To say about bloody time? No DSS landlords breaking the law.

[Whatisthisfuckery]

A judge has ruled that landlords and letting agents refusing to let to people on housing benefit is unlawful.

It’s about bloody time it was made clear that it is not acceptable to discriminate against people who are on benefits. Housing is not just a privilege for those who are employed and able to work.

Obviously this clarification in the court will not solve the housing crisis, for people on low incomes especially, and much more needs to be done to make sure people have access to benefits without lengthy waits that then create rent arrears etc, but it’s a step in the wright direction.

www.bbc.com/news/education-53391516

I’m an accidental landlord (or will be).

I moved house and it caused me a mental breakdown. The location, neighbours, size, noise.

I’m desperately trying to find a rental so I can move somewhere, settle and get over my breakdown but I have children and everywhere says “no children”.

I think I’ve found somewhere close to my mum so fingers crossed but I definitely didn’t choose to be a landlord and if I could sell so soon after moving I would but the mortgage lenders make you wait 6 months.

So we’ll be renting the house out (with permission to let) for 12 months and then selling afterwards.

We’ve really struggled to be chosen by a landlord. They tend to choose two adults who earn instead of a family with one adult who earns (and who passes affordability).

I rent out my home (currently in the process of selling) and it's a stipulation of my insurance too. TBH I think the bigger thing for me though is that councils will say to tenants they have to be formally evicted before they will rehouse them. This makes me very uncomfortable renting to DSS tenants as i'd usually have to go to court and evict someone if i wanted it back for whatever reason and this can be a long and expensive process. TBH i reckon it will be overturned in a higher court anyway but all it will do is waste more of the DSS recipients time looking at properties where the landlord won't accept them once they see their financial credentials. There's no law that says you HAVE to rent to the first offer and you can reject someone for any reason really - you just can't advertise that fact anymore.

In reality people will still reject hem and they will have just wasted their time

@whereorwhere

It doesn't help though that people get to live in their council houses when they no longer need them or their circumstances nor. A couple whose kids have left home shouldn't still be able to rent a three bedroom house of the council they should have to move to a smaller property and free up the house for others to use. It's a state owned asset and people are renting at a massive discount - no idea why this is not dealt with

They can’t without paying the bedroom tax.

However, it could be argued that there are not enough smaller properties for them to move to.

I would force them to take in some lodgers into the spare bedrooms, so that they are not going to waste.

Because it’s unfair that a lot of us have to live in house shares even if we don’t want to and don’t get on with our flatmates, when these people are getting a big house to themselves.

2020wasShocking-

Please explain how my post is rubbish???

All the council housing was sold off by Thatcher.

Some of it of certainly was, but Right to Buy was introduced when housing was relatively far cheaper, and many more people could afford to buy their own homes.

Labour subsequently had 13 years in which to ditch RTB - incidentally in an era when the cost of housing was rocketing.

But despite their endless moaning about it, they didn’t.

If anyone can give me a reason why not - other than they presumably thought it would lose them a lot of votes - I’d be interested to hear it.

@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER

*All the council housing was sold off by Thatcher.*

Some of it of certainly was, but Right to Buy was introduced when housing was relatively far cheaper, and many more people could afford to buy their own homes.

Labour subsequently had 13 years in which to ditch RTB - incidentally in an era when the cost of housing was rocketing.

But despite their endless moaning about it, they didn’t.

If anyone can give me a reason why not - other than they presumably thought it would lose them a lot of votes - I’d be interested to hear it.

It wouldn’t have lost Labour any votes, it was considered scandalous by every Labour voter I know and none of us can understand why Blair didn’t put a stop to it.

Right to buy was Thatcher’s flagship policy. Obviously more people couldn’t afford to buy their homes then or there would have been no point in giving council tenants a huge taxpayer funded discount with no need for a deposit.

Really? You would force the home owners to let a stranger live in their home and use all their stuff?

What does it matter if some ex council house owners bought their homes? They're living in them and whether they paid rent or mortgage, the property would still be unavailable to anyone else.

Many landlords would be happy to have DSS tenants if they could be paid directly. I can't see any reason not to do this

I'm told by colleagues that some councils are very resistant to doing it because it complicates the accounting and that with HB it's a real hassle to set up what is effectively a third party payment.

The finance department at the council in the area where I used to work had a very good relationship with us and with the housing department, and were ok about making landlord payments if it prevented homelessness.

Removing RTB would have lost New Labour the centrist natural Conservatives who flocked to Blair as PM.

There's a lot of (in my view often deliberate) merging of "Labour" and "the Left" in discourse on MN and elsewhere.

But New Labour weren't particularly left-wing. Indeed that's how they got elected – by taking the centre ground.

Of course in response the Tories moved to the right to try to pick up votes from the far right and from special-interest groups with whom they wouldn't previously have bothered.

The same centrist Conservatives who once welcomed Blair now:

a) proclaim that they're off to Tories now that Labour has moved back left; while simultaneously

b) jeering that New Labour failed to adequately serve many of the poorer in the country... because it prioritised those self-same centrist Conservatives instead.

It would be funny to watch if it weren't so serious.

@NYMM

What does it matter if some ex council house owners bought their homes? They're living in them and whether they paid rent or mortgage, the property would still be unavailable to anyone else.

Most aren’t still living in them. Most waited the requisite two years, then sold and made a killing. A huge number of them are now owned by private landlords.

I know someone who bought their council flat in a very desirable part of London for peanuts, they sold it for £1.5 million.

The current problem with UC is that even when the tenant asks for the rent to be paid to the LL the council can say no

UC has fuck all to do with the council, councils aren't involved in any way.

Under UC rules, a tenant can request that the housing costs element is paid to the landlord as soon as they are 2 months in arrears.

Yep Alsohuman. Article from 2016:

Right to buy puts 40% of ex-council homes in private rental - MPs' report
www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/feb/10/right-to-buy-ex-council-homes-rental

Forty per cent of ex-council flats sold through right to buy are being rented out more expensively by private landlords, the Commons communities and local government select committee has found.

@WitchesGlove

2020wasShocking-

Please explain how my post is rubbish???

So ignore all those saying that they are ordinary people who became landlords- you can’t unless you are rich

In particular....

@WitchesGlove, the bedroom tax doesn't apply to people over pension age.

My MIL still lives in the 2-bed council house she brought her family up in, and has lived in for 59 years. She won't move until she wants to, and we would club together so she could buy the house under RTB if the council ever tried to make her move. Moving and leaving the beautiful garden that has been the work of a lifetime would break her heart, and even though I don't agree with RTB, I couldn't stand by and see that happen.

Over that period, they've repaid the cost of building that house many times over, which is one of the reasons I don't understand the refusal to allow councils to borrow and build more. In the medium to long term, it's cost neutral, at worst.

the last flat I lived in, the one with the crap LL, is an ex council house. He bought up two neighbouring three bed houses, converted them into four two bed flats and now rents them out for more than the LHA for the two bed allowance. They’re the scruffiest properties in the street because they aren’t maintained. All the tenants who live there are decent tenants, even my old downstairs neighbour who is a bit of a twat. They all keep their flats clean and tidy and have to spend their own money on things that should be sorted out by the LL.

This LL owns about 30 properties so I’m told, and doesn’t maintain any of them very well. I don’t know how many of his properties are ex council but if that’s his MO then probably quite a few.

These houses shouldn’t be anywhere near the hands of a private landlord. They were supposed to be social housing for people to live in, not cash machines for an unscrupulous profiteer.

@NYMM

Some Councils and housing associations are owed millions in rent from their tenants but because of government legislation they are restricted from evicting those tenants. THIS is why social housing is in such short supply. No Council is going to build more properties when private landlords can just suck it up and take the risks.

Someone mentioned the bedroom tax policy of moving 'over occupied' social housing residents to smaller homes. This has been devastating for disabled people. It's why there's no one bedroom flats available. My old council prioritised downsizing over the most urgent severe medical need to move on their housing list.

The restrictions you refer to are generally if the tenants have children. Unless there's very very serious abuse (extremely high threshold), the policy is to rehouse the family rather than taking kids into care.
That's why there's a reluctance to evict asbo, violent, open drug dealing, etc.

It costs the councils far more to pay for temp accommodation (housing, crime, social services costs) than more social would cost long-term. Temp accomodation is usually very expensive, way more than normal local rents - despite frequently being an being utter dump, and of course so often being in the worse crime ridden areas.

The poster who suggested dumping everybody on low incomes and benefits together must either be very rich with unlimited savings or super human. Illness or disability can happen to anyone.

It's more humane to allow dignitas type setup than the current situation for disabled and long-term ill benefits tenants. I'd choose it. I joined dignitas in fact but can't afford to go. It's around £10,000 including travel costs.

@WitchesGlove, the bedroom tax doesn't apply to people over pension age.

I live in a row of ex housing association 3 bed houses, apart from the one on the end which is still owned by the housing association. It's the best maintened building on the row, has the newest double glazing, all the others look tatty in comparison. The lone occupant is over 70. There is no affordable housing in my area and it makes my blood boil that a family could be housed there. When I moved in she said 'when your children are grown up you could rent one of the flats opposite'

When my children are no longer dependents I really don't know how I'm going to afford to rent anywhere half decent. I get HB and also work. Can't believe the discrimination on here and assumptions that people on HB are work shy. My eldest currently receives HB because she's been furloughed, she's a graduate.

I think the best way is to create sink estates; build places on the edge of town that are solely let to the unemployed and people on other benefits. This would free up the nicer parts of town for people who work to earn a living. A lot of the neighbour problems people have are created by the mixture of groups on streets, decent homeowners living next door to someone who has never had a proper job and supplements their income dealing crack for example. Council estates and tower blocks would have the positive effect of putting all the rotten eggs in one basket, so to speak, whilst enabling those who won't/can't support themselves to have a decent roof above their head.

This kind of setup already unofficially exists with private renting. The only landlords that accept dss are largely those with slum housing in amongst the very worse stereotype of a benefit tenant (the minority). Violent crime, asbo crime, drugs (they need help, it's but hardly appropriate to house DV victims and disabled families alongside them).

I've looked in the north and find the same issue. Landlords may accept dss but usually only if it's to top-up employment wages or with a guarantor. Others don't say anything on the advert but somehow you'll not picked once they hear you're on disability benefits and not working. Maybe I need to look harder but it's definitely not just a London and SE problem anymore.

It's why women like me stay with men who beat and rape them.

but I hope they're not the same people condemning women for staying with violent men. unfortunately I’m fairly sure a lot of the time they are.

The system is a gift for abusers. They sabotage their partner/spouse's employment and health. Job done. The woman is stuck because there's hardly any social housing but private landlords won't let to benefit tenants. totally agree!

Tenants have very few rights in the UK compared to other countries and the few we do have are barely enforced. Good landlords maintain the property, keep up with health and safety requirements and don’t hassle the tenants, but there are plenty of landlords who do NONE of those things. Something which hasn’t yet been mentioned on this thread is the “creepy landlord” another issue for lone women tenants, so that even when we DO find a landlord that’s willing to let to us we have to do a risk assessment of our own in that regard.

@Evelefteden - I’m aware of at least 3 instances where non benefits tenants treated properties and landlords as badly as you describe your benefits tenants doing so. One where they even went as far as taking the wiring out the wall!

It’s definitely not just benefits tenants who can be bad tenants

One boss I worked for thought it a good idea to convert a block of flats into a load of bedsits/studios for lone men to rent as he felt it was unfair they found it so difficult to find homes after divorce etc - they all were “professional” men in their 30’s and 40’s and they basically turned it into party central and completely wrecked the entire building!

I appreciate you’re describing your own personal experiences and I’m sorry for that BUT you are writing as if ALL benefits tenants behave like that.

Many landlords would be happy to have DSS tenants if they could be paid directly. I can't see any reason not to do this. er...how about because it’s insulting, infantilising and controlling? I’ve been on housing benefit either full or partial (when working) for almost 18 years. I have never ONCE missed a payment and the ONE AND ONLY time it was a DAY late was a bank cock up! (All their systems crashed temporarily due to hackers), I keep properties clean and tidy, I don’t bother the neighbours...

And yet I have been treated repeatedly as a second class citizen by potential landlords and letting agents PURELY because I’m on benefits. Some of the comments I’ve had made to my face have been utterly disgusting!

More social housing is needed, and more affordable housing needs to be built so employed people can move on out of the rental market and free up rental housing. I firmly believe that while so many MPs are landlords and property developers this will NEVER happen, because like you they view these properties as savings accounts and not much needed homes.

The needs of tenants are of no importance to them.

The real failing is the lack of state provision. while true it’s also the maintenance of ridiculously high housing prices, low wages and high unemployment - ALL the remit of the govt

What stands out to me on this thread is the lack of understanding of discrimination, so many tarring people claiming DSS with the same brush absolutely

Why shouldn’t I invest in property? my answer to that would be because a property should primarily be a home. You want a savings account? Go to the bank!

The housing crisis is being fuelled by attitudes like this with utterly ridiculous numbers of properties lying empty as well as poor landlord behaviour.

I am absolutely in favour of the idea upthread of penalising property owners where homes are left vacant for no good reason.

You wouldn’t trust a rogue banker with your ISA.... well the govt trusts one to be chancellor!!

It is more to do with Universal Credit being paid directly to the claimant as opposed to the landlord as it was with housing Benefit nope! Sorry but that’s just wrong! As I say HB recipient of almost 18 years and I DO mean HB, the rules on paying direct to landlord have been pretty much the same for years. You had to show a REASON why you couldn’t handle your own finances for that to happen and I’m talking a fairly high threshold. I requested it at one point myself, I suffer from mental illness among other things now and at one point was finding handling finances incredibly stressful to the point using a cash machine induced a panic attack and brain freeze! Still not enough reason for this change.

The main issue with UC is the entire thing is a fucked up useless mess! The system they’ve bought/implemented (which was ORIGINALLY suggested precisely as a way to cope with these issues as the legacy system DEFINITELY does not) cannot cope with fluctuating wages (due to shift work, temp work, different payment dates each month etc), changes in circumstances (divorce, new children), bank holidays, fuck a change in the moon seems to screw it up sometimes! And that’s not just my opinion based on what I’ve been told by recipients (I’m currently still on legacy benefits which have their own issues) but what I’m also being told by people who work for dwp.

In addition the dwp workers haven’t been given the training, knowledge or resources to properly deal with now being expected to help distressed tenants after so many years of HB having been administered by local councils. The councils also have the LOCAL knowledge that enables them to navigate and negotiate on behalf of tenants in various areas - in the vast majority of cases the dwp person a claimant is assigned is based at the other end of the sodding country or EVEN in a different country of the Uk - meaning they’re also unaware/untrained in the DIFFERENT laws and rights governing tenancies in the tenants locale! Bloody ridiculous! Eg I’m on legacy benefits but my dwp advisor is based in Newcastle, I’m in Scotland! I’m absolutely dreading the switch as they’ll have zero clue about how things work here!

@safariboot excellent post at 0029

there should also be a bad tenant register that you can get put on if you are a stupid pig! ok - providing we can at least have a bad landlord register too! Works both ways!

Conversely, there are no checks on landlords. They can be bankrupt, have criminal records, have been prosecuted for providing unfit housing etc, and there is no way for a tenant to know that exactly!

@WitchesGlove yes I too am sceptical about all the “I’m not rich” claims - you’re certainly a damn sight better off than benefits claimants!

@lyralalala my last private place I discovered by accident (came into contact with someone who’s parents had it as their first home, so there were loads of family photos) there’d been NO updates to even the decor for over 40 years! Same kitchen inc large appliances, same bathroom same light fittings! Yet that landlord repeatedly tried to blame me and dd when certain things stopped working or I reported weren’t working as well as reasonably expected! Well a cooker that’s over 40 years old probably isn’t going to work brilliantly regardless how well a tenant treats it and looks after it (and I did look after it!) a regulation came in that required her legally to update something and the tradesman who came in to update lost the plot! Saw I had a young child in the property and advised me to get the place looked over independently as LL in his opinion was not safely maintaining the property!

I’ve had one place where the window frame was rotted through but cleverly disguised with paint and plaster such that I opened the window one summer and the entire window fell out and landed on the pavement outside narrowly missing a passerby!

I’ve had landlords (plural) showing up at 10/11pm expecting to do unannounced “inspections”.

I’ve had landlords who plain came and went as they pleased inc surprising me as I came out of the bathroom in just a towel.

I’ve had landlords who placed “spy cameras”, who refused to turn heating on in depths of winter (weird set up flat was part of their house at one point then sectioned off but heating controls remained in their part of house), who limited hot water, who nailed the windows shut, who’ve had ridiculous rules regarding what colour furnishings I have! (and I’m talking throw covers not what I was decorating the walls in)

So yes, we tenants have plenty of “horror stories” too!

I wish retirement places would consider disabled people buying or renting flats, they all look so clean and accessible when listed but I'm too young I’ve had similar thoughts. I’m 48 now, where I live you have to be 55 to be considered for retirement/sheltered housing places. There are certain aspects of being a tenant/running a home I’m really starting to struggle with (I have a physical disability and as I said serious mental illness), I have disabled relatives nearby in such properties and they have commented often that they wish they could have accessed sooner that it’s made their lives SO much easier.

Those of us that are mentally ill are not viewed in the same way as the very physically disabled yet can have just as serious difficulties in maintaining a tenancy/property.

Social housing needs MASSIVELY overhauled and improved in this country.

@SummerCherry I find that hard to believe that you “had” to become a landlord. You could have sold much more cheaply, which recession? 2008 because that was 12 years ago now and many property owners will have sold since then.

Jobs are not as easy to get as you seem to think, especially in the current climate yes I’m fairly certain that comment was made by someone who is currently young, fit, healthy and has no caring responsibilities as yet. Life has a way of landing you on your arse if you hold such smug, self righteous opinions though!

Not saying I did but I certainly took my health for granted when younger, never had a problem getting a job from the age of 13 full time from age 16 until I became disabled in early 30’s due to a car accident (numpty on phone hit me at traffic lights).

And yes age is definitely an issue it gets harder and harder to get work as we get older. I saw this with my mum who similarly had worked since she was 15 (you could leave school at that age then and being from a poor working class family she definitely wasn’t encouraged to stay on, the household needed the money). She was also a trailing spouse but certainly under 35 had no problems getting work even though she had us all relatively young (I’m eldest of 3), once over 35 she found it increasingly difficult to find work and in conversation with her she says after 45 it became nigh on impossible! Even though by this point we were all grown and gone, so she had no caring responsibilities and could work any hours, plus she was still very fit and healthy at this point she was running marathons for crying out loud! Yet she struggled to even get interviews! She eventually found her last job due to “who she knew” a friend put in a good word and she worked there until retirement, impressed her employers and was regularly promoted and they even asked her to defer retirement, but by this point dad was very sick and needing more care, plus I reckon she also wanted to spend more time with the grandchildren before they hit the teen stage of it being “uncool” to hang out with granny.

Add in - as you correctly state - the state of the economy after many years of mishandling by a Tory govt + Brexit + coronavirus and I predict our unemployment rates already high even according to govts own stats are about to bloody skyrocket!

Do people commenting like that poster REALLY think it’s acceptable that families facing unemployment, poverty and homelessness through no fault of their own should be treated like shit?!

@Plantlife I’m so sorry for your situation and wish sincerely I had advice to offer, but sadly have none. As I’m sure you’ve explored all the usual avenues like shelter and dv support agencies?

@lyralalala Scots system not robust enough either, better than English I agree but still not stringent enough and as you say deteriorating

why not help by campaigning for reform to it then??!! People on UC are your fellow human beings!! yes I think this thread has largely shown it’s a case of “good luck getting them to acknowledge/accept that”

@Whereorwhere did you forget bedroom tax? That’s exactly why it was brought in (supposedly) to “encourage” people to relinquish properties that were too large for them. Problem is (as is usually the case with govt policy) it wasn’t thought through properly! Not only were the reasons why some people might NEED “spare” rooms considered they didn’t consider the fact there’s precious little smaller properties around for people to move into - social housing OR private! I’m subject to bedroom tax since dd moved out a few months ago. Luckily as I’m in Scotland the Scots govt have set up a scheme to mitigate but it’s a palaver. I can’t move to somewhere smaller because there ISN’T Anywhere smaller! The housing association placed are all min 2 beds and private places 1 beds are very few and far between and as is the subject of the thread very difficult for a benefit claimant to be accepted for. It’s not a place where there’s students or lots of young people who’ve just left home so no studios/bedsits (which I’d be perfectly willing to consider) and even house shares are rare, plus with my health issues to be perfectly honest it wouldn’t be fair on a flat mate to have to deal with my idiosyncrasies.

We could really do with in this area some well meaning person to develop a load of studio properties (there are several old office buildings lying vacant that would be PERFECT) for tenants just like myself, but I imagine it’s not happening as wouldn’t be very profitable. The housing associations (no council properties here at all now) haven’t built any properties of their own they’re simply using ex-private properties they’ve been able to buy.

working full time, and so obviously didn’t qualify for social housing. eh? Who told you that?!

@contrmary I hope to fuck your post at 0905 was a joke! If not what a disgusting attitude you have to people generally!

Letting agents are the single biggest problem in my vast experience. They’re out for themselves, they tend to be slow then blame the LL, and if left to manage a property will piss the tenants off to the point of them wanting to move as soon as possible. totally agree. Everyone has an agenda to think LA don’t is foolish in the extreme.

@LGY1 exactly! While demand outstrips supply tenants will continue to lose out! But it suits MPs with vested interests, developers and landlords to keep supply low, and prices and demand high! A GOOD govt would counteract that on the basis of homes being more important than profit. That will NEVER happen with a Tory govt

I would force them to take in some lodgers into the spare bedrooms, so that they are not going to waste. in my case that could be deeply unfair on the lodger and could well cause my health to deteriorate further. Awful idea!

@Gettinglikemymother - I think you’re making the common mistake of thinking new labour were remotely socialist!

@PerkingFaintly good post but I would not agree new labour were centrist. I think they did a good impression of being so, but in reality were slightly right of centre.

One particular estate near me was purpose built by the council to house workers in a particular industry (that has since been privatised but at that time was state run). Cut to almost 60 years later and through a history of starting as a very much working class estate, through right to buy and then being sold onto “normal” buyers it is now VERY expensive to buy there, I’m talking lottery win needed! Yet the houses are no bigger or fancier than when they were first built! Personally I think people paying millions for ex council houses that are really quite small with ancient infrastructure that’s had numerous problems are fucking idiots! It tends to be young “aspirational” couples that buy there who are originally from another part of the county who have very wealthy parents that sub them. Bonkers! It’s very much a “postcode” thing as that area has been...rebranded? By letting and estate agents as “posh” - it really isn’t!

These houses shouldn’t be anywhere near the hands of a private landlord. They were supposed to be social housing for people to live in, not cash machines for an unscrupulous profiteer. totally agree!

The poster who suggested dumping everybody on low incomes and benefits together must either be very rich with unlimited savings or super human. Illness or disability can happen to anyone. I very much doubt they’re independently wealthy, more likely simply ignorant with little experience of life as yet.

@Graphista Is the Scottish system deteriorating?

I don’t know about it. I’m a LL in England. My local council has run a voluntary scheme for the last few years of landlord registration kinda based on the Scottish system (as much as they could) so that’s the only bits I know about it.

It’s the one here that’s being scrapped due to cuts. Which is a shame because it really made the shit LL’s stand out to tenants. With a batch of housing association new builds it took the lowest % of dive homes out of the equation completely.

Good landlords maintain the property, keep up with health and safety requirements and don’t hassle the tenants, but there are plenty of landlords who do NONE of those things

That's why some of us would like to see a register of some kind, so tenants could at least be warned what they're going into

Trouble is it would almost certainly involve local authorities, and while I can't speak for others, our local housing dept is so utterly corrupt that private LLs simply wouldn't work with them

Good landlords maintain the property, keep up with health and safety requirements and don’t hassle the tenants, but there are plenty of landlords who do NONE of those things

Of course. Just as good tenants don’t trash the property, let their pets urinate and shit all over the carpet, leave cigarette butts all over the house, destroy property, and don’t pay rent. Yet there are tenants who do these very things. I don’t think anyone has said there aren’t both good and bad tenants and landlords in existence.

yes I too am sceptical about all the “I’m not rich” claims - you’re certainly a damn sight better off than benefits claimants!

@Graphista

For such a well thought out, articulate post, I’m surprised at your comment above.

In the same way people on here get frustrated with the concept of benefit claimants being lazy, work shy, rough and the other negative stereotypes often used to discriminate, LL get annoyed at people assuming they’re loaded because they have a second property!!

Some own lots of properties and it’s a full time business but many just own 1 property that they rent out. Owning a buy to let property doesn’t make you rich. Many people will be lucky to gain £25 in ‘profit’ each month. If the tenant doesn’t pay the rent then the LL is knackered. They’ll have their own mortgage to pay as well then the one in the rented property.

Even if every LL in the country gave their house back and suddenly they were available to buy and that created supply and demand to drive the house prices down- All that would happen is the banks would up the interest rates. So they would be the ones profiting instead of the LL.

Those in low income roles still wouldn’t be able to afford to buy the ‘now cheaper‘ houses, as the bank would charge more for borrowing their money- as they wouldn’t be able to make as much on the house worth £100,000 now that was previously £150,000

So either way, it would still be out of the reach of low incomes in general.

It is rubbish. And I feel the frustration for people but their anger is misplaced at the LL

In the same way people on here get frustrated with the concept of benefit claimants being lazy, work shy, rough and the other negative stereotypes often used to discriminate, LL get annoyed at people assuming they’re loaded because they have a second property

People love to stereotype when it suits them but hate it when it doesn’t. It really is hypocrisy at its finest. I would agree that objectively, someone who owns two properties is better off financially than someone who owns none and is on benefits. But it’s all relative isn’t it? The fact we are all even posting on an electronic device on the internet and have access to the internet means we are better off and “richer” than a massive % of the worlds population. They would consider us “rich”.