Shelter ask for Landlords views

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 18/06/2019 - 02:05
That's a great point JC

"Its a bit like a working tenant refusing to speak with me and rudely telling me to just contact their solicitor"

The council/LHA/HB/UC/DWP/ pay us, but they refuse to speak to us. It is nuts when u put it like that.
And they can stop the money just like that, quite often on something we can see can be resolved in 20 seconds, quite often a mistake on DWP's part, yet we aren't allowed to alert them of this mistake. Well we are, but they won't listen, saying it has to come from the tenant. So we can go two months with no rent only for DWP to tell us 2 months later, u was right Landlord, that same info u gave us 2 months ago when we wouldn't act, that has now re-instated the claim now everyone has got in a mess.

No communication from them. Or dialogue between us.

To further back up my scepticism on Shelters 'REAL' motivation for wanting to 'supposedly' worknwith landlords that I first posted on page 4 on this thread please.see the following link

https://news.rla.org.uk/shelter-report-needs-more-work/

Does this really look like an organisation that wants to help the PRS and be our 'friend'?

Lets get real and avoid them at all costs.

If they want to collaborate I suggest we all donir theugh our representative bodies not naively give the enemy the inside track on us so hey can twist and turn it to stick the knife in further

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 18/06/2019 - 01:15
Shelters Own figures state that 97% of LHA is below market rent ! - that's why Landlords wont take them as tenants, because they can't afford the rent based on what GOVERNMENT restrict their payments ( Plus of course a whole host of U.C issues that help to massively deter landlords )

There is also higher wear and tear, more occupation and usage of the property.
If Shelter 'believe' so much in their clients, why don't they stand as Guarantor for them. - instead of referring benefit tenants who require a Guarantor, onto the L.A - who equally 'dodge' the issue.
All those campaigning for abolition of 'No DSS' - I say, ' Put your money where your mouth is ' and stand as Guarantor for them - No ? thought not.

As for Shelter 'stopping short of lying' - supporting those in the wrong is doing a dis-service to all the majority of lawful Tenants. There are shortages in housing so why should those who have breached their Tenancy agreements - not paid rent be helped to stay in a home that could be rented to a lawful Tenant. There are massive morality and integrity issues for Shelter.

PRIVATE Rented sector is just that, Not Social. You can't tell shops or businesses who to choose as their customers anymore than you can Landlords.

I asked U.C last week how much outstanding rent Tenants on benefit owed their landlord. They replied they don't collate those figures. Basically, their interested in paying out tax-payers money as little as possible, but not concerned with what the claimant does with that money, - to the extent of their obstructiveness with Direct payments.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 18/06/2019 - 07:07Thats it Mick . When I told my council that i wasn`t even getting their letters of suspension they refused to adapt their software . They said the staff have to manually prompt sending a suspension letter to me . But at least 50% of the time the council staff forget to manually send me a copy of suspension letter . So i am completely in the dark for up to 4 weeks . Each time they didnt notify me thats say £650 down the drain as i never found out until the pay run 4 weeks later . I` m then also 4 weeks behind the game as i trying to claw that money back somehow . Its an unacceptable way to treat us. They should say sorry mate we shouldnt have done that . Heres that £650 so you can pay the mortgage and not evict the tenant for rent arrears as its not really their fault its ours . But they dont of course they wouldn`t dream of doing the honorable thing .
Imagine your employer suspended your wage on the 2nd of the month and just didnt say anything to you as to the fact they had done that let alone why. Kept absolutely quiet on it but allowed you to come to work every day 9-5 to work for them for the next month . But then at the end of the month when you found no wages in your bank account and you challenged them they additionally then said absolutely nothing to you as to why they hadnt paid your wages and they additionally refused to even discuss the matter in any meaningful manner with you . You would rightly say that employer is not an ethical responsible professional company and you quite understandably would consider handing in your notice and go and work elsewhere for an employer who respected you
Shelter will be monitoring these forums I have no doubt .
I look forward to their view someday to agree with us or to counter our arguments

Yes JC,
We got the same in Nottingham, for about the last 4 years, their software no longer works when sending us their letters of suspension, as u said earlier, we only know when no rent comes in, whereas 4 years ago, you may have got told 4 weeks before the next 'rent cheque', so u had time to act & get them what they need.
In Nottingham, we are probably getting 1% of suspension letters due. They acknowledge don't do it any more. Budget cuts maybe.
That's exactly it, they wouldn't treat a working person like that, yet they ask them to behave like working person.

Amelia, I am extremely surprised at the points you have made since you are a joint landlord with your husband and should have a lot of experience in renting. Without being rude or being antagonistic towards you, I have come to the conclusion that you and Shelter are not in the current Landlord world and it appears to me that your rental business is in a different planet. From the very lengthy comments you have written, I do however see that you are trying to do what is best for tenants, and like I believe most landlords wish to run an honest rental business for the good of all.
I have written below in point form in order to be as concise as possible:
• Section 21 should definitely not be banned as it is not a revenge eviction and for those that have misused it for revenge evictions, the law has bee tightened to avoid this altogether. The revenge eviction you have referred to, is not possible as, if the tenant got the council involved and they served a notice, a section 21 could not be used. Landlords do also need to retire and would not necessarily want to be renting their properties till they die where they are hounded by very many ridiculous laws and bodies such as Shelter. I name Shelter as, I have had first-hand experience with them.
• I am extremely surprised that your daughter had to go to the extent of having to carry out the gas certificates (which is a serious matter by law) and arrange for the boiler having to be repaired. In this case, the simplest thing that Shelter or you should have advised your daughter to do was to go to environmental health and they would have served a notice on the landlord where he would have had to repair the boiler in a timely manner. I don’t believe that one requires a highly paid organisation such as Shelter to resolve such a simple matter. CAB would also have been able to provide her with this simple advice.
• To have a level playing field, I have absolutely no objection to a tenant getting legal aid for illegal eviction where the taxpayer funds this however, I have every objection to the legal team being paid whether they win or lose. The case at present is that if they win, the landlord pays their costs and if they lose, the government pays their costs. At court, I had a barrister when attempting to settle a case where I was trying to evict a tenant who owed me over £5000, the barrister requested £2000 in fees where he only attended at that point once and stated that if I let the case run on it would cost me a lot more and in their case they had nothing to lose as they would get paid if they won or lost. As you will appreciate, it is highly expensive having a solicitor and barrister represent one however, in a truly level playing field, if the tenant loses, the Landlord should also be entitled to have barrister and solicitor fees paid for by the government if they engaged one.
• I believe that the landlord that gave your daughter two months to vacate the property that he wanted to live in did so quite rightly in that he rented it out whilst he was away. Surely, there is nothing wrong with the fact that he wanted to live there and I assume that was his only place of residence. In a case such as this, surely it is better that the owner rented his property rather than left it empty for 5 years. I take it that the property was not for rental purposes only. The landlord as I see it followed the right procedures in gaining his property to live in. Putting myself in your daughter’s place, I would more than likely not be happy but simultaneously would not be disgruntled with the landlord or, I would not feel that I was unfairly treated.
• I believe that most landlords that advertise “No DSS” are basically being cautious as DSS are high risk and insurance premiums are also higher due to the risk level. Many landlords just want to live their normal lives without going bankrupt due to rent not being paid and properties being thrashed out and in saying “No DSS” a landlord I believe is just minimising risk. I am one of the landlords that do accept DSS and in fact advertise as DSS accepted however, more recently with the introduction of UC am far more careful and more and more inclined to avoid such tenants due to a high level of rents not being paid and then having first-hand experience with Shelter fully supporting such tenants. I think taking on DSS requires a more specialist landlord who has been in the business for a long time.
• I believe Shelter should persuade the government to make it unlawful that “Buy to Let” mortgage providers demand that a property is untenanted on the point of sale. In nearly all cases, mortgage companies require that the property is empty without a tenant following completion of a sale although, the sole purpose of the property is to let out. This would considerably reduce the number of section 21 notices being served when a landlord wants to sell which quite rightly should be their legal right.
• As repeatedly stated on this and many forums, DSS rentals would easily be resolved if Shelter act as guarantors. Surely you Amelia must see this as a good step forward as you are adamant that “No DSS” should be banned and you feel that DSS tenants are not a higher risk than working tenants in terms of losses to the landlord.
• Your article concentrates a lot on landlords selling up. I think if this is happening a lot more than before, surely the question why they are doing this should be addressed. I think you will find it is bad press against good landlords and Shelter adding fuel to fire that is causing landlords to flea from this otherwise respectful business. If you really want to help tenants, my advice would be to help prevent the ban on section 21. If section 21 is banned, landlords will flea in droves and there will be far more homelessness.
I believe the points that I have listed are not only my views but those of hopefully most landlords.

Reply to the comment left by Clint at 18/06/2019 - 10:55
Excellent measured post.

Reply to the comment left by Clint at 18/06/2019 - 10:55
Excellent, well written post. Thank you.
I would add that Shelter overwhelmingly supported S24. That resulted in rents going up:
https://www.propertywire.com/news/uk/rents-increased-by-an-average-of-2-6-in-britain-in-year-to-may-2019/
Who would have thought?
Now it looks as Shelter supported the rent increase.
IMHO Shelter is mainly a political organisation, and not a very economically educated one.

Reply to the comment left by Whiteskifreak Surrey at 18/06/2019 - 11:32
It was very clear that S24 would result in rent increases because a watered down version in Ireland had already proven that to be the case. Shelter were well aware of that.

A cynic might say that increases in homelessness actually benefits Shelter, because they are likely to receive even more support from the economically uneducated, who will also blame landlords for raising rents..