Landlord's fury as benefits family behave like 'pack of wild animals.

[Coutts]

while the house increases massively in value. Sell it later and make a massive profit or once the mortgage is paid have a regular income for very little work.

 

Again, this is total nonsense. How much "massive" increase do you think the average house which lets to those on benefits reaches over 10 years? Even if it doubles, once you take off the capital gains tax of 40% and account for all the void periods, time and hassle over 10 years the profit probably doesn't even equate to minimum wage. Where do you guys think up this stuff.

 

You're assuming everything said is true.

 

The camera never lies.

 

I have lived in plenty of rental properties where landlords were not interested in carrying out repairs and maintenance because they didn't live there.

 

It's still their asset, they don't want their asset which they have their own money tied up in falling into disrepair. Nothing to do with whether they live there or not.

 

Having said all that, if the article is correct and true it's a bloody disgrace.

 

Finally! You've redeemed yourself. Well done.

[Jew Boy]

Far too much is being made of the benefits issue here. I know of a family, they are on benefits as the mother has learning difficulties and the father a mental illness. They were forced from their previous home by bigoted neighbours and went private rent. Its a decent house but tatty. In the 18 months they have lived their they have cleaned yup the front of the house, painted the bay outside, Had some flooring given them so replaced the kitchen and living room flooring, painted the front of the house and other things like paint the kitchen and living room. They have dogs which are well behaved and keep the house and next doors house secure. The landlord likes them, they like him and they like living where they do. Should they now have to prove themselves with references just because some people who happen to be scruffy and happen to be on benefits made a mess of someones house in another part of the country?

[Coutts]

Far too much is being made of the benefits issue here.

 

Is that because the people who destroyed the house were on benefits? Is that because 1000's of properties let out to those on benefits get trashed every year?

 

I think you should stop your attempt to detract the very serious issue regarding the millions of pounds worth of damage caused to landlord properties every year by those on benefits.

 

just because some people who happen to be scruffy and happen to be on benefits made a mess of someones house in another part of the country?

 

How about some sympathy for the landlord and the destruction to his property and asset. It's criminal what happens in these cases. And here you are with this terrible attitude toward criminal damage. I'm sure you'd think very differently if someone damaged your house like this. No empathy, no respect whatsoever until something negatively affects them.

[mediumfast]

If you could see my hand right now you would notice my thumb and forefinger gently rubbing together,in fact what they are doing is playing the worlds smallest violin just for the philanthropic landlords.

[Coutts]

If you could see my hand right now you would notice my thumb and forefinger gently rubbing together,in fact what they are doing is playing the worlds smallest violin just for the philanthropic landlords.

 

The attitude shared by these criminal wrong un's. The irony that this behaviour will lead to no houses for them.

[mediumfast]

If you wreck a property then you should be dealt with accordingly and not rewarded with a council house but to paint these landlords as kindly saints is a joke!

[Fogey]

Again, this is total nonsense. How much "massive" increase do you think the average house which lets to those on benefits reaches over 10 years? Even if it doubles, once you take off the capital gains tax of 40% and account for all the void periods, time and hassle over 10 years the profit probably doesn't even equate to minimum wage. Where do you guys think up this stuff.

 

At the end of the paying off of the mortgage even if you're left with just a quarter of the value of the house you're making a massive profit compared to what you have put in, - eventually.

 

 

The camera never lies.

 

Oh yes it can, but you're assuming that the landlord is telling the truth and he isn't trying it on for some reason, not saying he is but I have had several landlords who did try it on.

 

It's still their asset, they don't want their asset which they have their own money tied up in falling into disrepair. Nothing to do with whether they live there or not.

 

Yet I have lived in 11 rental properties and would argue that only 1 was properly repairing and maintaining. A landlord falsifying a gas certificate to avoid paying for servicing for example. Another that tried to make me live for 3weeks without hot water or heating because his gas fitter mate was on holiday.

 

Finally! You've redeemed yourself. Well done.

 

Like I said, if the story is true then it's appalling, but lets face facts, renting in the UK can be horrendous because plenty of landlords think tenants should happily pay to put up with landlords not properly maintaining properties as required by the contract signed up to.

 

There is balance to be had and this article ain't got it.

[Coutts]

Like I said, if the story is true then it's appalling, but lets face facts, renting in the UK can be horrendous because plenty of landlords think tenants should happily pay to put up with landlords not properly maintaining properties as required by the contract signed up to. There is balance to be had and this article ain't got it.

 

No balance is needed whatsoever. You guys are totally missing the point, I think on purpose to be honest, this is about the criminal damage to another persons property.

 

If I told you guys a horrendous burglary had been committed you lot would be all,

 

well what lead the burglar to even need to commit such a crime, the story isn't balanced.

 

---------- Post added 11-06-2014 at 19:58 ----------

 

If you wreck a property then you should be dealt with accordingly and not rewarded with a council house

 

It would seem your violin just got bigger, tuneful and genuine. Good!

[Fogey]

No balance is needed whatsoever. You guys are totally missing the point, I think on purpose to be honest, this is about the criminal damage to another persons property.

 

If I told you guys a horrendous burglary had been committed you lot would be all,

 

well what lead the burglar to even need to commit such a crime, the story isn't balanced.

 

The article is insinuating that all tenants on benefits are evil scroungers with no morals, and all landlords are just wonderful angels doing this noble and charitable thing at vast cost to themselves for the good of the poor. Neither is a balanced even handed or remotely truthful view.

[SqueakyPete]

Theres hardly a story to be had here,I have heard far worse than this.

"wrecked" it looks like their crap strewn all over,some writing on the walls,and a few cupboard doors left open:roll:.

I didn't read the whole page(so correct me if im wrong),but the guys has paid £5000 to do it up,its going to cost £2000 to put right(sounds very inflated to me,I will offer to shut those cupboard doors for far less lol)

And the guy has had nearly £10000 in rent from them,but did you notice how they didn't highlight this figure?

So yeah,they are wrong for leaving their crap behind and not shutting the cupboards,but if this is the worst he has seen in 30 years,then he should consider himself a very lucky landlord.