Housing benefit and private rental landlords

[rapido]

There's been a lot of debate about the governments plans to cap housing benefit and I have to agree that the money coming out of the public purse for rents in London is unacceptable. Does anybody else think that the government should be putting a cap on what private landlords are allowed to charge for a property.

Years ago, there used to be fair rent rules. I don't know if these still exist but if they do, they are obviously not effective.

Whilst there are landlords or won't accept tenants on HB, there are landlords that buy up run down properties in deprived areas and rent rooms out at ridiculous prices specifically targeted at people claiming HB. It's these people who are the scummers sapping money from the public purse.

In addition, private landlords who won't rent to people on HB usually won't do so because they know that the full rent won't be met because it's too high for the size of property.

Private rents are too high in this country and this needs to be addressed, particularly in a climate where many more people are going to find themselves having to claim benefits as more jobs are lost accross both the public and private sectors

[HeadingNorth]

You want fair rent rules to be enforced so that private landlords can't charge high rents to benefit claimants; and you also object to private landlords refusing to take benefit claimants because they can get higher rents from paying tenants.

 

 

You haven't thought this through have you?

[mike84]

Why should private landlords have rent amounts capped? They've bought a house, generally got it to a fit state for someone to live in and then rent it.

 

If the rents too high they won't get tennants interested.

[Ms Macbeth]

Why should private landlords have rent amounts capped? They've bought a house, generally got it to a fit state for someone to live in and then rent it.

 

If the rents too high they won't get tennants interested.

 

Not if they have to pay the rent themselves, but it has appeared not to matter for some local authorities, who have placed people on benefits in extremely expensive housing. Situations like this one http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23855146-we-cant-move-pound-2000-a-week-benefits-family-until-the-rules-change.do are very much in the minority, but shouldn't be happening.

 

There was also a programme on TV the other week about some private landlords whose properties aren't maintained, but who make a fortune from people on benefits. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vmvcv

[handypandy]

When all is said and done, private landlords are in the business to make money, like anyone else that invests in anything. The implications for people on lower incomes, to be fair, are not their problem.

 

Please don't pull my figures apart, they are for demonstration purposes only....but... If you had a million quid to spare, it would probably get you about seven modest family sized properties in Sheffield. The potential rental income of which, would probably be a tad over 50k a year. Take off this the agents fees, maintenance, some unpaid rent, and the fact that there will be some unoccupied times. Now set this against what the million would have earned, sat in various bank accounts without the hassle (provided the banks remained solvent!)

 

I'm not making a bleeding heart case for landlords, far from it, but there are two sides to a story.

[ricgem2002]

When all is said and done, private landlords are in the business to make money, like anyone else that invests in anything. The implications for people on lower incomes, to be fair, are not their problem.

 

Please don't pull my figures apart, they are for demonstration purposes only....but... If you had a million quid to spare, it would probably get you about seven modest family sized properties in Sheffield. The potential rental income of which, would probably be a tad over 50k a year. Take off this the agents fees, maintenance, some unpaid rent, and the fact that there will be some unoccupied times. Now set this against what the million would have earned, sat in various bank accounts without the hassle (provided the banks remained solvent!)

 

I'm not making a bleeding heart case for landlords, far from it, but there are two sides to a story.

this coming from someone whos livelihood depends on a landlord making as much money as possible to pay for his services .so whats the other side of the story?

[Boblet]

When all is said and done, private landlords are in the business to make money, like anyone else that invests in anything. The implications for people on lower incomes, to be fair, are not their problem.

 

Please don't pull my figures apart, they are for demonstration purposes only....but... If you had a million quid to spare, it would probably get you about seven modest family sized properties in Sheffield. The potential rental income of which, would probably be a tad over 50k a year. Take off this the agents fees, maintenance, some unpaid rent, and the fact that there will be some unoccupied times. Now set this against what the million would have earned, sat in various bank accounts without the hassle (provided the banks remained solvent!)

 

I'm not making a bleeding heart case for landlords, far from it, but there are two sides to a story.

 

Using your example, the net income would be broadly the same (depending on interest rates, levels of occupancy, costs of maintenance etc) but the difference is that, over a reasonable period, the £1m invested in property would increase in value by, what, 3% a year on average? (depending on when you buy and sell)

 

Whereas the £1m "invested" in the bank would reduce in value by roughly the same amount due to the effect of inflation

[rapido]

You want fair rent rules to be enforced so that private landlords can't charge high rents to benefit claimants; and you also object to private landlords refusing to take benefit claimants because they can get higher rents from paying tenants.

 

 

You haven't thought this through have you?

 

Yes I have.....it's you that's mis-read. What I'm saying is that I feel private landlords shouldn't be able to charge the ridiculous rent thats they do to EVERYBODY.

[handypandy]

this coming from someone whos livelihood depends on a landlord making as much money as possible to pay for his services .so whats the other side of the story?

 

Obviously, its in my interest that the landlord makes a profit just like anybody employed by anyone.Otherwise what's the alternative?

[handypandy]

Using your example, the net income would be broadly the same (depending on interest rates, levels of occupancy, costs of maintenance etc) but the difference is that, over a reasonable period, the £1m invested in property would increase in value by, what, 3% a year on average? (depending on when you buy and sell)

 

Whereas the £1m "invested" in the bank would reduce in value by roughly the same amount due to the effect of inflation

 

Yes you're right, the 3% you quote is what makes it worthwhile for him/her to invest, otherwise why would he/she?.