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?

A well-argued response if ever I saw one. Bravo!

(That's to both trumperon and spickle.)

You didn't warrant one, if you're going to be rude I won't waste my time on well written responses. Bravo!

pumpkin your situ shows how unworkable and ridiculous the system is And in willing to bet the interviewer and company that offered him the 10 day job damn well knew it too and thats why they omitted to tell him that it was only for 10 days.

PumpkinSweetie how awful. I can see that happening sadly.

Universal Credit scares the shit out of me and should be taken very seriously by anyone who is a landlord. Or self-employed.

If there were secured tenancies, I'd have sold rather than rented my house - easier to buy another house than have to beg a judge to allow us access to our own property. And then our cared for and well maintained non-shitty family house would not be available to rent. I'm sure our tenants with whom we have a great relationship and charge below market rent because they are good tenants would be delighted with your plans wallison

I do think landlords should be required to put money in a deposit scheme to use for essential repairs if required (like heat, hot water, plumbing, electrics). I think that's the weakness of the current system, not forcing landlords to have sitting tenants. We have money in our UK account which is money to spend on the house if needed and we see it as protected money. If the boiler broke, we could cover it immediately and think that since the tenants pay us rent, we should be able to make repairs when necessary. I think it's wrong that this does not always happen.

Yeah right. Every time the boiler doesn't work or the overflow overflows, I'll give the tenant two months notice to quit and then get another tenant. Oh, but the new tenant will expect a working boiler and a flushing toilet so I guess it'll have to be fixed then. But no matter, I didn't have to fix it two months ago and I have only lost two months rent so that means I'm quids in, not.

Yes, exactly. Quite a flawed logic there.

Agree with you MajorieDawes. As a landlord I do have a contingency for repairs and my tenants have never had to wait for a repair to be done, but I do understand that not all LLs do this. I prefer long-term tenants and I have a good relationship with mine (also paying below market rate), though they are behind with their rent.

PumpkinSweetie how awful for you. It is a disgrace how employers take advantage of the job market these days. My DP is out of work and most of the interviews he's had have been for short term contracts - not much good when there is a mortgage and bills to pay.

I agree with you as well Marjorie. There should be minimum standards that a property has to comply with to be allowed to be rented out.

Maybe if there were, then the problem of tenants being evicted because they expect basic repairs and maintenance to be done would be solved.

I think landlords that do this are in the minority though, and there are just as many problem tenants as there are problem landlords. Neither are acceptable.

That is a separate issue to the one about security of tenure though. Not all tenants need security of tenure, and you are missing that point Wallison. What would you think about rents rising if landlords were forced to give security of tenure? Because that's what would happen. There would also be more pressure on the housing market if fewer homes became available to rent, not every landlord would sell (I wouldn't) and although it may mean that there were more properties on the market, that's not going to help tenants that can't get a mortgage anyway.

If there were more properties on the market, prices would come down and more people would be able to afford to buy. And rents don't necessarily need to rise - we could re-introduce rent capping, which again is what we had before Thatcher abolished it and again is what happens in other countries.

When we have claimed in the past for JSA its generally taken between 10-14 days to receive some money for JSA. Tax credits didnt stopso we lived off of those!

Probably, but that could also have the effect of there being fewer rental properties available, causing rents to rise.

Rent capping would be fine by me, as long as they are capped at a level that reflects the true cost, work and risk involved in renting out a property.

If there were more properties on the market, prices would come down and more people would be able to afford to buy

if house prices fall, banks will stop lending so the only people able to buy will be cash buyers, the result would be different landlords not fewer rented properties.

be careful for what you wish for.

If rent capping suddenly happened to a degree that made it not worth the landlord's while given the risks, (not out of the question because even with record low interest rates property prices are so high that margins are tight) then house prices would drop a bit, admittedly, but not enough to make much of a difference to those who don't have a hope of obtaining a mortgage.

But there would be a sudden massive, and I mean massive drop in the availability of rental housing for people who are not in a position to buy. The strain on LAs to provide social housing would be overwhelming. It would be a catastrophe actually, now I come to think about it.

what would happen to all the houses, would they evaporate?

If no one wanted to be a ll, the lls would sell the houses, making them easier for people to buy, which would have a direct effect on house prices and a knock on effect on rents. It would be a good thing

Just read through this thread and wondering - what's with the hatred towards landlords? Most don't make much in terms if margins and take a lot if risks. It smacks of people being unrealistic about the way the market works, instead wanting to be mollycoddled by housing associations and Councils who will give you a cuddle if you forget to pay your rent and look after you, never kicking you out unless you get 300 asbos and torment your neighbours for years. I'm not an advocate of govt treating grownups like children.

I actually think the vitriol should be directed at the crap b&bs up and down the country that are too shit to attract holiday makers but are able to generate a tidy sum from the local authority by housing families through them. These b&bs are much less 'regulated' than landlord owned properties and I imagine many of them must be pretty foul. The owners of these quality one-star properties don't dress eve to have their businesses propped up in this way but are nonetheless!

Meant to say 'don't deserve' not ' don't dress up...'

Round where we live in London, house prices are high because of foreign money not because houses are being rented out. Rentals are in high demand. Rent capping and secure tenancies would reduce the rental stock even further.

Funny that where I rent now, the tenant is even less protected. Tenant pays letting agent fee for a start, deposit sits in landlords bank account and no need for safety certificates.

youretoast but banks wont lend if house prices fall - so the people who will benefit will be people with lots of cash - who will be able to buy properties at a lower price.

and people will still need to rent so rent wont go down.

you will just swap BTL landlords for people with the money to own a house outright/with a very small mortgage.

so reluctant LLs would be hurt. people with deep pockets would benefit or ride out the storm.

a house price fall would decrease lending, increase mortgage interest and move more money to richer people.

"Rentals are in high demand. " - yes which is why they are expensive

"Rent capping and secure tenancies would reduce the rental stock even further." - no, the houses aren't going to disappear, someone somewhere is going to find a way to make money out of them but by increasing barriers to entry, or in other words if laws make it such that you can less easily make slightly less money out of them, you reduce the incentive for have-a-go landlords to attempt it which has a knock-on effect on demand for "buy to lets" which has an overall depressive effect on prices (whether for sale or rent). I think that is fine.

"you will just swap BTL landlords for people with the money to own a house outright/with a very small mortgage."

exactly, so the margins and the short term cash flow will be less critical or in other words only those who can afford to take a long/ medium term view will be in this business. ultimately if this were mainly councils and housing associations letting on decent terms and will less of a greedy eye on the short term profit I would think this a very good thing

"Round where we live in London, house prices are high because of foreign money" - it is iniquitous that working people's potential homes are artificially expensive because london is being used as a play ground for capital. However there is a chicken / egg issue in terms of: what made foreign capital see london as the desirable play ground? High prices. (And laws that favour the landlord.) treating property as investment increases demand and makes prices higher. Which then makes it a more desirable investment so it attracts more capital and so it goes on. Laws that restricted all this carrying on (at the expense of people who just want somehwere to live, whether they are renting or buying) would be a very good thing.

This "reluctant landlord" thing is rubbish. if you have a house you don't want to live in, you are very lucky. If you have chosen to acquire it in order to do business with it, you should be properly set up to do business according to the prevailing laws and market conditions and if these chnage, then you need to change with them. No one has a god given right for their business to be successful. If you came into the house by inheritance, it is a windfall, and it is your choice how you treat it - you can move into it, lucky you, a free house; or you can sell it, lucky you, now you can invest the money; or you can let it, if the conditions are right, but if they aren't, why should I be all boo-hoo for you?

exactly, so the margins and the short term cash flow will be less critical or in other words only those who can afford to take a long/ medium term view will be in this business. ultimately if this were mainly councils and housing associations letting on decent terms

but councils don't have money. rich people do.

you are confusing Your Hopes with Economics.

you also have a weird view that somehow LL are being done a favour. its a trade. nothing more or less.

you want to wreck the economy to help a minority.

I own one house with a large mortgage. I rent it out as I have had to move for work. As I need to live somewhere, I also rent. The rent I pay is twice the rent I receive.

Not all landlords are raking it in and there are many reasons why someone becomes a landlord.

Also the 'bedroom tax' shows that social housing does not work. There aren't large numbers of people in private rentals/owning who have to have a too large house as there are no others available.

This problem of not enough small houses only affects social housing, showing decades of misuse of housing stock.