UKRM Court of Common Sense

Many landlords do not take housing benefit now due to the ridiculous
changes to payments (paying tenants direct).

I know where I am a two bed will rent for £475 to £500 PCM - a housing
benefit rent will be around £500 (about £115pw). Factor in the move
towards single person rate for those under 35 and the almost
guaranteed loss of 8 weeks rent from direct payments (unless you play
the system and give the tenants "an uncles" bank details that are
actually your partners, or get a note from a bent quack that they have
a drug/alcohol dependence problem etc) and your returns take a bit of
a drop.

Personally I do not rent to housing benefit tenants for these
reasons. It simply isn't worth the aggro unless you get a cast iron
guarantor.

 

I've had to move three times now because my landlord has wanted to sell
the flat I was in. What's the difference, in practical terms, between
that and Government policy?

I'm entirely support of a state-funded safety net. But not state-funded
cotton wool. And it seems we're well into the world of the latter.

Be careful when referring to areas like Kensington - North Kensington is
a grim sink estate, albeit in a fantastic location.

 

Rightmove - 37 5 bed properties within 3 miles of Southwark for <£1750pcm.

Cheapest is £1100pcm.

 

did he? Oh, yes, he did - I missed that. Good point.

Never mind Thatcher, but will the old **** die on us, and spoil our
enjoyment of such nonsense? I'll miss him in a strange way.

 

hah, on at least 2 levels.

 

gesundheit

 

Fair point

 

far from me to be Juvenalian on such a dainty medium as UKRM, but that
just slipped out. Twice.

 

Councils won't have the money to do this kind of stuff. They won't be able
to enter into long-term rental agreements in circumstances where they are
being expected to make massive savings. They would be opening themselves to
massive liabilities at a time when there is considerable uncertainty about
future funding arrangements.

 

hahah. Having worked for a subsiduary of a rather large insurance
company, I was well versed in the "never over-insure" mantra, which
included: "never pay mortgage protection insurance".

Think about it: who are you paying premiums to protect?

 

oh, yeah, I just said that - oops.

 

Of course they will. They know how much they've spent on housing
benefits over the last n years, they know how much their budget is, &
they'll have a damn good idea of how much that budget will be for the
next three years. They'd have enough properties on one year leases to
reduce the numbers if they needed to.

 

Which is why I said 'If they're good, reliable tenants'. A landlord is
not going to kick them out for the sake of a few quid a week & risk
getting some house-trashing non-paying scumbag in instead.

Yeah, cos all landlords would rather have tenants in arrears than
reliable payers wouldn't they.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, steve auvache

No, Mr Auvache. I expect you to die!

 

you ought to be grateful to still cling on to existance.

 

has anyone got a pool of sharks handy?

 

I dont think it has any significance what so ever. Marina was jewish
and Ive never known a more giving person. FWIW...

 

Too right. If I was offered a job in London on a low wage and had to use
public transport, the travelling costs alone would make it impossible to
accept.

--
Veggie Dave
http://www.iq18films.co.uk

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine

 

I'd do the same, but it's disappeared under a bush.

 

Actually, no you wouldn't as you'd have access to housing benefit to pay
the interest. Your mortgage company can easily change repayments to
interest only, the council will cover those payments, you don't lose
your home and can get on with finding another job.

--
Veggie Dave
http://www.iq18films.co.uk

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine