Shelter ask for Landlords views

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 22/06/2019 - 03:0250% of my whole model was built on that premise back in the day. LHA historically in my area on some estates paid handsomely above private rents . The Govs eyes were not on the ball for 10 years or more . I took advantage .Because of the LHA freeze that business model was curtailed but some areas of the country were exempt where the imbalance and risng rents made homelessness go through the roof and LHA rates were unfrozen through the back door . I got a 3% rise in April . And rises in the 2 previous years as well . So pockets still exist where LHA is viable and I`m in the SE.
Also I employ enhanced LHA strategies to boost income . It would be crazy for the Gov to let the LHA/ UC system collapse so the government is just doing enough to provide incentive to keep it on an even keel. It let it run away with itself so now attempting to bring it back in line which is fair enough . Trouble is they overcooked it and the situation was exacerbated with other parallel measures . (eg s 24) . The hidden homeless has increased and that is very hard to document. That will spill over one day and I am sure affected parties will motivate and coordinate themselves in time to become a more politically active direct movement just like we see in the climate change folks now . The dispossessed tenants of this country time will come when they get co ordinated to say enough is enough . Shelter may be the catalyst for this but I suspect a new organisation is more likely - Generation Rent may take the lead

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 22/06/2019 - 03:24There is a big disconnect between tenants and LL`s so tempers get frayed on both sides . LL`s can treat tenants badly and likewise tenants can treat LL`s badly . Its a two way street
Housing is a priority just behind water and food in the `must have` stakes and so that makes it get extra heated if someone tries to take it away . If I was a good tenant and served a sec 21 after being there 10 years and thought i was going to spend the next 10 years there I would be perhaps too be devastated . I would get angry and lock horns. But that is because I was naive and didn`t realise the rules of the game when i entered that contract . The tenant therefore has often a false sense of security and their perspective is blinkered . I have sympathy of course on a human level but even if Shelter dont want to use their millions to become a guarantor they perhaps should provide a personal advocate volunteer to sit down with anyone before they sign a tenancy to 100% ensure they do know what they are signing up to , I as a LL can only explain so much to a prospective tenant at the time and explain what a sec 21 is . They nod nod nod in an appeasing manner because they are not focused on a sec 21 they may receive 10 years down the line they are more focused on what wall paper to get and where the TV is going to go . I understand that
Shelter should perhaps be there at the start of the tenancy so they dont have to be there at the end so much ?
As a tenant when served a sec 21 that conversation they had 10 years ago would be probably be a distant vague memory. They would gradually come to realise though that its not their home really its just a temporary arrangement. Thats upsetting and they may lash out disproportionally as being made homeless is a naturally a big stressful fear
I could get that feeling with my residential. Ive been here 25 years and think of it totally as my own but on a day to day basis I forget that when the mortgage term ends ( I`m on an IO mortgage) if i dont pay it off it wont be mine anymore and the lender will take it off me. That would be my reality check.
I may react like a tenant does and try my level best to stave off repossession by going to the courts and locking horns and having a sit in and reverting to base animal survival instincts. But I also would know deep down that the lender was right and i was wrong and I am just trying to make it worse for them to make myself feel somehow better as i am angry fearful at myself really not them because I realise I have misjudged a crucial aspect of my life plan and that`s a hard kick in the teeth to take . My friends ( perhaps Shelter ) may egg me on saying dont hey dont give up without a fight, stay strong etc so i again get a false sense of perspective of my position as peer pressure and some parts of society normalises my behaviour
So time often gives a false sense of ownership to the tenant . The clashes occur because tenants thinks its their home and acts accordingly . The owner thinks its their home and acts accordingly . Its a collision course waiting to happen . The owner will naturally win because the Land Registry is the adjudicator . The bit in between gets messy and thats why we need baliffs and police to retrieve homes and forcibly remove tenants if push comes to shove .

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 22/06/2019 - 06:43
A very revealing insight into another world Jonathan! Meanwhile, in another part of the country we have tenants, a married couple, taken on eleven years ago when the LHA rate of £450 for a one-bed matched the rent we were asking. The LHA rate is now £423.80 so we know a rent increase would make these good tenants homeless. They are topping up their rent from other benefits so we, and our working tenants whose rents have risen over that period, are effectively subsidising them (over and above what we subsidise them through our taxes of course). Locally, most couples in their position are now living in HMO rooms or tiny bedsits rather than the decent one-bed self contained flats they would have had access to a decade ago. This is one tenancy out of six. If we had a large portfolio of LHA tenancies as you do it clearly would not be possible.

Reply to the comment left by Clint at 22/06/2019 - 00:14
Brilliant words Clint. This should be took up the chain:

I totally fail to see why Shelter so strongly supported Section 24 when they say they are an organisation to support homelessness. In what sense whatsoever, does section 24 support homelessness? As far as I can see it only adds to homelessness and it is plain common sense that there would be less landlords and less homes to let out which equates to less homes being built.

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 22/06/2019 - 06:43
Same here JC.

One stupid thing of LHA by the Govt in 2008 was that they was paying £229 the 5 bed rate for any house in Nottingham.
I bought 2 x 4 beds & 1 x 5 bed in 2008 for my tenants just cause the rate was high. Too High. I told the authorities this years later when they removed the 5 bed rate.
I once put a woman with 5 kids I think in a 2 bed house worth £104pw, & got £229pw.
HB said u can't do that, u can get a Mansion in the Vale of Belvoir for that.
I said Listen, if u gonna' pay it, I'm gonna' take it.

I also got slated for putting so many in small house.
I said Listen again.
I had two mothers outside that house. Both homeless. One with 1 kid, one with 5 kids. BOTH HOMELESS.
Are you telling me you would have left 5 FIVE kids homeless? I only left 1 kid homeless. Tough choices, but blame the council for not housing them. I did house them.

JC we in Nottingham has also had rise in 3 & 4 bed rate all hush hush quiet. I heard from someone with knowledge, London was getting so bad with shortage or workers with families.They had to increase the LHA rates so that some could still afford to live there. But we supposed to be in a 5 year freeze.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 22/06/2019 - 09:18I am starting to see why the switch to UC will be so problematic for landlords who have used the strategies revealed by you and JC. Once tenants have control of how they spend their benefit money there is no way that they will want to be paying more than the market rent.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 22/06/2019 - 09:44
They don't want to pay any rent ha ha. When they get £1500 in their bank in one go. Ooh baby Holiday booked.
Or if they get sanctioned & their money stops, but they still get the Housing Element £500 paid to them, they then use that for food & bills. What else does the Govt think they are going to do if they have no other money? Proper thick those in power.

I'd be happy with market rent, don't want any more Just please pay me the rent on time, that's all I ask.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 22/06/2019 - 10:26
It's obvious that tenants in a dire situation will use their money to deal with the immediate problem of feeding their family rather than using it to pay rent. One of the stated aims of universal credit was to put benefit claimants on the same footing as the rest of us with full responsibility for controlling their finances. The great failing is that government refuse to recognise that there are some claimants who are totally incapable of managing their own affairs and will therefore end up homeless or if they do recognise it they see it as an inevitable side effect of trying to mend what they see as a broken system.
The effect on landlords is similarly seen as acceptable collateral damage.