To be irritated at the coverage on hb spending?

[facepalming]

OK so I know this is a bit of a touchy one so I'll try and word carefully!

The coverage I've seen today is all geared towards complaining about landlords lining their pockets with housing benefit money.

Now I'm not a landlord, but I think this is a little unfair on people who are. Most landlords own only one property as an investment and are perfectly entitled to rent it out for money. They have an obligation to keep the house in good standard.

the fact that people renting those homes are claiming hb is not the problem of the landlords surely? They are just providing a service and why should they do that cheaper to tenants on hb?

Of course rents being charged now are ridiculous but so are house prices and so mortgage payments are high too.

Surely the focus should be on providing more social housing (especially of a decent standard!) and creating an economy and society where people don't need to rely on hb??

facepalming I think it has to do with insurance. From what I read it costs more in insurance for LL if you rent to a HB tenant.

"A perfectly ordinary 3 bed ex council house in this street will cost you 2k pcm to rent."

Seriously? Dad's is a 3 bed ex council in immaculate condition with front and rear gardens and rent is £650 a month.

If there was a rent cap it would stop buy to let buyers buying properties at inflated prices and passing on the astronomical costs to tenants.
LLs who have had the property for years already would be able to afford to charge less rent, as their mortgage would be small or paid off, and newer landlords would have to sell their properties that they can't afford the mortgage on, giving a chance to first time buyers.

It's terrible that people in London can still buy buy-to-let at high prices and pass the mortgage payments plus profit onto renters.

Demented it's all about location. Is your dad's property in London? Everywhere in London private rents are sky high!

The article is the usual idle journo landlord hate - it gives the impression that the landlords get money for doing nothing.

Im such a kind landlord - currently providing free housing, will probably get back a wrecked property ( it was immaculate to start) and there is nothing i can do except insert more money and wait for the legals. Even the insurers.are on the side of the tenant. Gravy train ,eh?

Facepalming one reason often given for not renting to people on hb is that insurers or mortgage lenders don't allow it - not sure if this is the whole story because presumably some must, as some lls do rent to people on hb!

I think there is a reasonable argument that hb paid to private lls may keep house prices and rents higher than they would otherwise be - if there was no hb those lls might have to reduce their rents in order to let the property, or sell the property - which would mean house prices would fall. The problem is that reducing hb would not automatically have that effect - it might instead lead to an increase in overcrowding as lls seek to maintain rents by letting to more adults. A sudden transition to lower levels of hb could also be chaotic if not properly managed.

No, we're in Scotland. I knew London rents were high - my sister lives there- but even so! How does anyone with a family afford to live in London?

Many people on social housing could afford to pay a mortgage but cannot find the deposit - surely rather than offering right to buy your home if the the offer were to give a cash reward for giving back the social/council housing to help people towards their deposit to buy on the free market this would help to free up some of the limited social housing available?

There has been a shift in perceptions as a greater proportion of the population gets stiffed by the property market. Tenants have been and still are vilified in this country. And now they make up over half the population!

The private rental market in this country is unlike most of the rest of the world. Landlords with sole properties are often quite unprofessional, as has been seen on numerous threads on here. Landlords making unannounced visits, expecting 'their' houses to be used to store their belongings despite tenants (!), poor upkeep and retaining deposits unfairly. Jesus, they had to change the law as so many landlords were behaving so appallingly over that.

Op, you say you are a good landlord, I believe you but you don't deserve a gold sticker for providing a service anymore than anyone else does.

What Mrs Dv says about landlords not really caring where the money is coming from is very pertinent. This also applies to people selling their houses for as much as possible.

You really can't argue you are 'just' owning a second property to invest/pay your pension/leave something for your kids if that means the people renting or buying it are deprived of paying into their pension or bringing up their children in a financially stable household.

The idea that home owners are entitled to profit from both rent AND increased house value is the concept that is seeing the housing market go rotten to the core.

Make your money if you can, but don't go wailing about how unfair it all is when people wake up and call you out on the immoral and selfish entitlements you are assuming in order to make that cash.

capping rent sounds like a good idea. The downsides I see are that those who already own homes with high mortgages may be severely disadvantaged (I understand there is a benefit to pushing them to sell, but they may not be able if in fixed mortgages etc)

Also this could lead to less availabe homes for those who can't afford to buy but need housing.

it seems action should have been taken a long time ago as we are now in so deep it's hard to find the right solution that's fair for potential tenants, landlords and the tax payer

Ethelb I said I'm not a landlord?! I'm not sure why you are aiming a rant at me!

Sorry OP, I have reread and don't want to attack you but the argument you are making.

Lack of social housing must be the root of the problem, I simply can't understand why selling this was considered a good idea. The value of the social housing stock, if it had been kept intact, would surely cover the cost of housing everyone. I live in an old council estate, 1948. About half the houses are now privately owned. Our neighbours pay £400 pcm rent, considering the capital cost of building the house must have been paid off 50 years ago, and it doesn't cost that much to maintain a house, this house is making money for the housing association which in an ideal world would be used to invest in more social housing. That is how a private property developer would work. A privately rented house on the same street costs £1500 pcm. Given the property prices here, this probably covers the mortgage about 2 or 3 times. So even when maintainence costs are factored in, there is a hefty profit being taken there. And it certainly seems wrong that public money would be used to help somebody pay that rent, but you would need a reasonably large income to cover rent that size, and if people don't rent privately they would simply have nowhere to go. If you had a system much more geared towards renting as they do in other countries with long term leases and rent controls it might be better.

Ethelb my point is that surely the issue in today's news is more down to a lack of available social housing and poor housing policy by government.

I simply don't think it's fair to let government off the hook by blaming landlords trying to make a living.

Of course some landlords are bad and look to take advantage of a bad situation but I genuinely think most see an opportunity for a nest egg and take it - as most would.

I don't think those landlords should be demonised any more than the tenants that need to claim hb or seek social housing

"I don't think those landlords should be demonised any more than the tenants that need to claim hb or seek social housing"

Everyone NEEDS a roof over their head.

No one NEEDS a second house bought and paid for them by the taxpayer.

It is greed. Pure and simple.

I think labelling it as greed is simplifying things a little. In some cases yes, but as a pp said renting out a house is paying for a parents care that would otherwise need funding by the tax payer.

In many cases second homes are investments for children - meaning they are less likely to need to help from the state.

I think ensuring financial stability for yourself and your family is simply sensible and saves you drawing on state assistance.

I totally agree though with mrsD that the landlord is on the top of the heap. I'm not suggesting that they should get sympathy just that the coverage today is a little unfair.

Rent caps do sound like the solution , I'm just not sure how they should be navigated to ensure they are not terribly unfair to existing landlords

there must be some way that landlords can be made to contribute somehow into the pot for increasing social housing.

But OP it isn't ok to protect your children from needing help from the state, if it increases the amount of help others need from the state, for example, in the form of housing benefit due to housing costs being too high.

Can't you see that?

With regards to landlords paying towards social housing, maybe tax it properly and close VAT loopholes.