Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#1
some bad thinking from this egp,might get mr bibbys and co's approval.
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentish_express/news/fergus-wilson-10923/howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#2
this couple are serial offenders and appear to be simply concerned with lining their own pockets, no wonder they like east europeans who don't know their rights.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#3
Howard that is complete horsefeathers. His houses, his decision. I can't blame him at all.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#4
you need to bone up on this one peter, they have featured in the national press many times with tenants taking them to court and winning.
they always avoid paying out on the ccj's.
egp's rule ok.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#5
Whether he's a good guy or not, surely the basic premis is that if 50% of his (benefit) tenants are defaulting, but others are not, then he must want the best return on his investment and so not want to have tenants on benefits.
I know there's no disgrace about receiving benefit, but the most important thing is keeping the roof over your head - isn't it ?
Surely too, if the benefits were paid direct to landlord, he wouldn't lose out would he and the tenants would stay there ?
Roger
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#6
Howard, I think you forgot the 'allegedly' in post 4. If they have managed to avoid paying out on CCJ's it's because the claimants have not used collection agents such as county court bailiffs or high court sheriffs. Use of these ways of collection never fails against well-funded defendants, as long as the claimant has sued the right person or company. You really ought to add that word, as I'm sure as moderator you speak officially for the forum and I'm sure Mr Wilson knows his way round the county courts.
Most owners would be happy to have a respectable tenant on benefits if the rent were paid direct to them, as used to happen. But 1. nowadays rent is paid to the claimant not to the landlord so anything can happen between giro day and rent day, 2. landlords are not charities and there is no reason why they should carry people who have broken their tenancy agreements.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#7
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#8
It will create even less housing
and those less able to afford housing in even bigger crisis
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#9
But why should people be able to default on their rent ?
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#10
mr and mrs wilson want all benefit claimants out whether or not they default on their rent - no prizes for guessing why.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#11
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#12
If this fat cat can run a portfolio of one thousand houses From a small office and small maintenance team ,and stay in profit, why is it so difficult for the council to run a portfolio of several hundred thousand housing units?
Saving on housing benefits at the same time
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#13
DDC do not run their own council houses anymore, they are managed under East Kent Housing and they are much better managed and savings are being made.
Roger
Guest 700- Registered: 11 Jun 2010
- Posts: 2,868
#14
paying your rent should be a priority, otherwise what can you expect!
---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#15
this couple have stated that they are getting rid of benefit claimants irrespective of whether they pay their rent or not.
Guest 782- Registered: 4 Oct 2012
- Posts: 357
#16
The benefits can stop at any time, administering HB is hard work. Put this with the point made earlier that HB has reduced in real terms the tenants have to make top up payments and very often don't.
So, like with apples, one or two rotten ones spoil it for the rest. Peter is absolutely right, Private Landlords are not a charity, most of them have become Landlords to try and gain some sort of pension later, others like the Wilson's are professional Landlords. It has to be the case that the Council Authority provide decent safety-net housing. We are now reaping the terrible reward of allowing tenants to buy their council property which has robbed the new disadvantaged of their safety nets. Housing Associations are only big businesses doing what the Councils should be doing, only cheaper and worse.
So, good for the Wilson's, I don't envy their arrears catalogue especially after Christmas when so often, rents are used to buy presents! There does need to be a change, but like so many things that require change, the rollercoaster is running so fast it is difficult to see what has to be done, until it has stopped! Who has big enough balls to stop it?
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#17
We need to recognise the fact that we need housing ,same as after the war
The solution is probably the same,, mass building of prefabs and council housing
The big problem is money. We can borrow or redirect from the budget we have.
If we had not gone for mass migration we would have been heading for a manageable population of around 35 million after the baby boomers snuffed it ,instead of the 70 + we have coming Along .
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#18
so what happens to the wilson's new tenants if they lose their jobs and go onto benefits?
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#19
or leave the country owing rent money.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#20
18, I suspect they would keep schtum and not tell Uncle Fergus. He would have no legal way of finding out such information unless someone told him. When the money runs out they would get turfed out just like anyone else who can't pay their rent.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
