• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

stokiescum

no blacks,no dog and no irish

Recommended Posts

i see the women on houseing benifit are now claiming discrimination has more women than men claim it so they are useing the d word.i think its shelter starting this latest crusade.now i surpose its funny has this will rile landlords up but what next will they turn the heat up on people who rent a spare room out when they advertise for a lodger and specify no dss.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, stokiescum said:

i see the women on houseing benifit are now claiming discrimination has more women than men claim it so they are useing the d word.i think its shelter starting this latest crusade.now i surpose its funny has this will rile landlords up but what next will they turn the heat up on people who rent a spare room out when they advertise for a lodger and specify no dss.?

There was a piece on the radio saying that landlords who say no bennie seekers are discriminatory and can potentially find themselves in court. 

Another reason not to be a landlord 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Potentially....

It won't stand up.

There are two things a landlord wants to be happy about with a potential tenant:

Will they keep paying the rent?

Will they look after the property?

 

Now that the government has stopped HB / LHA being paid directly to private landlords there is very little assurance about a benefits claimant's ability to pay the rent especially with UC having begun to roll out.

To say "nobody on benefits" is simply rational behaviour.

The government could sort this at a stroke by reverting to paying rental benefits direct to landlords at which point those on benefits become a much lower risk in terms of rental payment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frank Hovis said:

Potentially....

It won't stand up.

There are two things a landlord wants to be happy about with a potential tenant:

Will they keep paying the rent?

Will they look after the property?

 

Now that the government has stopped HB / LHA being paid directly to private landlords there is very little assurance about a benefits claimant's ability to pay the rent especially with UC having begun to roll out.

To say "nobody on benefits" is simply rational behaviour.

The government could sort this at a stroke by reverting to paying rental benefits direct to landlords at which point those on benefits become a much lower risk in terms of rental payment.

I agree Frank.  I’ve watched enough episodes of ‘can’t pay...’ to realise it would not be a particularly clever move to rent to those on benefits, especially if they were here to enrich us.  

However, I can see the courts being bonkers enough to actually agree that it is discrimination. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, One percent said:

I agree Frank.  I’ve watched enough episodes of ‘can’t pay...’ to realise it would not be a particularly clever move to rent to those on benefits, especially if they were here to enrich us.  

However, I can see the courts being bonkers enough to actually agree that it is discrimination. 

The bonkers bit, to me, is the ideologically-driven movement to make people financially literate (basically: to understand about budgeting) when on benefits by paying them as somebody on a salary is paid.  This was a Conservative idea but the others probably back it.  So you give somebody on benefits an amount to pay for their rent rather than paying their rent directly to the landlord as used to happen (and still does in certain cases, porbably where the tenant is deemed "vulnerable" whatever that means).

I understand the ideology but I don't agree with it.  When I went to college back in ye olden days I received a £600 or so grant each term.  Of that £400 was immediately demanded by the college for rent (and kitchen fixed charge) so that what was left paid for food, beer, and my coach home at the end of term.  The major budgetary item - rent - was taken away up front so that I couldn't get into too much trouble like being thrown out of my room for not paying my rent.  This made sense; especailly whne I heard that a fof at another uni where they didn't do this had spent most of his first term's grant on a decent stereo and was then stuffed for the rets of the term, having to borrow money in order to pay their rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Potentially....

It won't stand up.

There are two things a landlord wants to be happy about with a potential tenant:

Will they keep paying the rent?

Will they look after the property?

 

Now that the government has stopped HB / LHA being paid directly to private landlords there is very little assurance about a benefits claimant's ability to pay the rent especially with UC having begun to roll out.

To say "nobody on benefits" is simply rational behaviour.

The government could sort this at a stroke by reverting to paying rental benefits direct to landlords at which point those on benefits become a much lower risk in terms of rental payment.

its about empowerment or was,basicly its a goverment top up to the unemployed for 6 months/eviction day for how much your rent is should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

The government could sort this at a stroke by reverting to paying rental benefits direct to landlords at which point those on benefits become a much lower risk in terms of rental payment.

Didn't we get to a point, particularly in London, where landlords would actively advertise for tenants on HB because they knew that the government has a pretty good credit score and will pay - which in turn was a factor in pushing up house prices and could on occasion see privately funded tenants shut out from some market sectors?

Paying private landlords directly from government funds is too much of a join between State and private enterprise for me.

The argument that goes along with this is what to do with people on benefits who get evicted. The supposition seems to be that they need to be housed somewhere by the State, indeed there's some sort of obligation for us to do this. Yet I don't see why that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DTMark said:

Didn't we get to a point, particularly in London, where landlords would actively advertise for tenants on HB because they knew that the government has a pretty good credit score and will pay - which in turn was a factor in pushing up house prices and could on occasion see privately funded tenants shut out from some market sectors?

Paying private landlords directly from government funds is too much of a join between State and private enterprise for me.

The argument that goes along with this is what to do with people on benefits who get evicted. The supposition seems to be that they need to be housed somewhere by the State, indeed there's some sort of obligation for us to do this. Yet I don't see why that is.

There is a general expectation that everybody gets a roof over their heads; if it's somebody local with mental health issus then I woudl agree.  If it's somebody who's just jumped out of the back of a lorry in Kent then I wouldn't.

Though that doesn't necessarily mean that they get a council house or flat.  People who have as the official language terms it "difficulty in maintaining their tenancy", or in reality don't pay the rent and set fire to their neighbour's car, will be housed by the council in temporary accommodation - meaning usually a cheap hotel or B&B.  As somebody who spent several months living in a B&B once I wouldn't term it enjoyable.

 

Here's one lot who won't be getting a council house again:

3053905400000578-3406318-image-a-16_1453

Meet the ASBO family: Nightmare neighbours are evicted for the second time in 12 months – after 300 complaints, 12 injunctions and three jail terms 

  • The Birch clan, from Gloucester, are living in an abandoned warehouse
  • Awful behaviour saw them evicted from second council house in a year
  • Made neighbours' lives a misery forcing 300 Asbo gripes against them
  • Had 12 court injunctions and three prison sentences for chaotic lifestyle
  • But they are now demanding a new council home as they 'hurt nobody' 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3406318/Asbo-family-terrorised-neighbours-seven-years-evicted-second-time-year-300-anti-social-incidents-12-injunctions-three-prison-sentence.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do the second set of neighbours subjected to their behaviour, go about suing the State for having their lives made a misery?

Unless the local authority has a house literally in the middle of nowhere close to nobody then rights are relative, not absolute here.

That local authority had reasonable grounds to believe that this might happen and so must be culpable to some degree for the distress they assisted in causing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

There is a general expectation that everybody gets a roof over their heads; if it's somebody local with mental health issus then I woudl agree.  If it's somebody who's just jumped out of the back of a lorry in Kent then I wouldn't.

Though that doesn't necessarily mean that they get a council house or flat.  People who have as the official language terms it "difficulty in maintaining their tenancy", or in reality don't pay the rent and set fire to their neighbour's car, will be housed by the council in temporary accommodation - meaning usually a cheap hotel or B&B.  As somebody who spent several months living in a B&B once I wouldn't term it enjoyable.

 

Here's one lot who won't be getting a council house again:

3053905400000578-3406318-image-a-16_1453

Meet the ASBO family: Nightmare neighbours are evicted for the second time in 12 months – after 300 complaints, 12 injunctions and three jail terms 

  • The Birch clan, from Gloucester, are living in an abandoned warehouse
  • Awful behaviour saw them evicted from second council house in a year
  • Made neighbours' lives a misery forcing 300 Asbo gripes against them
  • Had 12 court injunctions and three prison sentences for chaotic lifestyle
  • But they are now demanding a new council home as they 'hurt nobody' 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3406318/Asbo-family-terrorised-neighbours-seven-years-evicted-second-time-year-300-anti-social-incidents-12-injunctions-three-prison-sentence.html

Sad to say but an argument for euthanasia right there. 

In years gone past, these people would either have worked or died of starvation. I’m not saying I agree with that but to house, clothe, feed these wastes of space doesn’t seem to be the answer. I’m not sure what is tbh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DTMark said:

How do the second set of neighbours subjected to their behaviour, go about suing the State for having their lives made a misery?

Unless the local authority has a house literally in the middle of nowhere close to nobody then rights are relative, not absolute here.

That local authority had reasonable grounds to believe that this might happen and so must be culpable to some degree for the distress they assisted in causing?

No, they're not.

I'd like them to be but if, say, your neighbour sold their house to a well known big family of troublemakers who made your life hell you wouldn't have recourse to the seller for having sold it to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DTMark said:

How do the second set of neighbours subjected to their behaviour, go about suing the State for having their lives made a misery?

Unless the local authority has a house literally in the middle of nowhere close to nobody then rights are relative, not absolute here.

That local authority had reasonable grounds to believe that this might happen and so must be culpable to some degree for the distress they assisted in causing?

All rights are relative imho.  That’s what is wrong with society, there are very small groups of very vocal useful idiots shouting incredibly loudly about their rights, regardless of anyone else. 

There is a good article on this in the mail, off to start a thread 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, One percent said:

There was a piece on the radio saying that landlords who say no bennie seekers are discriminatory and can potentially find themselves in court. 

Another reason not to be a landlord 

Nope. They are not.

Most btl mortgages forbid bennie claimants, for good reason.

52 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Potentially....

It won't stand up.

There are two things a landlord wants to be happy about with a potential tenant:

Will they keep paying the rent?

Will they look after the property?

 

Now that the government has stopped HB / LHA being paid directly to private landlords there is very little assurance about a benefits claimant's ability to pay the rent especially with UC having begun to roll out.

To say "nobody on benefits" is simply rational behaviour.

The government could sort this at a stroke by reverting to paying rental benefits direct to landlords at which point those on benefits become a much lower risk in terms of rental payment.

Nope they should nkt.

Let LL have business risk.

Ukgov could sort this out easiely by getting rid of HB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

There is a general expectation that everybody gets a roof over their heads; if it's somebody local with mental health issus then I woudl agree.  If it's somebody who's just jumped out of the back of a lorry in Kent then I wouldn't.

Though that doesn't necessarily mean that they get a council house or flat.  People who have as the official language terms it "difficulty in maintaining their tenancy", or in reality don't pay the rent and set fire to their neighbour's car, will be housed by the council in temporary accommodation - meaning usually a cheap hotel or B&B.  As somebody who spent several months living in a B&B once I wouldn't term it enjoyable.

"Mental health" can be extended seemingly infinitely these days from drug addiction to terrorism that it becomes a sort of circular reference.

I do recall watching a programme about a private estate agent who used to hoover up all the dross in the local estates and rehouse them when they were evicted. Again.

So in one example you had an alcoholic whose money all went on drink. He gets evicted again. The estate agent swings into action. By the end of the day he has a new home. For a little while.

Nothing is being achieved there except for the estate agent making money from the State. The alcoholic is never forced to confront their point of despair because every time it arrives the estate agent hurries around to sweep it away for them like magic. The alcoholic will probably be dead fairly soon. Literally nobody wins.

Disconnecting cause and effect and focusing solely or exclusively on the "rights" side of things causes this sort of misery.

There's a world of difference between that and, say, a newly widowed physically disabled mother struggling to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One percent said:

Sad to say but an argument for euthanasia right there. 

In years gone past, these people would either have worked or died of starvation. I’m not saying I agree with that but to house, clothe, feed these wastes of space doesn’t seem to be the answer. I’m not sure what is tbh. 

You'd get slated for saying it your work environment, as would I, but if you ask anybody off the record as to who the state should bd supporting then you would say "the deserving poor".

In these days of rights without responsibilities to make such a value judgement would be deemed unacceptable ("it's not ok") but the vast number of people would agree with so doing.

There has been material support for the deserving poor for at least two thousand years but it's only in the last fifty or so that the undeserving poor get the same benefits.

It is a repeated theme on this board but the key requirement should be contributory benefits based upon NI contributions from when you have been working, in education, bringing up children, or actively seeking work.  Thne you have an objcetive test for who is the deserving poor.  (Caveat for those with genuine and substantial disabilities).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Nope. They are not.

Most btl mortgages forbid bennie claimants, for good reason.

Nope they should nkt.

Let LL have business risk.

Ukgov could sort this out easiely by getting rid of HB.

Now that would be really daft.

Take two unemployed 19 year olds in receipt of benefits.  One lives with their parents, one is an orphan with nowhere to live.  You don't give them the same benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stokiescum said:

i see the women on houseing benifit are now claiming discrimination has more women than men claim it so they are useing the d word.i think its shelter starting this latest crusade.now i surpose its funny has this will rile landlords up but what next will they turn the heat up on people who rent a spare room out when they advertise for a lodger and specify no dss.?

Same crap was tried with reducing public secþor employees.

Pitched as anti wimmin as sector is 75% female.

Failed first hurdle. Just wishful thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Nope. They are not.

Most btl mortgages forbid bennie claimants, for good reason.

Nope they should nkt.

Let LL have business risk.

Ukgov could sort this out easiely by getting rid of HB.

Knowing what a fine upstanding bunch BTL'ers are in general I'm sure they take notice of the T&C's

Knowing what a fine bunch the bankers are I'm sure, likewise they are absolutely fastidious in dishing out and controlling their loan portfolio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Now that would be really daft.

Take two unemployed 19 year olds in receipt of benefits.  One lives with their parents, one is an orphan with nowhere to live.  You don't give them the same benefits.

...but it would make houses really cheap ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frank Hovis said:

Now that would be really daft.

Take two unemployed 19 year olds in receipt of benefits.  One lives with their parents, one is an orphan with nowhere to live.  You don't give them the same benefits.

Nope.

Youd still have public sector housing for emergency / bad cases.

I said get rid of HB not social housing.

It would be easy to fu d and run  say 10% of ukpop as simple, plain tower blocks in urban areas.

Totally plain and cheap and near employment.

Problem with HB is it encorages people to stay where there are no jobs. And pushes up price of accomodation.

Just now, DTMark said:

...but it would make houses really cheap ;)

It would.

Shithole 3br in crappest bit of mboro - 600/m due to HB.

Remove HB and itll fall to sub 300. And be took by someone working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Nope. They are not.

Most btl mortgages forbid bennie claimants, for good reason.

Nope they should nkt.

Let LL have business risk.

Ukgov could sort this out easiely by getting rid of HB.

That’s good to know.  Also some person piped up that landlord insurance wouldn’t cover any loss of rent 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spygirl said:

Nope.

Youd still have public sector housing for emergency / bad cases.

I said get rid of HB not social housing.

It would be easy to fu d and run  say 10% of ukpop as simple, plain tower blocks in urban areas.

Totally plain and cheap and near employment.

Problem with HB is it encorages people to stay where there are no jobs. And pushes up price of accomodation.

I'd like to see you try to get there from here.

Successive governments have been entirely against socila housing as has been seen by the continuation and recent extenstion of Right to Buy.  The aim is to end up with no soical housing and have it all be PRS.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I'd like to see you try to get there from here.

Successive governments have been entirely against socila housing as has been seen by the continuation and recent extenstion of Right to Buy.  The aim is to end up with no soical housing and have it all be PRS.  

Do that at the same time as letting the money supply let rip, and what will happen is that even the so-called "just about managing" won't be able to manage any more, and the productive economy would end up compromised (less money to go around for discretionary purchases, even more credit) so as to support the unproductive sectors (housing).

Oh, look at where we are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/08/2018 at 09:50, One percent said:

Sad to say but an argument for euthanasia right there. 

In years gone past, these people would either have worked or died of starvation. I’m not saying I agree with that but to house, clothe, feed these wastes of space doesn’t seem to be the answer. I’m not sure what is tbh. 

I got to wondering how families like that would take to UBI. I favour UBI being set at 25% of national average wage, so about £125 a week and with a qualifying period of 21 years proven residency. #4 might be under 21 which makes their collective UBI between £625 and £750 a week. They could afford to rent somewhere. In the shittier areas, rents will be dirt cheap as there won't be any HB to prop up the rents.

There's always going to be financial fuckwits so I could see a situation where rent and council tax is taken directly from said fuckwits UBI.

In the meantime, imo new social housing tenants should be given 2 x 6 month contracts, followed by 2 x 12 month contracts. Then a 3 year contract. If they haven't pissed off the neighbours in 6 years, there's a decent chance of them being good 'uns and they get full tenancy rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/08/2018 at 10:50, One percent said:

Sad to say but an argument for euthanasia right there. 

In years gone past, these people would either have worked or died of starvation. I’m not saying I agree with that but to house, clothe, feed these wastes of space doesn’t seem to be the answer. I’m not sure what is tbh. 

Not euthanasia.

If you create the situation where lazy useless fuckers like this have a miserable life and those that are motivated and work do better, that will cover the majority of humans and the general atmosphere will change for the better. So house them, but not well. Feed them, but not well. No extras - nothing. Stick all the hopeless cases together and double the police budget for that area.

The terrible error of Brown was to create the opposite situation, working hard just brings stress, so people just work the system instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.