Adam Farrands's comments
Your comments page displays any comments you have made on articles or blogs on this website. From here, you can link to the original stories or blogs and view any responses or further comments added by other users.
Sometimes i wonder if Shelter have any grasp at all on the real world? They do do some good things but this seems very ill informed to me. One of the biggest issues i have is independant landlords in the private sector who have no idea what they are doing, this leads to unprotected deposits, poor conditions and invalid notices as well as unfair terms in AST's (amongst other things) if you force agents out of the market (which is basically what shelter are proposing) then this will only increase. Yes i know not all agents know what they are doing and i also get frustrated with the high fees BUT the majority of reputable ones can do their jobs and ensure that at least properties are safe and the legalities are done properly. If it is done in the right way i think regulation / licencing may well be the way forward but not banning fees altogether, that is just crazy, at least to my eyes.
My home is linked to my ability to obtain and maintain employment, if i am not employed i can not pay my mortgage and will loose my home. I understand why this has got some peoples knickers in a twist but it is a way of encouraging people to gain employment (if they do not already have it) and for those who can become less dependant on the tax payer to become so. As long as the availablity of jobs is taken into account (at a reasonable wage) and this is customised to each tenant i do not see a problem
I would imagine the loan is secured against the value of stock and a three bed is worth more than a two bed. Therefore re-classifying means on paper at least the lender looses some of its security and the sale value of the stock decreases?
Ahh localisum at work (forget if you agree or not, how is this empowering communities? Here you decide, unless we want to decide, then we decide)
PB agree with your comment completely. With the current massive housing shortage a 14 year old girl (or any child for that matter) can only reasonably expect one bed, it is hard on the other parent (usually the father) and yes in an ideal world she would have a bed at both residences but there are plenty of children out there who do not have one bed let allown two. Like you state she should be no safer than with her father
I just wanted to throw 'affordable rent' into the mix which is in most areas is replacing the 'socail rents' mentioned in this article. Where it is being implemented esp in the the south east of the UK, it is almost as high or even higher (have real working examples from my district) than the LHA rate! Now that to me is scary because if the mecca of housing that everyone on low incomes seems to set as their focus is unaffordable even if they get offered a property where to we go from there???
AJM i think the confusion is around LC for the purposes of a homeless application (which remains constant) and LC for the purposes of allocations which can now be varied?
CL, did not mean to patronise you, but genuinely know that to be the truth (re referencing)
I do not have my head in the sand at all but what you need to understand is that the extent to which LA's work with landlords depends very much on which LA you are talking about. Those authorities that can see past the end of their noses know that in order to meet the needs of thier clients working the PRS landlords is essential. I do not think LA's support local landlords, i know they do.
'The housing system encourages tenants, to wreck homes, face eviction from unhappy landlord and then be fast tracked to council housing.' I am sure you were expecting this CL but WTF??? How does the housing system ecourage tenants to trash properties? If they are evicted for not looking after a property then they should be found intentionally homeless and so it will actually have a negative effect on any application for social housing.
Over the years i have seen many private tenants i.e. not on HB, wreck properties too. The same rules apply, check references, provide good quality accomodation and look after your tenants and they should look after you. There will always be exceptions but as long as you minimise your risk they should be few and far between.
Spot on Kate M, maybe those who are not to sure about the background to this (what LA's need to do to use this new power) might want to have a look at http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/homelessnessguidance
If you are not convinced some authorities will stick to this, well it is sad that they are needed in this way but having spoken to several fazirly high up people in shelter's legal team, they are going to be all over it.
Hi Footpath, I am also at a total loss as to why the governemnt keep lying about the private sector, i guess it just comes down to them twisting whatever statistics they choose to use on any given day but agree it is totally wrong and missleading.
With regards to your other comment i believe this piece of legislation is rather overdue but in reality will not have a masive impact. Any forward thinking authority is not going to 'force' tenants to take accomodation in the PRS on a regular basis as tenants who are forced into accomodation are far less likely to respect it and pay thier rent, this in turn will lead to what is already a very difficlut relationship (between the PRS and LA's) breaking down completely. The legislation will however work in so much as it will hopefully prove once and for all to some people who like to 'work' the system that a homeless application and all the time and money that goes into it is not just a fast track to the social rented sector. Also if the PRS accomodation is suitable and affordable (as it has to be for this to work) then why should a houshold which is truly homeless need to be 'forced' into it??