Increase in Homelessness

[Alex50]

This isn’t going to end well, AIBU the government should still block evictions for non rent payments

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53797657

If you see the state some people leave houses in you might think differently . Close relative works for sh company and the state some leave and how much it costs to put right is insane and my friend is provate landlord who has the same issues occasionally, the majority are fine ( we live in sh so not knocking people who do as majority are fine ) some of these people also
Will owe rent and they never get that and then left with damages.
Also if receiving benefits for rent which you then don't pay your rent with , which happened to my friend with a tenant , i can't see how it isn't fraudulent , her tenant left owing couple months rent but was on hb which they had received and spent on something else
All cases should be judged induvidually as every case will be different

it’s in everyone’s interest to make sure people are looked after, especially families.

So the childfree and single should just be left to rot in the gutter?

Families are already well looked after by the benefits system. Single people and those without children get shafted if they lose their job.

Some of you on here are unbelievable expecting a landlord to let someone live free in their house
Most will have some kind of benefits or income so can pay some rent at least
Also if the landlord doesn't get rent and can't pay the mortgage do you think the bank will just say thats ok no problem - of course they won't
The problem is successive goverments should of capped house prices and rent years ago , houses in many areas have been able to get way too expensive for the average wage and so has rent
But you cant say no evictions , not all are even down to not paying rent some will be due to anti social behaviour etc as well

But surely when you choose between selling a property or renting it out you have to accept that there are pros and cons to each decision
You do, but not getting paid for indertermined period does not fall under pro vs con.

It would be like saying that if you decide to sell your house, get an offer, but at the last minute, the buyers say they will only buy at a20% reduced price, you should accept with grace because you chose to sell instead of letting!

@snuggybuggy of course there are pros and cons but one isnt that you expect to let someone live rent free
And if this got brought in and people chose to sell houses or leave them empty and there were less rental properties then where will people live
House prices have apparently risen again this needs to stop we could do with them stabilising for a few years

But the rule that tenants have to wait until they are dragged out otherwise be considered intentionally homeless and refused help isn't new. It's inevitable that a landlord has to consider the risk of not getting rent it's just the period of time is longer.

@SnuggyBuggy

But the rule that tenants have to wait until they are dragged out otherwise be considered intentionally homeless and refused help isn't new. It's inevitable that a landlord has to consider the risk of not getting rent it's just the period of time is longer.

This is a rule that is already incredibly unfair on both landlords and tenants, and it only exists where private tenants want to become SH tenants. Most tenants leave in the normal way when their tenancy comes to an end.

Even when that rule that does have to be applied because tenants will only leave to get help from the council, those tenants are still obliged to pay their rent for as long as they’re in the property.

A landlord should have to consider the risk that they will have to pay for an eviction, and should have insurance in place in case rent is withheld, but insurance companies aren’t going to pay out indefinitely for as long as a tenant fancies. There has to be a limit on the amount of time that a tenant can stay without paying rent, and that limit is usually set by how long it takes for court proceedings to be arranged and administered.

It was never inevitable that landlords would have to consider not getting rent at the same time as not having the power to evict, that is purely as a result of what the government decided should be in place to help with the pandemic. It is very, very new.

I agree it's a bad law that benefits no one I just have more sympathy for the tennant. No one is forced to become a landlord. It seems like people sleepwalk into it without thinking it through.

Also wouldn't it make more sense for the landlord to own their rental properties outright without a mortgage? It seems like a lot of them are cutting it close with depending on rent to make their repayments

I own mine outright, I still need the income because I’m on a low wage and without it my bills don’t get paid. Tbh, it doesn’t make much difference whether the rental money goes on a mortgage or a landlords kids or straight into an investment account, the tenant is receiving the service and should be paying their rent!

Tenants as well as landlords need to avoid sleepwalking into problems - why do so many tenants get to the end of a tenancy with no money to be able to move? They either know when their contract is up for renewal or they know they could be given notice at any time, yet they are still unprepared.

In a lot of cases it's probably because rents and people's earnings are mismatched.

And people often have a mismatch between what they can afford and what they want or think they should have.

Everyone who works should be able to afford a roof over their head through their wages.

Also wouldn't it make more sense for the landlord to own their rental properties outright without a mortgage? It seems like a lot of them are cutting it close with depending on rent to make their repayments

Yes this is a problem caused by the buy to let boom. A former school friend of mine went to some buy to let workshop and bought loads of buy to let properties in Blackpool. In 2006 - 2008. All mortgages up to the hilt in the days when you could self cert. He went bankrupt in 2010. It’s because buy to let was being touted as easy money, residual income etc.

I agree it's a bad law that benefits no one I just have more sympathy for the tennant. No one is forced to become a landlord
Sympathy is based on morals so not really applicable but even considering who deserve more sympathy, you can do so on generations when each case will be different.

Absolutely, it’s just the type of roof that makes a difference. If you only earn enough to pay for a room in a shared house, then expect to live in a shared house. Don’t expect to be able to live in your own flat/house if you don’t earn enough to pay for it.

LLs have been living in a boom period that has lasted for decades, rents have completely out stripped wages and mortgage payments, so now they have to support their tenants.

I think it's more that everyone needs somewhere to live, no one needs to be a landlord. I'm sure there are bastards in both camps.

@NailsNeedDoing

Absolutely, it’s just the type of roof that makes a difference. If you only earn enough to pay for a room in a shared house, then expect to live in a shared house. Don’t expect to be able to live in your own flat/house if you don’t earn enough to pay for it.

What if you can't even afford a room without it taking up so much of your salary you don't have anything for a rainy day?

Everyone has the potential to be a bastard that's why we appoint governments to uphold laws which incentivise good behaviour and mitigate the worst aspects of human nature

If wages are so low that's a full-time worker cannot afford a basic place to live surely there's something wrong?

@SnuggyBuggy

The whole buying extra homes and getting a tennant to pay your mortgage is always going to be risky and it's no replacement for decently regulated social housing.

The tenant isn’t paying the mortgage. They are paying rent. They are not the same thing. Never have been.

A mortgage payment is made to repay a loan and the interest on that loan.

Rent is a payment for the occupancy of a home.

The laws and legal agreements for both look nothing alike.

LLs have been living in a boom period that has lasted for decades
And not all current landlords have been so for decades.

They're already being punished with the inctroduction of tax on capital. How many tenants know anything about that? Not many I expect, not their business indeed, but this means that for many, it isn't anywhere near the lucrative business it's made to be believed to be.

But don't many landlords depend on getting the rent to pay off the mortgage for the property? Obviously it's a worst of both worlds deal for the tennant.

What if you can't even afford a room without it taking up so much of your salary you don't have anything for a rainy day?

I don’t know, I’m lucky enough to have never needed to think through that situation properly, but I’d guess that if your renting rooms then you don’t need to have much in the way of deposit and a rooms worth of stuff isn’t going to incur huge moving costs. It should be doable on full time minimum wage without needing to cost your landlord anything.

@SnuggyBuggy

I think it's more that everyone needs somewhere to live, no one needs to be a landlord. I'm sure there are bastards in both camps.

People who need somewhere to live need landlords.

Somebody has to be a landlord. And if they are one they need to get paid.