If there was so much interest too then why would your L/L be renting out at the LHA rate? When it could get more, unless you are supplementing the rent?
That's another reason why many landlords don't want to accept DSS tenants, they are likely to be able to charge a higher rent. When my landlord found out that other flats in my block were getting much more in rent than I was paying him (and much more than the LHA rate) that was when my problems with him really started.
As far as I'm aware there's no rule which says that landlords are only allowed to let to tenants who are nice, quiet middle class people, so anyone who can pay can get a tenancy.
It does beg the question, though, that if this is a council let, then why are they using an expensive property? This is public money and the council have a responsibility to use money wisely, so I would have thought they would find properties where rent is cheaper.
One worrying thought is that the family could have been moved out of the cheaper area because they were causing trouble...
Do you find it acceptable social tenants can live in properties that working people could only dream of owning unless they had a MASSIVE income stream, because I know I do.
If you find it acceptable, then why the thread about it?
Thought that would be obvious. I know they have to supply people who are in desperate need etc but why in expensive areas? Do you find it acceptable social tenants can live in properties that working people could only dream of owning unless they had a MASSIVE income stream, because I know I do.
Neighbouring property of the same build sold for 420k in 2007. **** me.
i find it acceptable that there are associations that help and support people to find a place to live.
So where would you like the poorer people or ones who live in social accommodation to live? all together a ghetto? as long as its not in an expensive area?
In putting people in different areas of the region be it expensive or not it can actually have an affect on that persons well being and health and improve or not improve it.
what happens if a social housing project was near you but they were all of of what you would deem a higher class not asylum seekers or council estate types, would that be acceptable?
or is it a case of these people are being helped and supported where you are not? Can I ask a question, do you work and do you claim any form of benefits be it working tax credits child benefit etc?
Are you worried its going to devalue you house?
maybe you should all get together as a street go meet your new neighbours be nice to them show them that you are all moral and social people of the community and make them feel welcomed instead of sitting there curtain twitching passing judgement on people you do not know. That's how you set standards, get to know them. you show people they are welcomed and things change.
I think Waitrose is totally overrated, it's pretentious and overpriced and actually not that nice. my local one is not great, I would sooner go to Morrisons
i find it acceptable that there are associations that help and support people to find a place to live.
So where would you like the poorer people or ones who live in social accommodation to live? all together a ghetto? as long as its not in an expensive area?
Exactly. It is better that social tenants and asylum seekers are housed in a variety of socially classified areas as it relieves putting strain on public services in just a few small areas (as used to happen when we had council estates) and helps the assimilation of the working and middle classes. OP, rather than criticising the situation, perhaps you could offer your new neighbours some quinoa or houmous to help them integrate? With time, they will learn to tut at new neighbours from outside the local class structure too.
Ok, point taken .But don't they have to have some kind of affiliation with the area? There is virtually zero council housing stock in this area so I find it hard to see where these people originated from.
They maybe of course under some witness protection scheme, hence I'm not going to disclose the specific area. This would go a way towards explaining the anomalies at hand here.
And if people are living in private rental, and then the landlord want the tenants to leave for lots of differant reason, and are classsed as homeless and fit into certain groups then the council has a legal duty to house them no council housing in the area so means using temp accomadation which does not always mean short term but under temp rules the LHA does not apply. Very common for landlords to evict for tenant to have done nothing wrong, 1 reason this has been happing alot recently is house prices increasing and more landlords who were renting out before because of low house prices, now are selling and alot easier to sell with no tenants.
I'm in Scotland so wondering if that's why its different? Yes sorry forgot to add I also pay an amount towards the rent. I had a discussion with someone on here a few days ago and there is a big difference in the rent where I am. The rent does seem very cheap here compared to some places in England.
Not in aberdeen? You can psy 600 a month for a 1 bedroom flat depending on area
However within the last year I have seen at least three of these properties let out to what look like are council type families. One are asylum seekers (with a dog!) others have noisy children that are always outside screaming and banging a football against the wall.
Although I'd at the moment just put these families into the 'annoying' rather than anti-social types category (don't think any of them are into crime etc) it has ruined by quality of life by I'd say at least 10%. It used to be lovely and quiet here in the summer.
What I'm asking is why would landlords let out to these type of people in a decent area of town? The houses they are living in are worth 300-400k (Midlands prices). If it's housing associations buying up stock, why are they buying up expensive properties? Any ideas?
How do you know they are asylum seekers?
They usually get housed by the Border agency usually in tower blocks and the like.
How do you know they are on benefits?
What is the Local Housing Allowance rate for your area? the figure should be available on your Local Authorities website under housing benefit. If the rent for these properties is much higher than the LHA the occupants would be eligible for it is unlikely they are on benefits, unless the landlord is desperate for tenants some money better than an empty property and no money. Out of work housing benefit claimants also often are not going to have money for a deposit and get their housing benefit in arrears not advance, and do not have a good reputation.
Maybe a local landlord has done a deal with a housing association or local authority?
Some housing associations or local authorities will take on private rental property for six months or a year or more, giving the owner a guaranteed rental income all be it below private market rents, and guaranteeing to return the property in a good state, they do it up fixing any damage before returing it, so the landlord gets easy money.
Maybe the poor people are not poor. I look scruffy and don't work and bought a reasonably sized detached house in a nice area outright no mortgage.
....but something has been worrying me over the last year or so. Across the road there there are lots of Victorian/student houses which is fine, apart from the odd noisy weekend night never had a problem with students, especially as they are what I would call 'upper class' students (high rents around here).
However within the last year I have seen at least three of these properties let out to what look like are council type families. One are asylum seekers (with a dog!) others have noisy children that are always outside screaming and banging a football against the wall.
Although I'd at the moment just put these families into the 'annoying' rather than anti-social types category (don't think any of them are into crime etc) it has ruined by quality of life by I'd say at least 10%. It used to be lovely and quiet here in the summer.
What I'm asking is why would landlords let out to these type of people in a decent area of town? The houses they are living in are worth 300-400k (Midlands prices). If it's housing associations buying up stock, why are they buying up expensive properties? Any ideas?
I a not going to pass comment on the type of people you feel should not be living there, I will say how do you know it is landlords letting them out ? I live in RBKC and in our street every house is the old Victorian town house and some are privately owned and some are owned by the council , varying jobs and we all get along just fine .
I am working class. Grew up on council estates but moved into upmarket area. Work full-time. I rent privately in a modest property and work full time on a semi-decent wage. I don't own the property but If I did, I would be mortified to see these "homeless" (if that's what they are/were which I'm very suspicious of) types moved into my area. I'm sure many home owners would agree. The only agenda here is coming from the usual "faux outrage" suspects.
Thankfully if we did get invaded by Roma's or problem families I have the freedom to move elsewhere. But it'd be terrible for the area and literally mean so area would be safe.
I'm sure your upmarket neighbours back then didn't want your type moving into the area either.
Most councils round here won't pay direct to landlords unless the tenant has a medical reason why they can't receive the money themselves and pay it on to the landlord.
The HB is paid in arrears and paid fortnightly which means that the landlord won't always get the full amount on a set day of the month which can prove problematic if they are relying on the money to pay the mortgage.
I think each council makes its own decisions. We only get direct payments as landlords if they are probation service/ Centrepoint/ mental health service referrals or when (sigh) they are 8 weeks in arrears.
From a strictly economic point of view, I don't think DSS tenants with a shaky background are that good. They never have any money (astonishingly), so whatever damage they do, you have no redress at all. We have been awarded court compensation loads of times because someone has trashed a flat, from smashing all the windows or ripping off the roof tiles and throwing them into the street for fun, and all that happens is that a few months later you get a sad little letter saying because they have paid no money, they have been sentenced to 20 days in prison. And because they tend to have friends who are destitute and homeless, you end up with 20 people living in a 2 bedroom flat, and have to go through all kinds of shit to get them out.
Ok, point taken .But don't they have to have some kind of affiliation with the area? There is virtually zero council housing stock in this area so I find it hard to see where these people originated from.
They maybe of course under some witness protection scheme, hence I'm not going to disclose the specific area. This would go a way towards explaining the anomalies at hand here.
I think you're on to something here and it's a real positive. They will be tracked down by those who they're meant to be protected from and then they will either flee or be massacred. But which ever happens it will mean the landlord will once more be able to rent the property to nice people.
The LHA rates only show upto 4 beds but they are at least 50% lower than the rents on rightmove for neighbouring properties, which are let on a per room basis to students.
As one of the families have been there for a year now I think an housing association has bought up the stock, as no landlord could be this daft.
Whenever I have had time off work they are in the garden etc so doubt they are working. Plus I've seen them coming home with bags of shopping from Iceland, which is odd when there is an M&S and Waitrose just around the corner. (The nearest Iceland is almost 2 miles away).
Thankfully like I said in the OP they aren't that bad by social tenants standards apart from the dog that barks when they let it out for 10 mins every now and again and the kids that play football but hopefully the housing association will cease their spending spree in my area.
It only takes one bad family to take a whole area down. This is why I believe they should be placed all in one place as opposed to spread out with us decent law abiding folk.
....but something has been worrying me over the last year or so. Across the road there there are lots of Victorian/student houses which is fine, apart from the odd noisy weekend night never had a problem with students, especially as they are what I would call 'upper class' students (high rents around here).
However within the last year I have seen at least three of these properties let out to what look like are council type families. One are asylum seekers (with a dog!) others have noisy children that are always outside screaming and banging a football against the wall.
Although I'd at the moment just put these families into the 'annoying' rather than anti-social types category (don't think any of them are into crime etc) it has ruined by quality of life by I'd say at least 10%. It used to be lovely and quiet here in the summer.
What I'm asking is why would landlords let out to these type of people in a decent area of town? The houses they are living in are worth 300-400k (Midlands prices). If it's housing associations buying up stock, why are they buying up expensive properties? Any ideas?
You really don't sound up yourself at all, Hyacinth;-)
The LHA rates only show upto 4 beds but they are at least 50% lower than the rents on rightmove for neighbouring properties, which are let on a per room basis to students.
As one of the families have been there for a year now I think an housing association has bought up the stock, as no landlord could be this daft.
Whenever I have had time off work they are in the garden etc so doubt they are working.
Thankfully like I said in the OP they aren't that bad by social tenants standards apart from the dog that barks when they let it out for 10 mins every now and again and the kids that play football but hopefully the housing association will cease their spending spree in my area.
It only takes one bad family to take a whole area down. This is why I believe they should be placed all in one place as opposed to spread out with us decent law abiding folk.
You seem to be forgetting a very important thing, private landlords are becomeing the new socal landlords, this is what the government wants, dont forget selling off council housing is this governments big aim. And what are 'Council type families
You come across as so condescending and toffee nosed in your OP. Like a posh Dot Cotton.
Kids are loud. That's life. Children can't be banned from the area to preserve the tranquility you so desire.
What exactly is wrong with the Asylum Seeker family? it came across like you were insinuating that the fact they are Asylum Seekers alone makes them unworthy of living in your area.
Comments
That's another reason why many landlords don't want to accept DSS tenants, they are likely to be able to charge a higher rent. When my landlord found out that other flats in my block were getting much more in rent than I was paying him (and much more than the LHA rate) that was when my problems with him really started.
It does beg the question, though, that if this is a council let, then why are they using an expensive property? This is public money and the council have a responsibility to use money wisely, so I would have thought they would find properties where rent is cheaper.
One worrying thought is that the family could have been moved out of the cheaper area because they were causing trouble...
If you find it acceptable, then why the thread about it?
Oooh, I *hate* those people who have nothing better to do than cause excessive depreciation! :mad:
i find it acceptable that there are associations that help and support people to find a place to live.
So where would you like the poorer people or ones who live in social accommodation to live? all together a ghetto? as long as its not in an expensive area?
In putting people in different areas of the region be it expensive or not it can actually have an affect on that persons well being and health and improve or not improve it.
what happens if a social housing project was near you but they were all of of what you would deem a higher class not asylum seekers or council estate types, would that be acceptable?
or is it a case of these people are being helped and supported where you are not? Can I ask a question, do you work and do you claim any form of benefits be it working tax credits child benefit etc?
Are you worried its going to devalue you house?
maybe you should all get together as a street go meet your new neighbours be nice to them show them that you are all moral and social people of the community and make them feel welcomed instead of sitting there curtain twitching passing judgement on people you do not know. That's how you set standards, get to know them. you show people they are welcomed and things change.
Exactly. It is better that social tenants and asylum seekers are housed in a variety of socially classified areas as it relieves putting strain on public services in just a few small areas (as used to happen when we had council estates) and helps the assimilation of the working and middle classes. OP, rather than criticising the situation, perhaps you could offer your new neighbours some quinoa or houmous to help them integrate? With time, they will learn to tut at new neighbours from outside the local class structure too.
And if people are living in private rental, and then the landlord want the tenants to leave for lots of differant reason, and are classsed as homeless and fit into certain groups then the council has a legal duty to house them no council housing in the area so means using temp accomadation which does not always mean short term but under temp rules the LHA does not apply. Very common for landlords to evict for tenant to have done nothing wrong, 1 reason this has been happing alot recently is house prices increasing and more landlords who were renting out before because of low house prices, now are selling and alot easier to sell with no tenants.
Not in aberdeen? You can psy 600 a month for a 1 bedroom flat depending on area
I live in a multicultural, urban, not the slightest bit posh area and really like it. That's interesting, isn't it.
Oh. Alright then.
They usually get housed by the Border agency usually in tower blocks and the like.
How do you know they are on benefits?
What is the Local Housing Allowance rate for your area? the figure should be available on your Local Authorities website under housing benefit. If the rent for these properties is much higher than the LHA the occupants would be eligible for it is unlikely they are on benefits, unless the landlord is desperate for tenants some money better than an empty property and no money. Out of work housing benefit claimants also often are not going to have money for a deposit and get their housing benefit in arrears not advance, and do not have a good reputation.
Maybe a local landlord has done a deal with a housing association or local authority?
Some housing associations or local authorities will take on private rental property for six months or a year or more, giving the owner a guaranteed rental income all be it below private market rents, and guaranteeing to return the property in a good state, they do it up fixing any damage before returing it, so the landlord gets easy money.
Maybe the poor people are not poor. I look scruffy and don't work and bought a reasonably sized detached house in a nice area outright no mortgage.
I a not going to pass comment on the type of people you feel should not be living there, I will say how do you know it is landlords letting them out ? I live in RBKC and in our street every house is the old Victorian town house and some are privately owned and some are owned by the council , varying jobs and we all get along just fine .
No I'm in the West coast. Yes Aberdeen is one of the more expensive to rent from.
I'm sure your upmarket neighbours back then didn't want your type moving into the area either.
I think each council makes its own decisions. We only get direct payments as landlords if they are probation service/ Centrepoint/ mental health service referrals or when (sigh) they are 8 weeks in arrears.
From a strictly economic point of view, I don't think DSS tenants with a shaky background are that good. They never have any money (astonishingly), so whatever damage they do, you have no redress at all. We have been awarded court compensation loads of times because someone has trashed a flat, from smashing all the windows or ripping off the roof tiles and throwing them into the street for fun, and all that happens is that a few months later you get a sad little letter saying because they have paid no money, they have been sentenced to 20 days in prison. And because they tend to have friends who are destitute and homeless, you end up with 20 people living in a 2 bedroom flat, and have to go through all kinds of shit to get them out.
I think you're on to something here and it's a real positive. They will be tracked down by those who they're meant to be protected from and then they will either flee or be massacred. But which ever happens it will mean the landlord will once more be able to rent the property to nice people.
You bought a house outright and don't work? What did you do - rob a bank?
storylink
As one of the families have been there for a year now I think an housing association has bought up the stock, as no landlord could be this daft.
Whenever I have had time off work they are in the garden etc so doubt they are working. Plus I've seen them coming home with bags of shopping from Iceland, which is odd when there is an M&S and Waitrose just around the corner. (The nearest Iceland is almost 2 miles away).
Thankfully like I said in the OP they aren't that bad by social tenants standards apart from the dog that barks when they let it out for 10 mins every now and again and the kids that play football but hopefully the housing association will cease their spending spree in my area.
It only takes one bad family to take a whole area down. This is why I believe they should be placed all in one place as opposed to spread out with us decent law abiding folk.
You really don't sound up yourself at all, Hyacinth;-)
You seem to be forgetting a very important thing, private landlords are becomeing the new socal landlords, this is what the government wants, dont forget selling off council housing is this governments big aim. And what are 'Council type families
Kids are loud. That's life. Children can't be banned from the area to preserve the tranquility you so desire.
What exactly is wrong with the Asylum Seeker family? it came across like you were insinuating that the fact they are Asylum Seekers alone makes them unworthy of living in your area.