HeadingNorth Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 the government is buying them for him over a period of time. No; he's buying them. Whence his source of income doesn't alter that fact. There is - or at least seems to be - something inherently wrong with a system where it's easier for someone who already owns houses to buy more of them and rent them out, than it is for someone without a house to buy their own. Perhaps housing benefit should be payable on mortgages at the same as it is on rents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 the government is buying them for him over a period of time. So he should say NO DSS as many landlords do, further lowering the supply of rental properties available to social tenants? Lower supply usually means higher prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I hope he does and the family's use their legally entitled notice period to find better accommodation with better land lords and after this guy goes bankrupt due to no one being able to afford his rents! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I hope he does and the family's use their legally entitled notice period to find better accommodation with better land lords and after this guy goes bankrupt due to no one being able to afford his rents! If better accommodation with better landlords was available, they'd have taken it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 If better accommodation with better landlords was available, they'd have taken it in the first place. No they wouldn't. Its easier not to move unless you have reason to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I don't see what the OP's point is. Who cares where the money is coming from to pay his rents, if he doesn't get paid for the service he provides, fair play to him to throw them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 No they wouldn't. Its easier not to move unless you have reason to do so. exactly, you usually need deposits and a months rent. If you're on benefits you tend not to have £500 lying around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I don't see what the OP's point is. Who cares where the money is coming from to pay his rents, if he doesn't get paid for the service he provides, fair play to him to throw them out. Same here, it's a no brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 No they wouldn't. Its easier not to move unless you have reason to do so. I didn't say they would move. I said they would have taken it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 The title has been amended the property owner does not personally receive any benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.