Landlord to evict 200 tenants - because they received housing benefit

First topic message reminder :


Buy-to-let property supremo shuts door on housing benefit tenants
One of Britain's best-known landlords, who owns nearly 1,000 homes, has sent out 200 eviction notices

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, saying 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.

"Rents have gone north, and benefit levels south," he said. "The gap is such that I have taken the decision to withdraw from taking tenants on housing benefit. From what I can gather just about all other landlords have done the same. Our situation is that not one of our working tenants is in arrears – all those in arrears are on housing benefit."

A key factor for Wilson and other landlords is that it is impossible to obtain rent guarantee insurance for a tenant on housing benefit. This type of insurance is sold to landlords and is designed to cover the rent if the tenant stops paying for any reason.

Another issue Wilson raises is the number of tenancy applications landlords receive for each property.

"Tenants on benefits are competing with eastern Europeans who came to the UK in 2005 and have built up a good enough credit record to rent privately. We've found them to be a good category of tenant who don't default on the rent. With tenants on benefits the number of defaulters outnumbers the ones who pay on time," he said.

"Single mothers on benefits have been displaced to the bottom of the pile; sympathy for this group is disappearing. There aren't enough places for people to live."

Dan Wilson Craw, a spokesman for campaign group Priced Out, says he is dismayed to hear Wilson's announcement: "Evicting tenants because you're suddenly upset about new government policies is unbelievably heartless, and could lead to more people deciding not to claim benefit for fear of losing their home, and sinking further into poverty," he said, "This is just one symptom of a wider housing market that is simply not working in the consumer's interests. The instability and poor conditions that private tenants have to deal with would not be tolerated in any other market."

Wilson's decision comes after figures from the National Landlords' Association published in December, which showed that the number of private landlords letting to people on benefits has halved to just one in five.

Problems for tenants on benefits seem likely to get worse when universal credit is introduced. Under the scheme, six means-tested benefits, including housing benefit, will be combined into one monthly payment. Tenants on benefits will need to budget and pay the rent to their landlord themselves.

Universal credit started to be introduced in April 2013 and it is predicted that all claimants will be moved to the scheme by 2017.

The Wilsons shot to prominence in 2006 when it was revealed that they had built up Britain's biggest buy-to-let empire, sometimes snapping up a property every day in the early part of the decade.

Wilson is not the first large-scale landlord to raise concerns about low-income tenants. Last month Kevin Green, a landlord with more than 700 properties in Wales, said he may stop letting to people on welfare.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/04/buy-to-let-landlord-evicts-housing-benefit-tenants

Don't get sick, don't lose your job, don't have a zero hours contract, don't be on minimum wage, if you do, make sure you have warm clothes so you can live on the street.

Why not Sphinx, the other discussion is about emergency payments and you said that the councils could make emergency payment from money they don't have to pay in housing benefit, which is patently stupid.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:Or because this discussion is going nowhere as I cannot give accurate answers to defend myself without giving details that should be confidential I will resign.  I see what I see and know what I know and if people want to disbelieve me thats fine.  Aint gonna stop me trying to tell them though.

Also whether people believe me or not I can assure every one I do not do anything illegal or against the rules and my benefits advisor is fully informed as to everything I do - voluntary, unpaid (yep I am doing unpaid work) and day to day ordinary living.  They are happy that what I am doing is as it should be.

Ok Sphinx I accept that you are doing nothing wrong but you are basing your beliefs on what people tell you about other people whilst dismissing other more factual evidence that contradicts what you say.

That's why you are being challenged.

In other words, putting tittle tattle over facts.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:Or because this discussion is going nowhere as I cannot give accurate answers to defend myself without giving details that should be confidential I will resign.  I see what I see and know what I know and if people want to disbelieve me thats fine.  Aint gonna stop me trying to tell them though.

Also whether people believe me or not I can assure every one I do not do anything illegal or against the rules and my benefits advisor is fully informed as to everything I do - voluntary, unpaid (yep I am doing unpaid work) and day to day ordinary living.  They are happy that what I am doing is as it should be.

Ok Sphinx I accept that you are doing nothing wrong but you are basing your beliefs on what people tell you about other people whilst dismissing other more factual evidence that contradicts what you say.

That's why you are being challenged.

Again I cannot defend myself - but what I am telling you is accurate, and it is more than gossip I just cant prove that.

Sphinx, even if you knew 100 people, it still wouldn't be evidence, facts are evidence, not what people tell you over a cup of coffee which you can't verify.

Sassy wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Ok Sphinx I accept that you are doing nothing wrong but you are basing your beliefs on what people tell you about other people whilst dismissing other more factual evidence that contradicts what you say.

That's why you are being challenged.

In other words, putting tittle tattle over facts.

Someone tells you so and so is cheating on their partner. Thats tittle tattle. When you observe so and so you know that what you were told is the truth but have no more proof than the person who told you.

Sassy wrote:Sphinx, even if you knew 100 people, it still wouldn't be evidence, facts are evidence, not what people tell you over a cup of coffee which you can't verify.

I keep telling everyone I am not claiming evidence I am simply reporting my own experience and observations.

I mean as far as over crowding/under occupying goes that is observations - I can see and count who has how many living in what house. I have stated that where I am the singles in 3 beds are working - I am basing that on their routine and the company vehicles. I have said the families that are over crowded do not have a problem with that. They would have a problem if the singles behaviour indicated they were on benefits.

Also I believe I and everyone else are failing to define "on benefits"

When arguing about landlords I stated people did not know who was on benefits - in that case and only that case (because I am as guilty as anyone on this fault) I was referring to things like tax credits and housing benefit which may be paid to people in full time employment and I made the statement in reference to my contention that Landlords would not be able to say "nobody on benefits" when universal credits came in because unlike now when someone unemployed has distinct benefits from someone working with universal credits that distinction is lost - the father earning £20,000 a year will get UC and the unemployed man with also get UC just a different amount. At other times my references to benefits claimants have been concerned with people who are unemployed - something which is a damn site easier for everyone to spot. A lot of this grief is my fault for failing to specify what I was talking about - my head was running away from me.

My apologies.

How are we getting on with this thread then?

Sassy is busy defending those who make the workers poorer by stealing benefits. That's Jeremys girl for you.

Her favourite theme is stealing her grand childrens future by foisting a spendthrift labour govt on us to ensure they live in virtual slavery so that she can live more easily.

Strange how these Socialist seem to think they are the caring ones when it is us right wingers who work and want to pay our way and not leave debt for our grandchildren.

Still you've seen White Dee Sassy is very like her I presume.

Osborne has missed almost every fiscal target he set in 2010 and has had to borrow billions more to cover up his incompetence.
They've had 4 years at the helm and in that time they threw away the legacy of growth that they inherited and plunged this country into a basket case economy based on low pay and austerity where they are hammering everyone but those that caused the mess in the first place. All those years wasted and now they're trumpeting success in the economy improving when it was always likely that eventually it would improve because it just couldn't get any worse.