9:42 AM, 6th September 2024, About 4 months ago 9
Text Size
It’s hard to believe that the homeless charity Crisis and the TDS are putting together strategies to get more PRS landlords to rent to the homeless. But, I fear, the result may not be what they want.
Firstly, don’t you know of any landlords? At all?? It would save you a few bob and a lot of time to simply ask someone in the PRS why this is an issue.
And secondly, do you think you aren’t among the (long) list of reasons why landlords are reluctant to rent to the homeless?
Property118 reports the duo saying that private landlords could help resolve the homelessness crisis but 97% of councils are struggling to find PRS homes for homeless people.
To be fair, I thought that the 97% figure would have been higher because working with councils for many landlords is often a hugely expensive mistake.
Those organisations point to official figures that show a record 86,520 households between January and March were looking for a home.
Have you stopped to ask yourselves why? Why so many? And why now?
Because this is where the conversation starts to get uncomfortable when we discuss homelessness in the UK.
There are two issues to consider: the first is that landlords are fed-up with the rhetoric that all of us are bad (Hello, Crisis!), rising costs and the growing inability to regain possession of our property when we need to. So, being fed up and maligned, it’s easier to step out of the PRS.
The second one is what might be coming our way. Everyone from councils to homelessness charities say we need landlords to rent to homeless families and people. But these same organisations are the ones doing the criticising.
And now we face the prospect of a Labour government that doesn’t understand the PRS, why landlords invest in the first place and want to tax and legislate us out of existence.
What could possibly go wrong?
There will be lots of landlords reading Property118 who will happily help house homeless people and there will be lots who have vowed never to do so again.
It’s down to free will and choice. Both issues that lefty councils and the Labour government have trouble with.
You can’t condemn the PRS as being home to ‘rogue’ landlords providing poor property at high rents, so licensing is necessary to control things.
Do you think the proposed landlords’ register will improve the situation?
Because it won’t. Criminal landlords will still ignore the rules and the decent – that’s the vast majority – will be saddled with the consequences.
But there’s another issue that you don’t want to hear.
Despite a desire to find out what the issues are, you appear to think it’s mainly financial so will help with deposits, and fund viewings and furniture.
It really isn’t the only reason, and I assume that your laudable aim to influence policymakers will be to force landlords to take on homeless people as tenants.
Well, let’s see what happens when the dreaded Renters’ Rights Bill begins its journey through Parliament with the aim of forcing landlords to take tenants on benefits.
It won’t work.
As your aim is to ‘help’ landlords to take on the homeless, we know from past experience that we will be the ones out of pocket.
We’ll struggle to get rent paid, struggle to deal with possession and struggle with the unpopularity of being a landlord.
Also, like many organisations, Crisis believes the abolition of Section 21 ‘no-fault’ notices will deal with ‘the leading cause of homelessness‘. That’s misguided because getting rid of Section 21 won’t do that. It really won’t.
Possessions will continue because landlords need their property back – no easy route to possession means fewer homes for homeless people in the PRS (You can have that titbit for free in your analysis of the problems).
So, here’s a quick guide to help you save time and money having lefty academics spend months researching and delivering a nonsense report.
Let’s discuss having a tenants’ register for those who don’t pay rent, destroy a landlord’s property and cause anti-social behaviour chaos.
Why not? If you think it’s a good idea for law-abiding landlords sign up to a register, then surely having one for tenants who break the law is justified too.
If you don’t understand this simple principle, you won’t understand the reticence of landlords not wanting to get involved.
It also underpins your jaundiced view of landlords being bad and all tenants being good. They really aren’t.
Why not try renting out homes for the homeless and see how hard it is and why landlords are reluctant?
There are lots of former rented homes for sale, so it won’t be too hard.
I imagine lots more will become available before Labour jumps feet first into harming the PRS by raising CGT.
We took the risk with property investment. Not you.
Not all landlord investments work. Some fail, some struggle to make a profit.
Add in a tenant who won’t pay rent or wrecks the home, and your gullible landlord is out of pocket.
I imagine when you begin the research in earnest, you’ll do that public sector thing of ignoring the big issues or rewording the problem to confuse people.
But the bottom line is that without an uncomfortable conversation about why homelessness is an issue and the role of charities like Crisis and Shelter in that means we will never agree.
Wondering why landlords won’t help the homeless?
Try wondering why homeless charities, councils and politicians won’t help landlords.
I’ve said it since my first column on Property118 – you’ll miss us when we’re gone.
Until next time,
The Landlord Crusader
Previous Article
UK house prices hit two-year high
Jo Westlake
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up10:42 AM, 6th September 2024, About 4 months ago
I think someone needs to clearly define the different types of "homeless".
The automatic thought is rough sleeper with a drug or alcohol problem.
However, it far more wide ranging and can easily encompass people with reasonable jobs, children and a fair chance of being a decent tenant.
I currently house 4 people who either were homeless or would have been within days. Two via my local Council Housing Options scheme. Both are divorced single fathers with health problems. Both work and both pay the rent. One has paid on time and in full every month since he moved in a year ago. The other pays in installments when he gets paid. Sometimes in advance, sometimes in arrears. It's kind of evolved over the 4 years he's been my tenant.
Another one is someone we have housed off and on for over 30 years. In that time he has been married 3 times and owned 2 houses. Divorce can be financially devastating for middle aged men. He was at the point of being placed in Council B&B 50 miles from where he works when we offered to buy a flat for him to rent. He's still in it 13 years on complete with third wife and child.
The other one used to be my plasterer. He's a recovering alcoholic with a history of homelessness. Last time he was living in his van I found a one bed doer-upper and bought it with him in mind. He's been there over 4 years and has turned it into his little palace. It fits into LHA rent (although in reality I could get at least another £150 a month). His rent is currently in arrears due to the UC 5 week wait. The Council have repeatedly said he should apply for a one off payment to get back on track but for whatever reason he simply won't apply.
Without Section 21 I almost certainly wouldn't have risked housing at least 3 of these people. Section 21 gives landlords the confidence to let potential tenants prove themselves. In my case it has all been very satisfactory for both me and my tenants.
Reluctant Landlord
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up11:09 AM, 6th September 2024, About 4 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jo Westlake at 06/09/2024 - 10:42
your post just goes to show there is more than being a LL is more than providing a box. We all know this but the govrenment/Shelter et al cant get their heads round this.
Until they do, LL's will continue to only provide property to tenants they feel happy will not only pay the rent but can actually run a successful house. Evidence is provided by way of references etc. Its what insurance companies are demanding along with rent guarantee companies. THIS naturally raises the bar of what tenants are acceptable/low risk and which are not.
The government/councils/Shelter etc all believe everyone is equal if they present to a LL with a months rent in advance and deposit in hand (funded by the state). This apparently puts them on par with other prospective tenants in order to secure a tenancy.
It doesn't.
It simply allows them the ability to join the application process/queue.
The next stage is referencing and affordability going forward, which many can't (and never will be able to) meet.
So who is it exactly giving them false hope here and who's job it is to change this situation?
Certainly not the PRS....we do not dictate policy just react to it....
Stella
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up11:16 AM, 6th September 2024, About 4 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jo Westlake at 06/09/2024 - 10:42
I agree in the past because of section 21 I would always consider good people who perhaps had fallen on hard times and try to help them out and some of them proved to be very good tenants.
This choice has been taken away from me because of the impending removal of section 21 .
I would now prefer to leave the property empty unless the prospective tenants are all earning good salaries and tick all the boxes.
Paul Essex
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up12:03 PM, 6th September 2024, About 4 months ago
I remember when the council leader in Windsor complained that every rough sleeper in his town had turned down accommodation - yet the charities continued to blame the council for the rough sleeper problem.
Drugs, drink and mental health are the real problems here and 'treatment in the community ' has largely vanished due to government and local authority cuts.
christine walker
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up12:50 PM, 6th September 2024, About 4 months ago
You have to ask yourself how many of these homeless people are in that category because of rent arrears, unsociable behaviour, or because the y broke the terms of their tenancy in other ways
Jim K
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up12:58 PM, 6th September 2024, About 4 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jo Westlake at 06/09/2024 - 10:42
Jo. Some very fair comments here. In essence the Ts you describe have all turned out 'well' but on first sight may not be ones first choice. I have had similar experiences, both good and less so. One aspect not mentioned is that a higher percentage of those 'homeless' have in my limited experience proven to be more of a management challenge. Time is money and I can understand why a LL will pick the T who appears less likely to need above 'average' support than one who may do so.
Reluctant Landlord
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up16:45 PM, 6th September 2024, About 4 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jim K at 06/09/2024 - 12:58
totally!
And if those same needs tenants are being told to stay put by the council until they are evicted, then where is the incentive for ever the most caring LL to bother?
The PRS is NOT a social housing provider.
If every single LL says no to any request from any council to house someone then this will hit home harder than anything else. Numbers will only increase as more claim assistance....
Cider Drinker
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up17:16 PM, 6th September 2024, About 4 months ago
If I let a property to someone who is homeless, the person that I would have otherwise let the property to becomes homeless.
It is very simple mathematics. No matter how you slice the cake, there are too many people wanting a slice.
Too many people (and we all know why) and too few homes. Building more homes will not, in itself, fix the homelessness problem.
If I am to entrust £150k or more of my property to someone, I will choose the person most likely to pay rent and most likely to be a good tenant.
Sorry, but that rules out drug addicts, migrants and the entitled generation.
Sadly, I’m selling up as and when the opportunity arises.
Those seeking asylum have certainly found it.
Cider Drinker
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:38 AM, 8th September 2024, About 3 months ago
There can be little doubt that some landlords are quitting completely and many more are reducing the size of their portfolios. I’m selling a quarter of mine in this financial year.
So, what does this mean for homelessness?
It means that people that can afford to buy will have more choice (migrants arriving in the U.K. with nothing won’t be able to buy). The quid pro quo is that those that cannot afford to buy will have fewer choices.
Private landlords should choose the best tenant available to them. Often, this will exclude former prisoners, drug addicts, people with poor credit scores (and migrants with no credit score).
The good news is that Two Tier Keir is going to build millions of new homes so those that can’t afford to pay their rents or who choose to snort their money will have a nice, shiny, new home to call their own. I bet Social Landlords are queuing up to take these properties on.