Shelter ask for Landlords views

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 20/06/2019 - 11:19
Yes, Scorpion with Nasty sting in its tail -
I like that analogy - could be a new symbol for shelter

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 20/06/2019 - 17:23
Milton Keynes Council in Bucks

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 18/06/2019 - 01:15They aren’t asking for ANYBODY to have preferential treatment or to be “housed for free”, and those of you who keep saying this have obviously not seen all of Shelter’s campaign literature
What they say they will do and what they do are not necessarily the same thing (and in many LL's experience are not the same thing).
Shelter (and the Government) also do not think through the consequences of their actions.
In attempting to tackle the criminal and other bad landlords (which are a small proportion of all LLs) they have two failings:
1. They do not put in the necessary resources to enforce the new (or existing) laws against the target landlords, but they scare off good landlords, reducing choice for tenants.
2. They do not seem to see that additional costs for LLs will ultimately be paid by tenants through higher rents, or the LLs will evict and sell. Neither is good for tenants.
S24 of the Finance (number 2) Act of 2015 that removed LL's ability to claim finance costs as deductible for tax purposes was pure landlord bashing and was supported by Shelter even though it did nothing to help tenants (and in fact hurt them), so was not in line with their remit.
The aims of S24 (to target those people who were purely speculating on property prices) could have been achieved in ways that did not make LLs increase rents just to stop them making a loss.
Laws that are brought in to tackle criminal and bad LLs almost always contain "loopholes" that allow bad tenants to screw good LLs for extremely minor or even non-existent failings, e.g.:
- Tenant Fees Ban: if LL miscalculates and charges 1 penny too much for holding deposit he is in trouble; do it twice and he can be fined thousands. And probably loose licence if in a licensing area.
- Tenant Fees Ban: if prospective T writes to LL saying "I don't want your property; keep the holding deposit" but the LL does not within 7 days write to the T stating why the T is not getting the holding deposit back, then the T can claim back all of the deposit.

- S8G8 where T can claim disrepair and the hearing is delayed by weeks with no rent paid EVEN IF there is no disrepair or disrepair is caused by T.
Now, if Shelter were to
- campaign for adequate funding to enforce existing laws;
- focus on the bad and criminal landlords and not imply that all private landlords are evil;
- target bad social landlords as well as private landlords;
- oppose landlord-bashing legislation that does nothing to help tenants and leaves them financially worse off;
- campaign against right to buy and for adequate supply of truly affordable (rather than what currently is called affordable) housing
then I might be able to support and work with them.

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 20/06/2019 - 18:04Do you know what JC, - funnily enough, I was thinking it might be them, they've been in the news about buying up houses that people are being evicted from haven't they ?
I'm interested to know what a Council ( anyone, but particularly a high Homelessness rate one ) manages to do with all their Homeless. There's no way they're going to B&B - Emergency accommodate 1500 is there.

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 20/06/2019 - 22:35
This type of talk is really worrying me and i see it more and more. I am sure shelter are pushing this agenda behind the scenes.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/leeds-councillors-call-for-changes-to-right-to-buy-laws-1-9832218

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 20/06/2019 - 22:35Yes, we have one of the highest area of homelessness in UK so buying up tenanted properties is one of the options they are now looking at to stem the flow
https://www.mkfm.com/news/local-news/milton-keynes-council-to-buy-houses-where-private-tenants-have-been-threatened-with-homelessness/
We also have a secure lets scheme where they offer to take over the tenancy on a long term lease @ 10% above the LHA rate . They are also generous in paying of arrears and guaranteeing a DHP top up going forward if we renew the tenancy. So a variety of packages .
They try to pick fault to slow it all down . They scrutinise Sec 21`s acting like a court would and said one of mine was invalid so refused to act . I proved it was valid after 3 separate e mail exchanges over a few weeks with links on . Another less savvy LL might have relented thinking the council must know best and decided to stick with tenant rather than pursing eviction.
They havent got enough to B&B everyone no . So they ship them out maybe 10 /20/ 50 miles away. Taking over primark / premier inns I hear. Its disgraceful . Then paying with taxpayers money for taxis for school runs back here every day etc . The youth problem of homelessness is particularly acute
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2018-09-26/from-underpass-to-underclass-how-milton-keynes-became-the-youth-homelessness-capital-of-the-uk
One case shows the madness in the system and lack of joined up thinking. They temporarily housed an evicted tenant from the PRS and put him up in a 1 bed council flat for 2 months but then served notice on him to leave that council flat so making him homeless again .
I took him on with the incentives they offered me . And at the same time they were showing one of my sec 21`s his type of flat in the same block . Its a Mad Merry go round to desperately provide a temporary sticking plaster fix and no one has a grip on it at local or national level
The council themselves break the law every day by keeping homeless families in temporary B&B`s over the 6 week legal statutory limit. I had one poor man with wife and 2 kids ring me from Peterborough an hour away in temp accommodation saying he would take a studio flat from me as he had been cramped up in 1 room in a hotel for 6 mths
I wont take any lessons from them on how to be a decent LL

Reply to the comment left by Clint at 20/06/2019 - 17:22That's exactly it Clint,
You say 'He kept blaming UC but in reality, he just could not help himself with money being paid to him and later admitted it.'
The Govt & DWP want to make them more responsible, but they want to do this after giving them £148 every 2 weeks for 10 years, then all of a sudden, give them £1500 in one go. Ooh baby, Xmas has come early. But this time, part of that money is for their our MY the Building society's rent mortgage. And if that don't get paid, homeless happens.
Yes let's make u more responsible Mr Claimant, but let's trial it on the rent part too, that bit that gives u shelter, if u don't pay it, let's not worry about it, it's only the Landlord that suffers initially, no one cares about Landlords.
Except in the end, the tenant & the Govt & the councils lose.

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 21/06/2019 - 05:58
Amelia, you are an advocate of Shelter, and it is OK, this is a discussion forum and - IMHO - it is handy to hear the other side.
But you refuse to discuss Section 24, one of the most devastating regulation for the private rented sector! Does Shelter have the same attitude? Have they read Dr Ros' Report? Is there a single person in Shelter who can do the figures and show to the very well paid management what a disaster it is? Seems to me the only reason they support it - except them being economically illiterate - is that they must know it will increase homelessness, so gives them their jobs! Or did they suddenly become advocates for FTB? How many of the tenants they advise are able to actually put even 5% deposit for any property (even in not a nice state & relatively cheap), which otherwise would be bought for rent and often renovated? From what I see at their FB page - ZERO!
I frequently posted there - directly to Shelter - that they should be talking to large variety of lenders regarding setting up low interest mortgages on the condition the property will be rented out to DSS Tenants. That would enable low rent they can afford and actually pay, rather than market rent. It might sound like a far reaching wishful thinking, but have they tried? How many replies to the above suggestion do you think I have received? ZERO! But they managed to convince some banks to remove No DSS clause from their T&Cs...
All that makes you wonder what the real goal of Shelter is? Logically they should be all in for more available and affordable properties for their clients. They seem to be doing just opposite and refuse to discuss their stance on S24 and S21....
Or is "logic" a word which is not applicable at Shelter?
Any comments, Amelia? Thank you.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 21/06/2019 - 07:47Yes thats right Mick . I learnt my money management skills from my parents . The school helped a bit but not a lot . But I believe its more complex than that its in my DNA to act the way I do . And some peoples DNA seems to make them spenders irrespective of their up bringing or education . A work coach has zero chance to even touch the surface about educating them and changing their whole blueprint so they save and not spend . I see it all the time . Some LHA top me up exactly on time and exactly the right amount. To some its just a shot in the dark whether they pay me or go down the toy shop . I sit down and teach them myself sometimes when i see the signs but their heart is willing but their brain just cant seem to make the right connections between a £50 top up rent and a £50 bouncy castle for their kids 10th birthday treat. The bouncy castle is a short term fix for 2 hrs to see their kid smile and they are lured into that pleasing another weakness . The £50 rent though whilst boring keeps a roof over their head and prevents homelessness. To me its a no brainer but to them its simply not. The government set some tenants up to fail . I`m no Doctor but to me its linked to a mental health condition and a personality disorder as to why some folk need bling constantly in their lives and some dont and it should be treated as a vulnerability and a Tier 1 issue.
You try proving it though to someone even if someone bothers to ask my opinion at the council or job centre . Ive known my tenants 20 years sometimes. I can give you a detailed synopsis of their spending habits but no one ever bothers to ask me my anecdotal opinion as a reference and a good benchmark on their personality . They ask someone whose known them just 20 mins to make that judgement whether to pay me or pay them . 20 years or 20 mins! Why doesn't anyone listen to me. They instead ask for a self diagnosis . They set them up to fail
I have 2 best mates who are brothers about a year apart in age i went to school with . Known them 40 years .One a multi millionaire . One penniless. Same education . Same parents . Both good people but one just cannot for some reason organise his financial matters and is always in debt and one has excellent money skills . There are probably deep psychological reasons why they are so different in this department . But I`m no doctor so i dont know . But I sure as hell know the work coach or the job centre are no doctors either. Why not play safe rather than sorry. Why not give rent to me then test them gradually maybe after proving themselves for 6 months. Why throw the poor souls in at the deep end. You wouldn`t do it to an addict
It is the most cruel slow torture for a government to set some tenants up to fail and get evicted on the completely false premise that they have all somehow miraculously got an equal chance in this `responsibility of money management` area