Buy-to-let property supremo shuts door on housing benefit tenants
[Deleted User]
Posts: 314
Forum Member
✭
One of Britain's best-known landlords has issued eviction notices to every tenant who is on welfare, and told letting agents that he will not accept any more applicants who need housing benefit.
Fergus Wilson, who with his wife Judith owns nearly 1,000 properties around the Ashford area of Kent, has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants.....http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/04/buy-to-let-landlord-evicts-housing-benefit-tenants
Fergus Wilson, who with his wife Judith owns nearly 1,000 properties around the Ashford area of Kent, has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants.....http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/04/buy-to-let-landlord-evicts-housing-benefit-tenants
0
Comments
a) There wasn't enough room for that in your first post?
b) You think he'll reverse his decision if Labour get back into power?
Welcome to more selective mudslinging from the Guardian more like...
He is not alone in making this decision. And why not? He is entitled to choose the type of tenant he wants.
he prefers eastern European migrants who default much less frequently than single mums on welfare. He says the move is purely an economic decision and points out that private landlords are running a business.
Last month Kevin Green, a landlord with more than 700 properties in Wales, said he may stop letting to people on welfare.
I'm sure it's true, Richard. I'm also sure the story is actually about a businessman taking a business decision about the reliability of East European tenants vs Single Mums on benefits. I appreciate that Priced Out and the Guardian are keen to make political capital out of it (Priced Out actually going so far as to misrepresent the landlord before calling him "heartless"), but Fergus Wilson's quote makes it very clear that his decision is an economic one.
In many ways it's an inevitable consequence of the cuts and one that anyone could have predicted years ago. Landlords are not generally known for their beneficence.
I can understand them wanting to evict persistent defaulters and non-payers of whatever background. However, it would be wholly wrong, and indeed prejudicial, to evict people on benefits if they are reliably paying their rent.
I suspect this problem will only get worse with the introduction of universal credit where the DWP money goes straight to the claimant instead of the landlord. The trial pilot schemes have shown that a significant minority of claimants did not have a clue about budgeting and so they were spending any money that came into their account resulting in the build up of rent arrears. That does show the need for budgeting advice and support for claimants.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-21725686
I agree 100%.
In fact isn't housing benefit yet another scam for diverting public money into the hands of the politician's businessmen mates ?
why do they not want tenants who unlock the door to guaranteed taxpayers money ?
Tenants who don't pay their rent are not desirable.
Without private landlords there would be thousands more homeless people.
But is he also going get rid of people in work who claim benefits?
Do they have housing benefit in France?
He is going to get rid of people who don't pay their rent.
Save for the fact in many areas private landlords are renting out ex council stock at much higher rentals .....................Now if the council still owned it and all that.;-)
My understanding is that housing benefit is paid directly to the landlord from the government/taxpayer......so the tenant can't default........it's a transfer of public money to private businessmen
However I now see that this is going to change under Universal credit and the benefit will go to the tenant in future and it'll be up to them to pay the landlord
Presumably this guy is getting ready for that change.......by getting rid of his tenants on welfare
that happens in my block.....some of the flats have been bought under Right To Buy and rented out at 3 times the rent that us council tenants pay
And if a landlord would not take East European tenants ,he be called a racist.but other way round is OK>:(
Would buy to let landlords somehow manage to pay their mortgages with no tenants paying them rent?
Would they leave the housing empty or would they sell, if someone else buys it is it not likely to be occupied and so no more people homeless than before?
That's not the angle. If single Mums on welfare were the reliable tenants and East Europeans weren't, they'd be the ones he'd be supporting. It's a business decision, nothing to do with any kind of isms (unless you want toss capitalism in there).
There is also the fact that there is a limit on how much the DHSS will provide for rental accommodation which means that landlords can earn more renting to non-DHSS families and individuals.
It's good, surely, that some are going to desist from doing this, is it not?
It *may* put pressure on the government to increase provision of social housing (surely the right solution for this problem?) if the private sector becomes increasingly out of bounds.
Of course, IMHO, it should never have been 'in bounds' in the first place...
Regards,
Cypher
Landlords have always preferred private tenants and take those on benefit only if they have too.
You didn't read the article then. He is getting ridnof ALL his benefit tenants even if they do pay the rent
The problem with the Fergus duo is that they've hoovered up so many properties in their area that the alternatives are few and far between. I don't think any private entity should have the power to monopolise property availability like that.
The grand irony, of course, is that if it wasn't for the BTLs speculating to accumulate, there would be a great deal more in the way of affordable properties on the market for young people currently trapped in the rent cycle. Economics 101.
I don't know why governments are so afraid to do anything about it.