Buy-to-let property supremo sends out eviction notices to 200 tennants

Buy-to-let pin up couple Fergus and Judith Wilson have, as the thread title says sent out eviction notices to 200 tenants.

 

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

 

The couple who own about a 1,000 properties in the Kent area claim that "Rents have gone north, and benefit levels south". Hence their decision.

 

I'm aware that although this story will have some forummers 'getting a semi' at the thought of owning that much property (if you haven't got a semi from looking at their picture); there is a wider social issue of too little social housing, and the danger of few people allowed to have too much property. That is, if other landlords make the same decision as the Wilsons; what about their tenants?

So many angles to this. Firstly, the Wilson's have been providing a service for many years to both private and social tenants. As they say they've had to make a business decision based on current realities.

 

Quite simply benefits payments have not kept pace with the rising costs of providing housing. They have no shortage of other, better potential tenants.

 

Of course it shows two things:

1. That house prices are out of control when even the ever increasing amount spent on housing benefits can not meet rising rents

2. The private sector cannot be relied on to supply - the whole reason why corporations and council stepped in all those years ago

Love the strapline under their photograph-"We've found that East Europeans are good tenants".

....claim that "Rents have gone north, and benefit levels south".

 

Why have rents gone north given that interest rates are at historic lows? Their (the Wilson's) mortgage costs are unlikely to have increased drastically.

 

Unless high demand is push all rents in their area up and the Wilson's are just choosing to charge the prevailing rent amount, even if they don't need to.

Why have rents gone north given that interest rates are at historic lows?

Demand for housing.

Their (the Wilson's) mortgage costs are unlikely to have increased drastically.

They might not have debt on their estate.

Unless high demand is push all rents in their area up and the Wilson's are just choosing to charge the prevailing rent amount, even if they don't need to.

That sounds like the reason, and why would you choose not to increase rents if the market determined it? Besides which it seems their issue is with defaulters who fall behind, so they're seeking more secure tenants and the additional benefit to them is that they're in a position to pay more than tenants on benefits can. Edited January 4, 2014 by boyfriday

I wonder if changes to the way Housing Benefit is paid has contributed to their decision. In the past HB could be paid directly to the landlord, thereby guaranteeing at least some of the rent they charge.

 

When that mechanism doesn't apply and the money is given straight to the claimant there is a greater likelihood of the rent not getting paid at all.

I wonder if changes to the way Housing Benefit is paid has contributed to their decision. In the past HB could be paid directly to the landlord, thereby guaranteeing at least some of the rent they charge.

 

When that mechanism doesn't apply and the money is given straight to the claimant there is a greater likelihood of the rent not getting paid at all.

 

I suspect that's what's happened. I read somewhere how many people had slipped behind in the rent since this started and it was worryingly high.

I sincerely hope this morally bankrupt pair of parasites end up bankrupt and destitute.

I suspect that's what's happened. I read somewhere how many people had slipped behind in the rent since this started and it was worryingly high.

 

I remember it was hoped that by giving the money to the claimant it would teach then about financial probity. But unfortunately some people just aren't that way inclined and would rather spend money on other, more tangible and pleasurable stuff, rather than boring old rent.

I remember it was hoped that by giving the money to the claimant it would teach then about financial probity. But unfortunately some people just aren't that way inclined and would rather spend money on other, more tangible and pleasurable stuff, rather than boring old rent.

 

I think if you've had your rent paid since the year dot and spent what you had in your pocket this was inevitable. Will it save the government any money or is it just a case of chucking people in at the deep end and hoping they don't drown?

i smell bullcrap, comes across as one of those stories designed to whip up hatred and smeer certain members of the community

 

A: im sure not all benefit claiments are defaulting

B: im sure not all people in work are paying diligently (what with the current climate, i myself am struggling more than i was)

C: im sure not all eastern europeans are diligent at paying, or in deed in work / not claiming benefit

Buy-to-let pin up couple Fergus and Judith Wilson have, as the thread title says sent out eviction notices to 200 tenants.

 

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

 

The couple who own about a 1,000 properties in the Kent area claim that "Rents have gone north, and benefit levels south". Hence their decision.

 

I'm aware that although this story will have some forummers 'getting a semi' at the thought of owning that much property (if you haven't got a semi from looking at their picture); there is a wider social issue of too little social housing, and the danger of few people allowed to have too much property. That is, if other landlords make the same decision as the Wilsons; what about their tenants?

 

I did have one but the Wilsons bought it to add to their portfolio.