6 figure salaries ) to give legal advice. The Government and Tax-payers are already paying for that via legal Aid.

Reply to the comment left by Shelter at 02/04/2020 - 16:58
"Doxing people, especially ones working hard is shocking behaviour."
And this is exactly what the latest legislation is doing to landlords. Private property has been commandeered to address the potential problem of tenants being unable to pay their rental with scant care for how the property owners are able to fund these losses. It is a gross abuse of property ownership rights. It should be legally challenged.
If Shelter were so determined to fight homelessness they would engage positively with landlords.
Instead you castigate and undermine and insinuate.
I also note that, instead of responding to the valid accusations of spurious sensationalism you've stooped to, you've preferred to attack one commentator in an attempt to regain your sense of ersatz victimisation.
It is a pity John's comment was removed. I would have enjoyed reading it - simply because it irked Shelter sufficiently to report it. It must have struck a petulant nerve.
Well done John. You have earned my admiration.

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 01/04/2020 - 16:16
Thanks for pointing this out Monty - I had not made the connection with previous posts but you have made me aware of the suspiciously remarkable coincidence shown by Marie's interventions here. (V. busy lambing at present so only catch up with latest posts).