UK's biggest private landlord favours Eastern European migrants over UK born tenants

[mickyb]

Some serious misunderstandings of what it takes to operate and maintain a business that rents out 1000 homes . That's anywhere up from £100, 000,000 of assets . If they go through letting agents they will use smaller trades people . If they have their own management company that's jobs created . There's a lot of accounting to do . Even if larger companies were used ( which I doubt ) they still have to employ trades people . From experience I'd also say that the homes would be well maintained or upgraded to balance profit / tax .

do the people who find it distressing think it would be better if the homes were owned by the council and let straight to foreigners after kicking out the indigenous unemployed ?

I also doubt if the properties are mortgage free .at some time they've been bought by someone who wanted or needed to sell when no one else would buy . And if the rents are market prices it's Win Win , surely ?

[caramac]

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.

 

 

The problem with the govt giving the money straight to the landlord is that you're taking away responsibility from the tenant to pay their bills - in effect they see their house as 'free'. You can't get people to be responsible by taking away responsibility.

However, the housing being owned by the taxpayer (govt) means that rents can be kept at a reasonable level, not increased on the whim of a private landlord which can then mean that housing benefit is not enough to cover the whole cost.

There is no doubt that there is a number of feckless, workshy individuals (and families!) in the society, and I get as p****** off about them as anyone else, but there are more who are living on benefits through no fault of their own - disability, life limiting or changing illness, victims of domestic violence, mental illness, carers for any of the above etc etc and they shouldn't be penalised or marginalised further.

We need the next generation to feel that they are valued by society and that they have something to contribute. That won't happen if they're constantly pigeonholed into being sky watching, chain smoking, alcoholics who don't deserve somewhere to live.

 

 

The houses would still need maintaining, and therefore jobs would still be created for tradesmen, if the houses were in public ownership, but there are too many private landlords who don't carry out the required maintenance on their properties which means people living in potentially dangerous conditions. Ours won't do a thing unless we hassle her and even then she's reluctant. The guy who eventually came to service our boiler said he didn't think it'd been seen for 6 or 7 years. It's only because we own a property which we rent our that we know what the rules are. My ex bil used to inspect properties for his local council and said the rules for publicly owned housing are much more toughly enforced.

[flag of convenience]

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

 

Should be automatically the case. In fact thought it was. I certainly don't agree on a landlord able to take away folk's housing, even if a slum land lord at that.

No doubt seen greater profits from squeezing in more people at higher rents than able to charge those on benefits. All round pretty disgraceful.

[pablo]

The problem with the govt giving the money straight to the landlord is that you're taking away responsibility from the tenant to pay their bills - in effect they see their house as 'free'. You can't get people to be responsible by taking away responsibility.

However, the housing being owned by the taxpayer (govt) means that rents can be kept at a reasonable level, not increased on the whim of a private landlord which can then mean that housing benefit is not enough to cover the whole cost.

There is no doubt that there is a number of feckless, workshy individuals (and families!) in the society, and I get as p****** off about them as anyone else, but there are more who are living on benefits through no fault of their own - disability, life limiting or changing illness, victims of domestic violence, mental illness, carers for any of the above etc etc and they shouldn't be penalised or marginalised further.

We need the next generation to feel that they are valued by society and that they have something to contribute. That won't happen if they're constantly pigeonholed into being sky watching, chain smoking, alcoholics who don't deserve somewhere to live.

 

 

The houses would still need maintaining, and therefore jobs would still be created for tradesmen, if the houses were in public ownership, but there are too many private landlords who don't carry out the required maintenance on their properties which means people living in potentially dangerous conditions. Ours won't do a thing unless we hassle her and even then she's reluctant. The guy who eventually came to service our boiler said he didn't think it'd been seen for 6 or 7 years. It's only because we own a property which we rent our that we know what the rules are. My ex bil used to inspect properties for his local council and said the rules for publicly owned housing are much more toughly enforced.

 

Superb post!

[caramac]

Superb post!

 

Aw, thanks :wubclub:

[WeegieDave]

Should be automatically the case. In fact thought it was. I certainly don't agree on a landlord able to take away folk's housing, even if a slum land lord at that.

No doubt seen greater profits from squeezing in more people at higher rents than able to charge those on benefits. All round pretty disgraceful.

That was my thoughts straight away. It sounds like a greed motivated decision. He is no doubt rubbing his hands at the potential influx of Romanians and Bulgarians.

[Incata]

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!

 

He is not a fat cat. He is someone who has bought houses and successfully rented them out. Until the government stopped paying the rent directly to the Landlords, there was no problem letting houses to the unemployed. Now the money is given directly to the unemployed person, they have the choice of whether or not to pay their landlord. Many mortgages for buy to let houses will not allow the houses to be let to those on housing benefit (or whatever it is currently called). Single mothers do have a reputation for not paying their rent so I can quite understand why he does not want to let his houses to them.

 

I would not either. I'd much rather rent my house to someone who would pay the rent on time, than have to deal with solicitor costs in evicting them. Do I have any sympathy? No. They are given the money to pay the rent by the government. They choose not to pay it. They get evicted. Tough. They should take some responsibility for their actions.

[Incata]

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.

 

They were. Others just chose not to. He chose to take a risk on buying them, that he would be able to rent them out.

 

As I recall (from a story some years ago) the chap and his wife were originally teachers. They took a punt on the housing business and extended their mortgage to buy a house to rent out. It worked so they did it again and are now at the point of having 1000 houses (and have given up their teaching jobs to manage the business). Every one of those houses went on the market. Any person who wanted to could make an offer. Why should it be a problem that he chose to buy them?

 

Would you vet who bought your house? If the housing market was poor and someone came along offering to buy your house, and nobody else wanted to, would you turn round and say, "no I am not selling to you because I think you have too many houses already?"

 

Good on the chap for having done well enough and been brave enough to take the risk in the first place.

[scuffythetugboat]

Just as a by the way, these two were in the news in 2009 when they announced that they were selling all 700 of their properties so they can retire. We watched the story on Southeast News at the time and my good wife remarked that the husband would be able to afford buy a pair of trousers that would reach his shoes.

 

Must have changed their mind.

[docboat]

An investment property for the future maybe, but 1000!! No not right nice little earner for someone but creates issues elsewhere.

 

He probably worked damn hard for that, organised his life and planned. He is reaping the rewards of his work. Nice little earner? That is what those on welfare with 6 kids are doing. He is generating income, and that is no bad thing - we need more of that mentality. Rewarding failure is not the way to success, nor is beating up income generators a good way to encourage hard work.

[Incata]

He probably worked damn hard for that, organised his life and planned. He is reaping the rewards of his work. Nice little earner? That is what those on welfare with 6 kids are doing. He is generating income, and that is no bad thing - we need more of that mentality. Rewarding failure is not the way to success, nor is beating up income generators a good way to encourage hard work.

 

He is also paying tax on all the income he is generating, so indirectly supporting those on welfare with 6 kids.

[flag of convenience]

He is not a fat cat. He is someone who has bought houses and successfully rented them out. Until the government stopped paying the rent directly to the Landlords, there was no problem letting houses to the unemployed. Now the money is given directly to the unemployed person, they have the choice of whether or not to pay their landlord. Many mortgages for buy to let houses will not allow the houses to be let to those on housing benefit (or whatever it is currently called). Single mothers do have a reputation for not paying their rent so I can quite understand why he does not want to let his houses to them.

 

I would not either. I'd much rather rent my house to someone who would pay the rent on time, than have to deal with solicitor costs in evicting them. Do I have any sympathy? No. They are given the money to pay the rent by the government. They choose not to pay it. They get evicted. Tough. They should take some responsibility for their actions.

 

No he has made a comfortable living from the state so don't agree. Surely there is the means to still get paid rent from source (tax payer)than having the hassle of non paying lodgers? Begs the question as well why didn't he go towards non benefit folk among the locals before now. Sounds a bit of a parasite to me looking to turf folk out for increased personal gain, even though happily accepting benefit claimants until now.

[Ken]

This whole story is a load of crap. Eastern Europeans are just as entitled to claim Housing Benefit as anyone else you don't need to have been born in the UK. The eviction notices apply equally to anyone who relies on Housing Benefit regardless of their nationality.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Ken

[docboat]

No he has made a comfortable living from the state so don't agree. Surely there is the means to still get paid rent from source (tax payer)than having the hassle of non paying lodgers? Begs the question as well why didn't he go towards non benefit folk among the locals before now. Sounds a bit of a parasite to me looking to turf folk out for increased personal gain, even though happily accepting benefit claimants until now.

 

Completely disagree. He has taken on personal financial risk. He has created his own business out of very little, using his initiative, drive and intelligence. A concept foreign to many of those who are being turfed out.

[flybyknight]

article printed on the 4th January.

u know why? it's already been scratched on, christmas.... do i pay the rent; or buy that iPad for the kids.......

 

we have been renting places for a while, and initially we wanted to help those less fortunate, we weren't born with silver spoons so wanted to give something back.

the first welfare tenant, ripped us off just over a grand, the second one £400 and painted the whole house, like windows back of doors, door handles etc.

we were lucky that place was compulsory purchased so the renovation was done with a wrecking ball. job done.

 

it stopped then.

it makes sense to empower the tenants so they have to pay their rent. however the tenants have too much power. when they can squat for months while you get the legal into place to remove them, it's just too much for any landlord to bare.

you end up looking at it from a standpoint of risk, and it's just too risky to have these kind of people in a position of power with your investment.

[paulv]

This decision throws up the possibility of more social cleansing as is going on in London. Only 1 in 5 private landlords take tenants who claim HB, so If you are on housing benefits you cannot get decent private rentals so you have to uproot to a more affordable area. These will inevitably be areas with poor housing stock, social problems etc. Tenants from one large social housing company wee sent rent reminders with a note that if they had children and are made homeless the social services would be informed. Read into that what you will...

How far do we want the vulnerable to fall?

[Peccavi]

He is not a fat cat. He is someone who has bought houses and successfully rented them out. Until the government stopped paying the rent directly to the Landlords, there was no problem letting houses to the unemployed. Now the money is given directly to the unemployed person, they have the choice of whether or not to pay their landlord. Many mortgages for buy to let houses will not allow the houses to be let to those on housing benefit (or whatever it is currently called). Single mothers do have a reputation for not paying their rent so I can quite understand why he does not want to let his houses to them.

 

I would not either. I'd much rather rent my house to someone who would pay the rent on time, than have to deal with solicitor costs in evicting them. Do I have any sympathy? No. They are given the money to pay the rent by the government. They choose not to pay it. They get evicted. Tough. They should take some responsibility for their actions.

 

Do they now? Or could it be that 'single mothers' are increasingly vilified for being single mothers?

 

Just to qualify this: I have little sympathy for so-called 'breeding machines'. I have no time for the blatant scrounger. I doubt anyone does. What really irks me is the generalisation: single mothers are not ALL fleecing the system and not paying rent. These women (single fathers engender sympathy), face enough problems without this.

 

They are the whipping boys of the 21stC. A Mum staying home to look after the kids was respected; now ALL are a blight on society.

It must be so tough for these women to repeatedly read what a sorry lot they are. I have been one for 49 years and it bugs me.

 

The BLATANT scrounger: how many poor sods have to wear the mantle of being a leech on society when they are beaten down and depressed by the system today which actively praises the survival of the fittest (thank you Margaret-may you RoIP's).

 

Again: I have no time for those who are have never even tried. Again: I object to the generalisation that they are all the same; they are not.

 

In the fullness of time this will blow up in this man's face. Again the generalisation: 'all benefit tenants (British of course) = bad - all European tenants (no benefit applications there......) = good.

 

It doesn't work like that. Ultimately this bozo will have to not so much change his stance, but moderate it.

I doubt he'd make the papers then, which is a pity, because I would like to see a photo of him and his wife without that self satisfied smirk.

[flag of convenience]

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.

 

He took on benefit claimants and no doubt done very nicely out of it. An old ploy was to buy cheap run down places and rent out to claimants. The money used to be assured as was taken from source. Why that has changed in UK (if so) have no idea. Or is it the level paid by government has a ceiling where as the foreign market has few restrictions.

A shame UK doesn't have greater rental protection laws in place to protect the vulnerable in society. The government may well be required to fill the gap with more property at affordable level.

Transferring London council housing tenants to Stoke On Trent for example can only go so far.

[flag of convenience]

He is not a fat cat. He is someone who has bought houses and successfully rented them out. Until the government stopped paying the rent directly to the Landlords, there was no problem letting houses to the unemployed. Now the money is given directly to the unemployed person, they have the choice of whether or not to pay their landlord. Many mortgages for buy to let houses will not allow the houses to be let to those on housing benefit (or whatever it is currently called). Single mothers do have a reputation for not paying their rent so I can quite understand why he does not want to let his houses to them.

 

I would not either. I'd much rather rent my house to someone who would pay the rent on time, than have to deal with solicitor costs in evicting them. Do I have any sympathy? No. They are given the money to pay the rent by the government. They choose not to pay it. They get evicted. Tough. They should take some responsibility for their actions.

 

He is the extreme of a number of folk that made pretty good profits from the vulnerable without having the hassle of catering to middle class needs. A captive market in a sense. Having family in UK that done similar, although on a much smaller scale, it was preferable to rent to that market than those in work. I don't recall any more houses getting thrashed by claimants than those in work.

Fat cat or not an easy way to make money. Being a land lord of such a market he as well should show responsibility for his actions. Sad world we are living in these days when citizens can be displaced by greed in order to make room for foreigners.

[garyupnorth]

He is the extreme of a number of folk that made pretty good profits from the vulnerable without having the hassle of catering to middle class needs. A captive market in a sense. Having family in UK that done similar, although on a much smaller scale, it was preferable to rent to that market than those in work. I don't recall any more houses getting thrashed by claimants than those in work.

Fat cat or not an easy way to make money. Being a land lord of such a market he as well should show responsibility for his actions. Sad world we are living in these days when citizens can be displaced by greed in order to make room for foreigners.

 

I don't think he wants to displace anyone through greed, the bloke is offering a service and want to be payed for it. Having worked for myself and worked for customers who say that they " need a bit more time to pay", then to see them in the pub on a Friday night, now that's wrong. Why should non payment of my bill fund their social life. The bloke only wants paying and if his customers (tenants) aren't paying their bill then like any other good business man he is going to find customers (from Eastern Europe) who are going to pay their bills. Simple economics and business sense, good on him.

 

His previous tenants should have payed their bills, easy as that.

[Peccavi]

I don't think he wants to displace anyone through greed, the bloke is offering a service and want to be payed for it. Having worked for myself and worked for customers who say that they " need a bit more time to pay", then to see them in the pub on a Friday night, now that's wrong. Why should non payment of my bill fund their social life. The bloke only wants paying and if his customers (tenants) aren't paying their bill then like any other good business man he is going to find customers (from Eastern Europe) who are going to pay their bills. Simple economics and business sense, good on him.

 

His previous tenants should have payed their bills, easy as that.

 

200 of them have not paid their bills? (Was it 200?) He has given notice to those on HB-were every single one of those in arrears?

If not those who were paying their rent have been given notice simply because of being on HB!

How that can be justified is beyond me.

 

I also wonder at the law of racial discrimination, (never mind social discrimination!). I'm surprised this landlord (he seems fixated with the second syllable of that), is able to get away with only renting to 'foreigners'. Because if the issue is only HB, as another poster has already pointed out, they can also apply for HB, (if they pass the HRT).

Edited January 5, 2014 by Peccavi
Because I can.

[Incata]

This decision throws up the possibility of more social cleansing as is going on in London. Only 1 in 5 private landlords take tenants who claim HB, so If you are on housing benefits you cannot get decent private rentals so you have to uproot to a more affordable area. These will inevitably be areas with poor housing stock, social problems etc. Tenants from one large social housing company wee sent rent reminders with a note that if they had children and are made homeless the social services would be informed. Read into that what you will...

How far do we want the vulnerable to fall?

 

One of the biggest problems for private landlords is that neither their mortgage companies, nor their insurance companies, will allow them to rent to tenants who claim HB. When we rented out our house (while we were posted away for 4 years by the military), our home and contents insurance would have doubled and the excesses doubled, had we taken tenants on HB. After being burned by renting to the military (another mistake we would never make again if we bought a house to rent out), there was no way we were going to risk taking on tenants and be so much out of pocket if they damaged the place. We know a number of people who feel the same way.

[Incata]

Do they now? Or could it be that 'single mothers' are increasingly vilified for being single mothers?

 

Just to qualify this: I have little sympathy for so-called 'breeding machines'. I have no time for the blatant scrounger. I doubt anyone does. What really irks me is the generalisation: single mothers are not ALL fleecing the system and not paying rent. These women (single fathers engender sympathy), face enough problems without this.

 

They are the whipping boys of the 21stC. A Mum staying home to look after the kids was respected; now ALL are a blight on society.

It must be so tough for these women to repeatedly read what a sorry lot they are. I have been one for 49 years and it bugs me.

 

The BLATANT scrounger: how many poor sods have to wear the mantle of being a leech on society when they are beaten down and depressed by the system today which actively praises the survival of the fittest (thank you Margaret-may you RoIP's).

 

Again: I have no time for those who are have never even tried. Again: I object to the generalisation that they are all the same; they are not.

 

In the fullness of time this will blow up in this man's face. Again the generalisation: 'all benefit tenants (British of course) = bad - all European tenants (no benefit applications there......) = good.

 

It doesn't work like that. Ultimately this bozo will have to not so much change his stance, but moderate it.

I doubt he'd make the papers then, which is a pity, because I would like to see a photo of him and his wife without that self satisfied smirk.

 

Sorry, perhaps I should clarify. Single mothers on benefits have a reputation for not paying their rent. We actually rented our home out to a single mother with two kids, but she was working, so we did not have an issue with that. She was a perfect tenant and we were very sad when she left and bought her own house. Had she been on benefits it would have been a different story and we would not have rented it out to her.

[Incata]

200 of them have not paid their bills? (Was it 200?) He has given notice to those on HB-were every single one of those in arrears?

If not those who were paying their rent have been given notice simply because of being on HB!

How that can be justified is beyond me.

 

I also wonder at the law of racial discrimination, (never mind social discrimination!). I'm surprised this landlord (he seems fixated with the second syllable of that), is able to get away with only renting to 'foreigners'. Because if the issue is only HB, as another poster has already pointed out, they can also apply for HB, (if they pass the HRT).

 

It only takes 1 or 2 to not pay their rent to sour the taste of renting out to people on HB. Incidentally, nowhere in the article did it say that all of his other 800 houses were rented to foreigners. It only said that he was kicking out the 200 on HB. Their nationalities were not mentioned and incidentally, it is not just British people born and bred who are entitled to HB, it is any Tom, Dick or Harry from Europe who goes to live in the UK who is entitled to it. He is therefore not being racist, as he is not kicking them out because of their race, he is kicking them out because they are on HB and being on HB does not make you count as a separate racial group.

[gpo1971]

It's OK, it's only the Daily Mai.....

 

oh sorry.