I don't have a problem with landlords per se.

One and a half million council houses were sold off at up to 50% of their value. 1/3 of these houses are now owned by private landlords, fair play to private landlords if that is their way of making money. However the rent they are charging is way above what the council rent would have been.

In the vast majority of cases, the houses are being rented back to people who would have, had there been enough, been renting off of the council. As tax payers, we are paying a lot of the (now inflated when compared to council)rent through housing benefit.
Rents have increased by 36% in the last few years- now whether this is partly because landlords know they are onto a good thing because they know they have a guaranteed income from benefit tenants is debatable but not unlikely-I know there are other reasons, supply/demand etc-(a hangover from the original sold off housing stock not being replaced)

So as tax payers, we are paying a great deal more to support those who need housing benefit in order to provide a profit for individuals rather than to a council who could use the money for other projects-building more houses, fixing the facking pothole in the road, keeping libraries open etc etc.

That is where my beef lies.

Edited by nickgusset (12 Apr 2013 10.24pm)

Srirling, agreed, Major hung in there long enough to make the railways worse than they were.

BUT, she privatised all the utility companies who rip us off now. And big time if you run a business. She had the North Sea revenue and invested none of these huge receipts on the infrastructure. Her tax cutting has not improved our economy or arrested our national decline. IMO!!

Could you expand upon your question? I've said landlord rent isn't cheap.....'Cheap for who' doesn't really give me a lot to know what you're getting at.

I'm glad you had overnight to research your point since.

You say: "However the rent they are charging is way above what the council rent would have been."

Landlords do not get paid any more letting out to the local council as they would a private individual. In fact, many council schemes give the landlord LESS money but tie to a rental guarantee scheme and the landlord has to spend more money to bring it up to council standards.

It doesn't affect the tenant as the rent is still covered.

OBVIOUSLY, if the council owned the property themselves then it would be cheaper for them instead of renting off a landlord.

But that is not the landlord's fault!!

It's down to a shortage of housing stock after Maggie (rightly) enabled people to buy their council home and the social housing was not replaced by her or in the 30 years since by Labour governments. Coupled with a rising population and more divorces that makes supply even more scare. It's got nothing to do with landlords renting out accommodation.

The rent is market value!

Anyway, you could argue that a council paying a landlord rent works out much cheaper than the cost of building and maintaining thousands of homes in the medium term.

I find it incredible that you are concerned about value for money for the tax payer all of a sudden! Only when a private individual has the opportunity to earn some money, then it's not fair! You forget that many landlords don't make any money or have lost thousands - so they are not all "profiteering". Many don't like the fact tenants get the housing because tenants have run off with the money or trashed the place.

From a moral perspective, only genuine cases should get housing benefit and the frauds should not which should in turn free up cash for fixing the potholes etc. The landlords are irrelevant as they are simply providing a service.

Edited by Penge Eagle (13 Apr 2013 2.57pm)