Shelter couple’s “punishment”: self-imposed exile in Cornwall

I used to live in a tiny house in Sevenoaks - a very wealthy area.
The tiny service garage opposite my small side road house was demolished and over a dozen social houses were built on the tiny site. There was nowhere for these people to park.
All existing neighbours had been parking, with some difficulty, outside there own homes.
Most neighbours, including myself, commuted to the city for work by train and / or car.
We had a very narrow dirt track at the back of our land which gave access to the bottom of the gardens.
The wonderful council informed me that the council were proposing to make the entire area parking permit only and most of the home owners would not get permits as they were deemed as able to own appropriate cars to drive down the narrow dirt track and park on the non existent parking spaces at the bottom of their gardens.
You can well imagine the social tension that ensued.
Particularly when the penny dropped that the social housing tenants had a greater need to park in the over developed area than the home owners.
The land that the home owners properties stood on was just under twelve feed wide.............
I sold up and moved away.
Decades later I am facing the same problem again but now people are renting even small spaces and living with complete strangers with whom they have nothing in common.

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 19/06/2019 - 21:04
Amelia

Let me assure you that many of Shelter's poster and video campaigns are staged. We have caught them out using stock photographs before.

As you say, this was a terrible advert, which has clearly backfired on Shelter based on the comments I have seen on all forms of Social Media over the last 24 hours. It wouldn't surprise me at all if we were to find out those people were actors and the whole thing was staged by Shelter PR people who really hadn't thought the story through too well at all.

If those people are real then more fool them for spending what little money they might have had on a dog and lots of clutter as opposed to Redundancy insurance. They must have realised they were vulnerable but chose to do nothing about it for themselves. The bottom line is that if they are real they have well and truly fallen on their feet despite their financial irresponsibility. I also came from The Midlands and I can assure you that many people from that area work hard and save hard for their whole lives with the dream of retiring to Devon or Cornwall. This couple, if indeed they are real, appear to have achieved the dreams of many people from the Midlands and now have now have the cheek to complain about it.

In regards to the advert not saying what Shelter did for these people, my perception is that that's par for the course, i.e. they latch onto a sob story, or create a highly exaggerated version of a sob story designed to obtain maximum impact. In many cases, Shelter are completely ineffective in solving such situations, but they never admit that of couse. Instead, their advertising implies that donations would enable them to do a better job. Shelter then blame the system and landlords without taking any responsibility themselves for not having provided much if any help whatsoever! Another good example of this is their Christmas advertising, which tugs at the heart string by publishing numbers of how many children will be homeless at Christmas, implying that donations to Shelter will somehow help them to resolve the problem. The reality is very different, because even if somebody was to donate millions, not a penny of that money would be spent by Shelter on housing even one of those homeless children, because Shelter don't provide homes, or even shelters at all do they? !!!

Reply to the comment left by Hamish McBloggs at 19/06/2019 - 18:10
And to think Scunthorpe were trying to push Selective Licensing through this time last year. We managed to get that dropped by giving them lots of headaches, but can you imagine if the steel works ceases AND the surrounding properties are licensed!

.
The couples sense of entitlement in the vid is incredible!
This blame culture unfortunately runs often through our veins but is gradually changing back again I sense . I see that reversal more in my DSS tenants now than I did 10 years ago when the culture then was to get pregnant have a baby as they were better off . But now there is no 5 bed rate and child benefit has been reeled in so the wake up call is there more now
I`ve showed the vid to a few of my DSS tenants and they too almost gag as its so cringing and so unrepresentative of their lives. The self piteous tone the couple set is so wrong they say and just invokes anger not sympathy. My DSS tenants know full well these days they are not a good bet and so they respect they have to bust a gut to prove to me otherwise . This couple in the vid if asked for a guarantor would I sense just turn their nose up and say, why - don`t you trust me in rather arrogant tone of misplaced entitlement . Many parents live in the real world though and perfectly understand its a tough and many are willing to be guarantors if they can.
Shelter need to get real .
Do they really not understand the need for guarantors.
When protecting deposits became law they did it because some LL`s cant be trusted . I accept that . So i have to take out insurance or lodge it with a 3rd party . I didnt say it was beneath my dignity and why dont you just trust me I`m not a child . No I accepted that the bad apples in the agency game have and do run off with peoples deposits . Why cant they likewise accept that there are bad apples in the DSS game as well . They themselves may not run off with 2 months UC rent but it happens and its happened to me . Thats why I want a guarantor. Dont take it so personal for gawds sake .
Guarantors exist in all forms of life. When I fill in my passport application I dont whinge about having to approach someone who has known me for x years and countersign my photograph to vouch for me . I dont think gosh how embarrassing . I accept the border agencies have a job to do . If i went for a job i would expect my employers to ask my friends/ ex employers etc to vouch for me as a person. I dont take umbrage at that request . I expect to be `looked` at and tested and in fact respect it as I want to be able to prove my worth to the prospective employer .
So Shelter create many of the problems themselves . They just dont get it or / and they are being deliberative subversive They talked about a campaign to get letting agencies to accept DSS. They are targeting the wrong type of agency . The agency Shelter need to target first is the government agency that sets up these so obviously flawed and divisive welfare payment systems. I bust a gut to help DSS tennats . I am being punished by the system
Shelter change your focus
If you want less DSS discrimination - Self reflect
Target the Gov please - not Landlords or Letting Agencies
Try, just try to work with Good Landlords not against them

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 20/06/2019 - 08:34Hi Jonathon, I agreed with what you've said (and what most others have said about Shelter and their abhorrent video) *except that there is a big difference in the potential embarrassment level between being a Guarantor vs a Witness (for a signature). Any adult that can be a witness, but you'd have to *really trust someone to guaranty that you'd pay their rent arrears and damages. Dare I say it, but many "entitled" people like this couple don't tend to be too trustworthy, especially if they think someone else will pay for them (whether the Govt or the Guarantor). That's what embarrasses them: admitting that they are not trustworthy people.

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 20/06/2019 - 08:34It may also likely that those in the circles in which many of these "entitled" tenants move, also feel just as entitled, and probably also need a guarantor.

So it would be equally embarrassing for both sides if the credit checks on guarantors fails!
The honourable solution would be for Shelter to act as guarantor for this class of tenants whom they portray as vulnerable victims. That should eliminate this embarrassment and the alleged victimisation/bias against DSS tenants.

Reply to the comment left by Richard Peeters at 20/06/2019 - 09:17Yes you make a very valid point . It must be embarrassing for them for the reasons you have stated. And you are right there are degrees of embarrassment and my example was not really comparable I guess . The more though I think of it is that this couple ( if genuine ) are very far removed from my typical LHA tenants.
One girl I housed the other month was 22 yrs old with 6 mth old baby and mum and dad were only too willing to act as guarantor for their daughter and grandson at the start of their lives and to give them independence. The daughter also had no qualms about asking mum and dad in fact she had done so in advance of contacting me knowing i would be asking. She was in touch with the reality of the modern day LHA / UC PRS . The couple in the vid referred back to another era long gone . I think Shelter have scored an own goal using this particular flawed example to try to prevent DSS discrimination

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 20/06/2019 - 09:46
Yes, and as others have already noted, *even the Social housing sector expects guarantors if their initial credit checks fail.

Maybe it needs a series of FOI requests to ask Social providers what percentage of their tenancies have guarantors from the outset.

I don't know whether anyone else has seen this, but there is more to this story, some of which suggests that these individuals are not in fact actors. That is, if you believe that the BBC are capable of doing a bit of due diligence, though the leadership debate the other night may suggest otherwise.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-48038833

Following the link in Chris Clare's post above I saw a map showing that the two bed rate for the area of our properties is £50-£75 short of the market rent. This is nonsense. The monthly rate is £546.13. We have just installed new tenants at £725 per month and ours was not the most expensive on offer.