To think that making the benefits system instant would help alleviate poverty?

[AndHarry]

Hands up, I have no experience of how the system works but as I've been reading the news and various threads on here, the same thing crops up again and again: JSA, housing and other benefit claims take so long to process that people are left destitute and once they are approved it takes so long to make changes that it's often not worth taking casual jobs.

So with the universal credit why can't job centres process claims electronically during appointments with claimants, with money paid using the 3 day payment system?

Is that totally naive?

But it's ok for tenants to be turfed out of their homes for no reason? The law is not equal at the moment - it is heavily weighted in favour of landlords, even though they have a lot less to lose - if it all goes tits-up, the worst thing that could happen is that they are out of pocket a bit whereas if it all goes tits-up for a tenant they lose their home.

Anyway, I knew that would put the cat amongst the pigeons, because we live in a country where landlords get to call the shots and tenants are legally allowed to be treated like second-class citizens. As you seem to like the status quo (and I don't blame you, because it favours you) I kind of knew you wouldn't like to see any change, Woowoo. But it's just switching things around, so that the important thing ie the fact that someone has shelter, rather than the fact that someone gets money, is preserved.

Also, I don't know what you mean by 'equal terms'. Surely equal terms would be that if the tenant pays the rent they have the right to their home. I don't see how you could expect tenants to be obliged to cover rent indefinitely (ie with fixed term long contracts with no break clause) - what about if they have kids, or get made redundant, or need to move nearer family for any number of reasons? No, the tenant has to be able to go. The landlord can get another tenant anyway - it's much easier for them to do that than it is for the tenant to find another home. I mean, you're not starting from a position of equality in that the tenant always has more to lose, so I don't think it unreasonable that the tenant should have proper protection from that. It would also be a good way of weeding out the wheat from the chaff, landlord-wise - the chancers in it for a quick buck would soon fuck off out of it, as can be seen from two responses on this thread.

I can't turf my tenants out on a whim. We have a contract which is legally binding on both of us.

What if I get made redundant and want to move back to my family home which is currently being rented out? Why should my tenants be able to up and leave whenever they want but I can't move back to my own home?

Just as a landlord can find another tenant, a tenant can find another house.

And I have a lot to lose if I don't have tenants - I will lose my own house if I can't pay the mortgage.

Am I a chancer in it for a quick buck if I want to have the security of good tenants for the duration of the contract which we have both agreed upon?

But it's ok for tenants to be turfed out of their homes for no reason?

No, that's not ok. But it is ok for a tenancy agreement to come to an end and for that to be the reason that someone has to leave a property. Especially when they knew what they were doing when they signed a contract. There are many perfectly acceptable reasons why people may want to sell their property and it's unfortunate if that means that someone who wanted to renew an agreement can't, but that doesn't make the situation morally wrong somehow.

because we live in a country where landlords get to call the shots and tenants are legally allowed to be treated like second-class citizens.

I think that's a ridiculous thing to say. Plenty of landlords are also tenants, or have been tenants in the past. I don't remember being treated as a second class citizen when I was a tenant, and I don't hear it as a complaint from anyone else I know that's a tenant.

But it's just switching things around, so that the important thing ie the fact that someone has shelter, rather than the fact that someone gets money, is preserved.

How can you honestly believe that everything is weighted in favour of someone getting money rather than someone getting a home when there is next to nothing that landlords can do to get their money back if someone fails to pay? If a tenant fails to pay their rent, they don't immediately lost the legal right to stay in that property. A landlord has to go to court to evict them, at great expense, and are unlikely to ever see any of that money again. If the law was in favour of the landlord, the landlord wouldn't have to go to court to get their own property back, and the police would assist them the day the very first day that the tenant is in breach of their contract.

Well said WooWoo, completely agree.

Why on earth would the police get involved? It's a matter of civil law - as you keep banging on about at some length, the issue is a contractual one. Because of that, landlords will face the usual difficulties enforcing a contract/getting contractual damages that every person involved in a civil matter faces. And the tenants will eventually be evicted, so I don't quite see what your beef is - isn't that enough? Do you want them to go to prison as well?

As for the 'oh the term us up so off you fuck' argument, it is only relatively recently that tenants had so few rights - the current system came into place in 1989 - one of the last things that Thatcher did, actually, so you'll be pleased to hear that by agreeing with it you're in good company. Prior to that, tenants did actually have security of tenure, just as they do in other parts of the world today, so I don't see that your argument about 'that's just how it is here' holds any water - it isn't how it used to be; all that happened was that there was a change in the law. Incidentally, the main reason for the law being changed was stated as being to 'encourage growth in the housing market' ie the spivvy chancer behaviour that we see now and the insane state of property prices that this speculation has led to. It also had the knock-on effect of disenfranchising the poorest in society, but then hey, that's fine with you as well, isn't it?

Jesus Christ a tenancy being up isn't turfing you out. Emotive much.

So you get to stay then?

No but you made the agreement and were well aware it could happen. 'Turfing someone out' suggests they didn't have a clue and are removed without any prior knowledge.

My tenancy will soon change to one month rolling. I wouldn't see it as being turfed out if we needed to leave, just the agreement was up

Well you certainly get to stay for the duration of your tenancy contract, the terms of which you knew when you took it out! 9 times out of ten if you are a good tenant who pays on time you can stay as long as you like, within reason.

Saying that you know the terms doesn't help much when you find yourself with that S21 in your hands and eight weeks to find a home/school/childcare provision etc. And it's not as though there are any other terms that could be agreed - all private tenancies are done as ASTs now - there is no bargaining power, and no alternative. It's kind of like saying that it's ok for customers to be shafted by energy companies because they get written notice of price hikes.

Do you have a link to back that statistic up?

Well what else would you suggest? That land lords relinquish all rights to their homes then? They are not being turfed out, they know it could end and whilst it must be a major disruption it's one that is to be expected and must be planned for.

And I don't think that comparisons is right, you could compact that to landlords raising rent but not the end of the tenancy.

It's more like when you've been taken on a job to cover maternity. You know you'll have to leave, you know you will have to sort something else out at the end.

But there are permanent jobs available. There are no permanent homes for private sector tenants.

You are right though that the energy company thing is not a good comparison - you can always move to a different energy company, maybe get yourself a price fix deal etc. Tenants just have the 6 month contract or nothing.

And I've told you what I suggest - what happened before the 1989 Housing Act and what happens in other parts of the world, especially in Europe, right now. Security of tenure for the tenant where, barring death/insolvency/need to sell (to be adjudicated by a court/tribunal)/the landlord needs to live in the property (again to be adjudicated by a court/tribunal) they can stay for as long as they comply with their obligations ie pay the rent on time and take care of the property. It would cut out all of this speculative behaviour, and it would protect good tenants who get turfed out for asking for eg for repairs to be done. The provision of shelter is a serious undertaking, and it should be properly recognised that this is a case and treated as such, not as something that can be done as a quick money-making exercise. Also, without security of tenure it matters not a jot what other rights a tenant has when they can be given notice at any time for no reason, which has got us into the situation we are in now where the state of private sector rentals is often so woeful; landlords don't need to make repairs - they can just evict if a tenant gets too arsey.

If people want a permanent home then they have the option to buy. I know not everyone can but if that's the sort of security you want, then so be it. Also social housing is quite good and I've never heard of anyone coming to the end of a tenancy there.

And sorry but I think that suggestion is ridiculous and taking away the rights of the landlord who owns the property. Why the hell should they be dictated to at tribunal on how and when they can sell their own property? I think you're not looking at that on a larger scale, there'd be a dramatic reduction in homes to rent because people wouldn't want to relinquish the rights on their own property in such a way. Nor should they have to

Yes, of course, I'm sure you think that buying is an option - except that it isn't, for the 35% of households who rent. Do you think that they are just being difficult for the sake of it? Or maybe, just maybe, they can't buy. Social housing is unavailable for many - there are millions of households on the waiting list and hundreds of thousands living in temporary accommodation who are a mere flicker away from homelessness - do you really think that people can just rock up at the council and get given a tenancy? Because they honestly can't.

As for 'taking away the rights of the landlord', it isn't about that but about protecting the rights of the tenant who has a basic need for shelter. If an individual wants to provide for that need then fine, but it needs to be far more regulated than it is at the moment. And the reason why courts/tribunals are needed is to prevent the kind of abuse and exploitation that happens on a pretty wholesale basis right now in the UK today. We've tried shifting responsibility for providing shelter into the private sector. It hasn't worked. In fact, it is failed on a monumental scale.

Of course, none of this will happen, because all of the political parties are either landlords themselves or have mates who are, or profit themselves from the housing crisis that we have in this country, or have mates who do, regardless of the misery that lies in its wake. You're on their side. Well done you.

Stop saying I'm banging on about law, I'm really not! I've just pointed out that it is not morally wrong for someone who has signed a contract to expect that contract to be adhered to.

Security of tenure for the tenant where, barring death/insolvency/need to sell (to be adjudicated by a court/tribunal)/the landlord needs to live in the property (again to be adjudicated by a court/tribunal) they can stay for as long as they comply with their obligations ie pay the rent on time and take care of the property.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with this as long as I didn't have to pay an extortionate amount to prove I need to sell my property and get permission in court, and as long as the law supports me if I have a tenant who doesn't pay on time or who damages the property.

Like I've said, it would suit me perfectly if I could find one tenant and expect them to stay put for a number of years, but my property isn't a family home, it's the sort of place young professionals live in for a couple of years before buying themselves or moving somewhere bigger with a partner. But if I were forced into a position where I definitely would have to pay a lot to get a tenant out of my property, then I'd also think it was for for the rent to increase to reflect the bigger risk I'm taking.

You are missing the point that not every tenant wants or needs the type of security you think they should have. The ones that would benefit from that type of security are likely to be people with children, but then they chose their position for themselves when they decided to have children before they had secure (or as secure as it gets) housing .

But, I don't see how your way would be at all fair to people who need to rent their property out for a fixed amount of time, such as if they are going to work in another part of the country or abroad. People in that position aren't doing anything wrong, and tenants don't need protection from those people, who morally should have the most rights over something that they have paid for with taxed income.

The poorest in society have far greater access to social housing and the secure tenancies that go along with that, so I don't think it's fair to imply that they are being shafted with the system the way it is now. The poorest in society naturally take the most from society so they are already catered for. You sound like you want everything in society to work in favour of the poor, as if the rest of us don't matter and don't deserve any protection in law or consideration from our government. The fact is that society needs the well off just as much as it needs low paid workers.

As for 'taking away the rights of the landlord', it isn't about that but about protecting the rights of the tenant who has a basic need for shelter.

Why shouldn't it be about protecting the rights of people that own property? What have they done that's so bad that you think they don't deserve the law to protect them from people who want somewhere to live at someone else's expense?

People's need for shelter is their own responsibility, no one else's.

I have been renting out my property for 10 years now, not once has it been my choice to 'turf someone out'. Every tenant has moved on because their lives have moved on, I have never had a problem. Why should I have to lose rights to my own property because other people can't provide for themselves and the children they chose to have?

Moving the conversation back to the odd benefits system....

Just moved off JSA myself into a 27 hour week job. It's with the LEA so it's paid on a scale and a point system both of which were stated in my acceptance letter but no mention of what I would actually receive.

Phoned housing benefit when didn't get a letter through after JSA stopped. This was after 8 days of work as the Friday afternoon was the only time I'm back to call them by 5pm. Lady explained I should have informed them immediately I knew I would be starting work as they would suspend my benefit from that date.
They asked what wage and tax credit I get. Explained I didn't know as tax credit need you to have actually started work (and claim retrospectively). I won't be paid until the end of next month so can't tell her how much the wage packet will be.
She then asked me if "I have seriously taken a job where I didn't know how much I would be paid".
Err well yes because if you are on JSA and someone offers you 27 hours a week on minimum wage or above you pretty much have to say yes?

Would love a system where if your circumstances change everyone knows and the money is paid on a linked system.No waiting for one organisation to send something which you have to find some time in working hours to give to another.

RE: the 9 times out of ten thing, no I don't have a link, and I'm sorry, I was just speaking off the cuff and I have no idea about that really. But speaking as a LL I imagine most landlords want what I want - low turnover of decent, low-maintenance tenants who pay the rent on time. We have to shell out quite a lot of money every time we change tenants and we want to avoid void periods, so it's in our interests to keep a tenant in the long term, providing they are paying the market rate and causing us no problems, and even if they are paying slightly below market rate, it's still sometimes worth it, for the lack of hassle.

If people want a permanent home then they have the option to buy. I know not everyone can but if that's the sort of security you want, then so be it. Also social housing is quite good and I've never heard of anyone coming to the end of a tenancy there.

And sorry but I think that suggestion is ridiculous and taking away the rights of the landlord who owns the property. Why the hell should they be dictated to at tribunal on how and when they can sell their own property? I think you're not looking at that on a larger scale, there'd be a dramatic reduction in homes to rent because people wouldn't want to relinquish the rights on their own property in such a way. Nor should they have to

Absolutely right Strumpetron and it comes right back to the issue of a lack of decent social housing, which is an historic problem across several successive governments of all political persuasions and is not of the private LLs doing, neither is it within their power to rectify.

Lovely.

No, not really.

And as for this:

do you honestly think this is the case? If so, you've been in your little bubble for too long a time. As I said upthread, there are 2.5 million households waiting for social housing. That's not 2.5 million people, but 2.5 million households, so millions more people than that. Not in social housing, but waiting for it. In some parts of the country, the average wait for a family who are overcrowded is 10 years. 10 years. Nobody has any great access to social housing, because it's all been sold off. There are hundreds of thousands of people living in temporary accommodation, and that number includes children, living in hostels and B&Bs while they wait for a council tenancy to come up. Many of them are there long term. For the vast majority of tenants, it's private sector or nothing. There is no alternative.

I'm aware of the problems with social housing, but that's not the point I was making.

The point is that landlords aren't responsible for creating or solving other people's problems, and you seem to think that because there are people with housing problems, landlords should step in and fix them all while taking the risk that involves upon themselves.

I have very little sympathy for people who are overcrowded. Except in cases where there has been a multiple birth, it's a problem that could have been avoided if individuals did a better job of their family planning.

I wonder how many owner occupiers would be classed as overcrowded according to council rules.