paulv Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 "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" http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/04/buy-to-let-landlord-evicts-housing-benefit-tenants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simmo Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 "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" http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/04/buy-to-let-landlord-evicts-housing-benefit-tenants how do you feel about this paul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulv Posted January 4, 2014 Author Share Posted January 4, 2014 how do you feel about this paul? It's obviously a good thing. Housing benefit costs the UK taxpayer more than JSA, Incapacity Benefit, council tax benefit and employment support allowance combined. Buy to let is nothing more than a right wing backed scheme to rinse the UK taxpayer of benefits payments, and this family have obviously relied on the UK taxpayer to amass their fortune. What are your thoughts on it, Simmo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simmo Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 I just feel sorry for the poor people that will be made potentially homeless through no fault of their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulv Posted January 4, 2014 Author Share Posted January 4, 2014 I just feel sorry for the poor people that will be made potentially homeless through no fault of their own. But this saves us taxpayers millions in pounds per year. Isn't that a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simmo Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 But this saves us taxpayers millions in pounds per year. Isn't that a good thing? money spent on the genuinely needy is never money wasted paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulv Posted January 4, 2014 Author Share Posted January 4, 2014 money spent on the genuinely needy is never money wasted paul. How do you know they are genuinely needy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simmo Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 How do you know they are genuinely needy? are you telling me they weren't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulv Posted January 4, 2014 Author Share Posted January 4, 2014 are you telling me they weren't? I just asked a question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simmo Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 I just asked a question well unless you are suggesting otherwise i'll assume they are genuinely needy and hope they don't end up homeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyupnorth Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 The blokes running a business, if he's not getting the rent then he isn't getting payed. Evict the lot then start again with fresh fare paying Eastern European stock. As long as it's done correctly with notice and within the law then good on'em. Might take quite a while though as there isn't the influx of migrants from Romania and hungry they were expecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Counting Stars Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Would be much easier if they still gave housing benefit directly to the landlord instead of the person. No chance to spend it on things other than rent. X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest 47403 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Would be much easier if they still gave housing benefit directly to the landlord instead of the person. No chance to spend it on things other than rent. X I know where your coming from CS but I think it would be better if more social housing was available rather that lining some fat cats pocket with tax payers money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Counting Stars Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Oh yes of course. However those who are saying about chucking people out who are in arrears with payments so therefore if it goes directly to the landlord less chance of arrears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caramac Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 I think that has been thought about, but I think the idea is to make people responsible for themselves. What will happen to the people who are being evicted? I guess those with children will be put into B&Bs at more cost to the taxpayer and those without will be on the streets or in hostels with no chance of getting a job (no permanent address) and at risk of serious health problems which the NHS will have to pick the tab up for. We need more social housing, paid for and owned by the taxpayer where rents can be better controlled and more vulnerable people can be protected and have a chance of bettering their lives. That's in all our best interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyupnorth Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 I know where your coming from CS but I think it would be better if more social housing was available rather that lining some fat cats pocket with tax payers money! I am sure he will be paying his taxes, unlike those who drink their housing cheque. IMO, you are right there should be more social accommodation. Which should be state run and controlled by the government not left to private landlords to pick up the pieces. Therefore no cash or payments are given out through the benefit system therefore eliminating the risk of the monies being miss spent. I am am sure the landlord in question has several property companies NOT property charities, the rent is given by the government as a benefit for a house and home not to fund sky tv, lager, and nights out. Again it's down to the individual to budget and not for others to support them by allowing extensions to their rent payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickyb Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Seems a little unfair to the tenants who are genuinely unemployed . And I must admit I'm a little surprised at the poster who previously has spoken out for the unemployed as a right wing press victimised / discriminated / hate / blame target group . i would have thought that a simple ' working people preferred ' would suffice without mentioning nationality . ive just got my first English tenant in 5 years , working, naturally . I've got polish tenants in other properties always been good as gold .id never rent to unemployed , more wear and tear because they're home longer . as for saving money , these people will have to live somewhere else at the taxpayers expense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peccavi Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 "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" http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/04/buy-to-let-landlord-evicts-housing-benefit-tenants how do you feel about this paul? It's obviously a good thing.Housing benefit costs the UK taxpayer more than JSA, Incapacity Benefit, council tax benefit and employment support allowance combined. Buy to let is nothing more than a right wing backed scheme to rinse the UK taxpayer of benefits payments, and this family have obviously relied on the UK taxpayer to amass their fortune. What are your thoughts on it, Simmo? I just feel sorry for the poor people that will be made potentially homeless through no fault of their own. But this saves us taxpayers millions in pounds per year. Isn't that a good thing? money spent on the genuinely needy is never money wasted paul. How do you know they are genuinely needy? are you telling me they weren't? I just asked a question well unless you are suggesting otherwise i'll assume they are genuinely needy and hope they don't end up homeless. I think I've just woken up in the twilight zone! Have you two swapped places just for a lark? I'll be damned! Now I'm awa' to read the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest 47403 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 I am sure he will be paying his taxes, unlike those who drink their housing cheque. IMO, you are right there should be more social accommodation. Which should be state run and controlled by the government not left to private landlords to pick up the pieces. Therefore no cash or payments are given out through the benefit system therefore eliminating the risk of the monies being miss spent. I am am sure the landlord in question has several property companies NOT property charities, the rent is given by the government as a benefit for a house and home not to fund sky tv, lager, and nights out. Again it's down to the individual to budget and not for others to support them by allowing extensions to their rent payments. Sorry Gary but someone owning 1000 properties doesn't sit right with me, I'd rather those 1000 properties have been available for others to buy individually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tappers2oz Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Sorry Gary but someone owning 1000 properties doesn't sit right with me, I'd rather those 1000 properties have been available for others to buy individually. That is a huge amount of properties to own! I don't even know anyone that owns 2 homes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyupnorth Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Your right, it is a vast amount of properties. I wonder how many people he employs to do the daily running of the houses, I wonder how many trade men he employs to maintain them, I wonder how many gas fitters he employes to do the gas safety checks, I wonder how many admin clarks he employes, i wonder how many rent collectors he employs, I wonder how many debt collectors he employs, I wonder how many families have food on their tables every day through employment he generates with having so many houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest 47403 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 That is a huge amount of properties to own! I don't even know anyone that owns 2 homes! An investment property for the future maybe, but 1000!! No not right nice little earner for someone but creates issues elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest 47403 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Your right, it is a vast amount of properties.I wonder how many people he employs to do the daily running of the houses, I wonder how many trade men he employs to maintain them, I wonder how many gas fitters he employes to do the gas safety checks, I wonder how many admin clarks he employes, i wonder how many rent collectors he employs, I wonder how many debt collectors he employs, I wonder how many families have food on their tables every day through employment he generates with having so many houses. Non argument Gary he probably has a single large company doing the maint work meaning less money for the smaller businesses stifling local competition etc, if those properties were individually owned I bet much more people would benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tappers2oz Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Your right, it is a vast amount of properties.I wonder how many people he employs to do the daily running of the houses, I wonder how many trade men he employs to maintain them, I wonder how many gas fitters he employes to do the gas safety checks, I wonder how many admin clarks he employes, i wonder how many rent collectors he employs, I wonder how many debt collectors he employs, I wonder how many families have food on their tables every day through employment he generates with having so many houses. I doubt he 'employs' that many people actually. If he is a private landlord then the money gets paid straight to him, if via an agent then they collect and take a cut then the rest goes to him. If they are rented for people to live in properly (long term not holiday lets) they will be doing the 'daily running'. If his houses are in that much disrepair he should get them sorted before renting them out. We rent privately and we treat the house as our own and only contact the landlord if something big need fixing, we don't mind doing little things ourselves. Gas safety checks, get cover and they are done by the company once a year. If they were owned houses by the occupant then they may have similar cover, I know we did. I don't see how him renting out all these houses is putting food on people's tables when if they were owned by the occupant it's probable they would have the same outgoings (pipe cover, emergencies cropping up (burst pipes etc), small things that need fixing like a broken fence panel). I don't think him owning 1000 houses helps the people he rents too. Perhaps they are struggling to get on the housing ladder as he bought up the cheap houses and now rents them out for a small fortune. And I highly suspect he doesn't 'employ' anyone but instead calls someone if an issue arises the same as a home owner would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyupnorth Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Maybe so, we might never know. although with this current economic situation can't fault any one who employs staff. theres a lot of "if's" and "I think", "don't think"" and "I suspect" on the previous post. the facts are he has 1000 houses and he must employ staff to run them therefore his staff (no matter how many) depend on him for wages to put food on their tables. If rent isn't payed there will be no income and the staff will still expect to be payed. He will still have to pay taxes, employers NI contributions,holiday pay for his staff and his overheads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.