Shelter ask for Landlords views

I fully agree with you Michael and in engaging with Landlords who are the suppliers of rental accommodation we could all work together constructively to reduce homelessness. It makes far more sense for Shelter to engage in this forum rather than waste time on a survey which provides nothing more than LLs statists in relation to their rental business.
I should have answered to “Other” in question 10 of their survey where I should have written “Engage in Property 118” forums.
I personally find it quite shameful that Shelter say “They are not interested. It has to come from Landlords”. This site is full of what comes from Landlords. Surely they cannot be that ignorant.

Reply to the comment left by Clint at 23/06/2019 - 16:15
Or even if they were to just engage 1-1 with the likes of Mick Roberts and other big LLs on here; it does not have to be public (where one Shelter post would likely get lots of vitriolic responses, making a reasoned debate difficult).

Reply to the comment left by Clint at 23/06/2019 - 16:15
Their questionnaire seems to have been written from the point of view that they already know what all the issues and related view points are and are only after statistics on proportions of LLs who hold each view.

This is shown by the ridiculously small space given for providing free-text answers.

They are also only going to get responses from the good LLs who try to do right by their tenants, because the others (frankly) won't give a damn (my dear) and won't engage.
However, they may get some insight into how their approach is adversely affecting such LLs and their tenants (whilst probably not having any effect whatsoever on criminal [the law is an occupational hazard] and rogue [don't understand the law or don't know the laws exist] landlords)

Reply to the comment left by Michael Barnes at 23/06/2019 - 16:42
Yes they don't talk to me cause they know I will give if them blunt & they don't like the truth.
And your words spot on. The Rogue's don't come forward & their/Govt/Council policies end up hurting the Good Landlords who was doing everything proper, which in turn ends up hurting the good tenants who in turn have done nothing wrong & they end up getting rent increases, evictions from Landlords who's playing ball & still get penalised, not being able to get anywhere cause of the shortage, or now lack of funds for new bathroom, kitchen etc., cause some Bright spark in power wanted that extra money for Clause 24 tax for Osborne Tory Toffs, Licensing Admin employ loads of officers to tell me my Gas certificate is good, UC direct payment to tenant to buy some new trainers, & the list goes on.

As the shelter survey is 1. anonymous and 2. reasonably well publicised in the relevant circles on the net.... I imagine many of the manipulative anti/h8r types are more than likely to be inclined to ‘muddy the waters’... so surely the authenticity the results are likely to be heavily compromised?

Reply to the comment left by Dr Rosalind Beck at 23/06/2019 - 22:35
The impression I have gained from reading most of her posts is that despite her willingness to accept benefit claimants she is actually very selective and carries out her due diligence to a greater degree than I suspect others do. Unlike Mick she has not specialised in taking benefit claimants but has considered them on their individual merits along with all other applicants. Maybe her experience working for a Local Authority housing department and large Housing Association have given her the skills and experience to identify and avoid potentially troublesome tenants, which could be the key to her success. She has empathised with Mick after watching his videos and also appears dismayed at the prospect of everything changing for the worse with the roll out of UC.

As you say, she appeared from nowhere just a couple of weeks ago but so what? She has stimulated a huge amount of discussion in that short period, with some helpful insights into the working of the benefit system and an alternative approach to tenant selection and landlording in general. She has ruffled a few feathers but nobody has to follow her example and I have found her contributions a refreshing change.

I have followed Amelia's posts from the start and never had cause to doubt that she is a genuine landlord. I agree with Seething Landlord that she has posted information which has served to bring out the range of varied experiences of those who house benefit tenants. She has shown that she has the time, energy and inclination to devote to detailed vetting of potential tenants and ongoing monitoring and support of the tenancies of those who survive her rigorous vetting procedures. Equally importantly she has shown that, despite saying one of her reasons for becoming a landlord was to make lots of money, now she and her husband are retired and have other income and most of their mortgages paid off, she is satisfied with only about £30 per property per month profit. If she has recognised in her retirement that money isn't everything and if devoting her time to helping people who have fallen on hard times gives her satisfaction and makes her happy, who are we to criticise? Sure, she might come across sometimes as a cross between Goody Two Shoes and Lady Bountiful but there is certainly room in this world for more of that ilk to balance out the exploititative landlords who bring the sector into disrepute.
Equally, she may need to modify some of her views about Shelter and about landlords who are not in a position to take her line with benefit claimants as they are struggling to avoid bankrupty due to the actions of government which are supported by and, in the case of abolition of Section 21 actively lobbied for, by a charity which logically should be doing everything to support private landlords to continue to provide accommodation and to keep rents affordable. Posters on here have been able to enlighten Amelia about the true nature of Shelter's legal support for delinquent tenants against landlords and about their agitation for removal of S21 which she rightly sees would be a disaster for landlords. We are still learning from each other and I feel she should not be discouraged from posting by being called a troll who is not a real life landlord. (Of course Seething Landlord may be a bit sensitive about this accusation as on this platform he has himself previously been subject to the same accusation.)

Reply to the comment left by Whiteskifreak Surrey at 24/06/2019 - 14:13
1. amelia says she is not connected with Shelter, so asking her for Shelter's opinion is pointless.
2. Amelia has said S24 is wrong. I don't expect her to comment on S24 per se, but hoped she might comment on the apparent contradiction between Shelter's stated aims and their action is supporting S21.
3. I believe (but have not gone back to check) that amelia has states that getting rid of S21 would be bad.

Haha. It is very interesting to me how people can profess loyalty so quickly towards a person/ persona whom they don't know and whose comments have not in any way been verified, against someone - me - who has campaigned ceaselessly over the last 4 years for landlords, without receiving one penny for my work.
Google my name and you will get an idea of what I and other landlords I have collaborated with have done. Google her name and tell me what you find. Then tell me off and call me names again.
And in terms of Shelter and how they use the data we have given them don't hold your breath for anything positive. The latest I heard they are now 'campaigning' against sex for rent - in the process once more focusing on demonising the lot of us.

Reply to the comment left by Dr Rosalind Beck at 24/06/2019 - 16:27
Ros, I'm sure no-one on here is against you, quite the contrary, but we must all be prepared to read posts from others who do not agree with us. Neither can I see anyone who has "professed loyalty" to the person in question, merely defended her right to post her personal views, whether or not they coincide with those of the majority on this site. When she has stated things which are not correct she has been challenged. A couple of times she seems to have contradicted herself and has been asked for an explanation. She hasn't always been able to give a satisfactory answer, sometimes simply ignoring questions, and no doubt people will draw their own conclusions. Regular visitors to this site will be well aware of your efforts on behalf of landlords, in particular campaigning against Section 24. Regarding Shelters latest, I think any person offering accommodation in return for sex deserves the worst Shelter can throw at them - far better use of their resources than supporting S.24, removal of S.21 and rabble rousing the public to invade the offices of letting agents, intimidating the staff.